RIPUC – RI Future

October 26, 2016

Pipeline tariff killed in Connecticut, Rhode Island an outlier

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has decided against the proposal for gas capacity tariffs on the Spectra Access Northeast pipeline. This announcement comes on the heels of decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission rejecting similar proposals. The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) declined to kill the local version of the plan in September, but the plan seems doomed anyway.

“With yet another state abandoning proposals for more natural gas pipeline capacity, these efforts to expand fossil fuel infrastructure in New England have hit a virtually unsurpassable roadblock,” said Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) president Bradley Campbell in a statement. “Without Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Connecticut in the mix, Spectra has lost a whopping 84 percent of the customer base needed to finance this ill-conceived proposal. It’s time to kill this project altogether and look forward to opportunities for the clean, renewable alternatives that our families demand, our markets expect and our laws require.”

It is unknown when the RIPUC will act to reject the proposal here.

October 12, 2016

New Hampshire joins Mass. in rejecting pipeline tariff

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

National Grid’s proposed pipeline tariff, now under an indefinite stay per the Public Utilities Commission here in Rhode Island, was rejected in New Hampshire last week. The controversial and complicated plan, which would make electricity ratepayers in New England financially responsible for the creation and profitability of a new fracked gas pipeline, involves multiple companies working together across multiple states. Here’s a description from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission:

“Eversource is a public utility headquartered in Manchester, operating under the laws of the State of New Hampshire as an electric distribution company (EDC). Algonquin is an owner-operator of an interstate gas pipeline located in New England. Algonquin is owned by a parent company, Spectra Energy Corp (Spectra), a publicly-traded corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. Algonquin has partnered with Eversource’s corporate parent, Eversource Energy, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and Hartford, Connecticut, and with National Grid, the parent company of EDC subsidiaries in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to develop the Access Northeast pipeline. In general terms, Eversource Energy’s EDC subsidiaries in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire and National Grid’s EDC subsidiaries in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, are each individually seeking regulatory approval of gas capacity on the Access Northeast pipeline.”

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against National Grid’s pipeline tariff in Massachusetts, the Conservation Law Foundation brought a motion to dismiss the proposal here in Rhode Island. Instead, the PUC issued an indefinite stay in the proceedings, with the caveat that National Grid file a progress report on January 13, 2017.

Last week the New Hampshire PUC ruled against their state’s involvement in the plan, writing,

“The proposal before us would have Eversource purchase long-term gas pipeline capacity to be used by gas-fired electric generators, and include the net costs of its purchases and sales in its electric distribution rates. That proposal, however, goes against the overriding principle of restructuring, which is to harness the power of competitive markets to reduce costs to consumers by separating unregulated generation from fully regulated distribution. It would allow Eversource to reenter the generation market for an extended period, placing the risk of that decision on its customers. We cannot approve such an arrangement under existing laws. Accordingly, we dismiss Eversource’s petition.

“We acknowledge that the increased dependence on natural gas-fueled generation plants within the region and the constraints on gas capacity during peak periods of demand have resulted in electric price volatility. Eversource’s proposal is an interesting one, with the potential to reduce that volatility; but it is an approach that, in practice, would violate New Hampshire law following the restructuring of the electric industry. If the General Court believes EDCs should be allowed to make long-term commitments to purchase gas capacity and include the costs in distribution rates, the statutes can be amended to permit such activities.”

The Maine Public Utilities commission has voted in favor of the pipeline tariff.

October 5, 2016

In message to Rhode Island, Bill McKibben praises and undercuts Sheldon Whitehouse on climate change

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Five to ten years ago we thought the transition was going to be from coal, to natural gas as some sort of bridge fuel, onto renewables,” said 350.org’s Bill McKibben in a message to Rhode Island, “and now, sadly, we realize we can’t do that in good faith, because natural gas turns out not to work that way, as a bridge fuel.”

McKibben, a leading voice on the dangers of climate change, was speaking in a video message to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s annual Rhode Island Energy & Environmental Leaders Day” conference at the Rhode Island Convention Center last Friday.

McKibben started his eight minute message with praise for Whitehouse, calling him an “indefatigable leader,” along with Senator Bernie Sanders, around climate change issues. McKibben called Whitehouse’s Friday dialogues on the Senate floor against climate change and ExxonMobile “relentless” and “remarkable.”

“There are moments when I hope that his last name turns out to be a key to his and our future, but that’s for another day,” said McKibben.

But McKibben was also relentless in his condemnation of natural gas.

Natural gas, said McKibben, “turns out to be a dead end, not a bridge to the future but a kind of rickety pier built out into the lake of hydrocarbons. So we’ve got to make the transition to renewables now, and fast.

“We have to forget about bridges and make that leap.”

Earlier that day, during a question and answer session, Senator Whitehouse once again declined to speak out against the natural gas infrastructure projects currently threatening Rhode Island’s ability to meet carbon and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Greg Gerritt, of ProsperityforRI.com, confronted Whitehouse, saying that the “resistance,” those engaged in front line battles against fossil fuel infrastructure, was ultimately going to have a greater effect than the carbon tax that Whitehouse champions.

“People are saying no more fossil fuel pipelines, no more power plants, no more compressor stations, and they’re putting their bodies out there,” said Gerritt, “I want us to think about how the dark money plays out in a place like Rhode Island where you can talk about climate change, but you can’t actually stop anything.

“The politicians are all saying, ‘even though we know that if we build this we can’t ever meet our carbon goal, we still want to build a power plant.’ And I want to know what are we going to do so that on the ground, here in our own communities, that this power of the fossil fuel industry gets stopped.”

Whitehouse countered that his job in the Senate “is to try to solve this in a place where it will have the most powerful effect that it can, across the board. I will never win this fight, from where I sit, plant by plant. I just won’t, can’t. Too many of them, too much going on, and frankly there are hundreds of others that are being built while some are being protested, there are hundreds of other pipelines being used while one is being protested.

“It’s not effective, to, in my view, uh, it makes a difference, it sends a message, I don’t undercut what people are doing. I think what we did with Keystone helped send a big message, but my job, I think, is two things:

“One, fix that problem of the huge subsidy [for fossil fuel companies] because $700 billion a year or $200 billion a year sends such a powerful message through the entire economy,

“The second is, I see Meg Curran here, the chairman (sic) of the Public Utilities Commission, and we’re working with them, we’re working with FERC, we’re working with the ISO, we’re working with NEPOOL group, to try to make sure that the rules for these siting things, get adjusted. because the rules for these siting plans leave out the enormous cost of carbon.

“So for me, it’s these federal ground rules, to make them responsive to clean energy, to get them to reward the cleanness of clean energy, and to make fossil fuel pay its cost… that’s where I’m focused.”

However, if we are to heed McKibben’s video message, then Whitehouse’s focus seems like a small step, not the leap that McKibben says we need.

“The good news,” said McKibben, “is the distance we have to leap is shorter than we thought because the engineers have done such a good job with renewable technology. During the last ten years the price of solar panels dropped eighty percent. There’s not an economic statistic on our planet more important than that.

“What it means is that we now have a chance, an outside chance, of getting ahead of the physics of climate change. It would require a serious mobilization and a huge effort.”

McKibben has written about what such a mobilization would look like in the New Republic that is worth a read.

“I think we’re going to need real, powerful leadership in order to help us, as FDR helped us once upon a time to take those steps in the right direction.

“The question is not, ‘Are we going to do this?’ Everyone knows that 75 years from now we’ll power our planet with sun and wind,” said McKibben, “The question is ‘Are we going to do it in time to be able to slow down climate change?’ … It may be the most important question that humans have ever faced.

“I wrote the first book about it all back in 1989. The cheerful title of that book was The End of Nature. I fear that not much has happened since to make me want to change the title.

“We’re in a very deep hole,” said McKibben, “and the first rule of holes is to stop digging for coal, for oil or gas and start instead to take advantage of all that green power coming from above from the sun and the wind that we’ve been wasting for so long.”

September 29, 2016September 29, 2016

PUC declines to kill pipeline tariff, but it’s dying any way

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) today ruled against Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)’s motion to dismiss National Grid‘s proposed pipeline tariff and instead issued an indefinite stay. CLF argued that National Grid’s plan to charge electrical consumers to underwrite and guarantee profits for its proposed ANE pipeline is no longer viable given a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that declared such pipeline tariffs unconstitutional under state law.

Since National Grid’s plan required the consent of all New England states, CLF moved to dismiss the docket here in Rhode Island, yet Meg Curran, chair of the RIPUC, didn’t agree that the project was necessarily dead, saying she still had questions about the project. Curran felt that National Grid’s offer to withdraw their application and refile at a later date or accept a ruling that the docket be put on hold were better options.

RIPUC board member Herbert DeSimone Jr agreed. He said that dismissal would not be appropriate, and withdrawing the application would create “unnecessary redundancies” upon refiling, as all the evidence heard to date would have to be heard again and all motions re-decided. DeSimone suggested that the RIPUC issue an indefinite stay in the proceedings, with the caveat that National Grid file a progress report on January 13, 2017.

Curran and DeSimone then unanimously voted in favor of the plan. Marion Gold, the third member of the RIPUC, had recused herself.

The meeting was attended by representatives from and members of People’s Power and Light, the FANG Collective, Food and Water Watch, Toxics Action Center, Fossil Free RI, NoLNGinPVD and the RI Sierra Club.

“The Commission’s decision to delay this proceeding is a step toward the inevitable death of the pipeline tax. Forcing Rhode Island electric customers to foot the bill for a gas pipeline we don’t need defies our best interest and our laws,” Megan Herzog with the Conservation Law Foundation said. “Both Massachusetts and the federal government have rejected the project, and we will keep fighting until Rhode Island follows suit.”

“Rhode Island consumers should not have to take on the long-term risk of a new, unnecessary natural gas pipeline. We must protect electric customers from being charged for a natural gas pipeline, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has already done this by deciding that the unprecedented cost-recovery scheme proposed by utilities is illegal, according to Mass. law,” said Priscilla De La Cruz of People’s Power and Light, also in attendance.

September 22, 2016

EFSB Public Hearing in Warwick a time for reflection on the process

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) public hearing in Warwick Wednesday evening, coming near the end of the process to decide the fate of Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, was filled with almost philosophical reflection, with many speakers, who have sat through dozens of EFSB, town council, zoning and department meetings and honed their public speaking skills, commenting with a battle weary determination and steely resolve.

Perhaps no one summed up the emotional toll of the process better than Kerri Fagan, who reminded the board of the promises made regarding the fairness of the process by elected officials such as Governor Gina Raimondo and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse as well as by the board members themselves, then launched into a long list of irregularities and seeming violations of the process that tend to favor Invenergy and disfavor the towns people.

Six of the twelve advisory opinions, said Fagan, maintain that, “Invenergy did not provide enough information before the deadline for them to submit an appropriate advisory opinion.”

Fagan explained that the process allows for the RI Public Utilities Commission advisory opinion, “to be completed by a single person, [Herbert DeSimone Jr]” after one of the other members recused themselves because they “previously expressed support for the project.” The process of having one person make that decision was questioned, said Fagan, but was ruled appropriate by the single board member, DeSimone Jr.

“The process allows Invenergy representatives to falsely testify at open meetings,” said Fagan. “Did the process require them to acknowledge their misinformation? No. There are probably people who still believe they will receive great rate savings,” if the power plant is built. Fagan says the process also allowed Invenergy to falsely advertise meeting locations and times.

The process, said Fagan, requires that the Burrillville Town Council remain neutral throughout the process, yet Governor Raimondo and Senator Whitehouse can express their support for the project.

The process allows attorney Richard Sinapi to represent the Harrisville Water Board, but also lobby against Burrillville Representative Cale Keable‘s EFSB bill on behalf of labor unions, while also allowing his law firm to write a position opposing the Town of Burrillville’s Motion to Dismiss. “The question of conflict of interest was raised, but [Sinapi] continues to represent parties on both sides of this proposal.”

The process allows the Governor and labor unions to advocate for the process based on the jobs it will create, but the EFSB is not charged with creating jobs, but with determining energy needs and judging environmental impacts. “I don’t believe the EFSB has a responsibility to create jobs,” said Fagan,” and I don’t believe it is an appropriate outcome to consider in this setting. Yet the process has allowed this to be a major rallying cry for those that support the process.”

“It is very hard for the residents to respect the process,” said Fagan, “as it seems to be flawed in all areas. The EFSB board works for the Governor. The Governor supports the project. Companies such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric appear to be partners in both this proposed project as well as working with the Governor on statewide initiatives.

“Why has there not been a comprehensive environmental impact statement completed?”

“We can only hope that [the EFSB] will truly listen and read through why this is the wrong project and in the wrong location,” said Fagan, wrapping up, “We hope that you have the strength to fight the state wide politics and make a decision on the merits of the project and truly consider the negative, long lasting detrimental impacts that this project will bring to the Town of Burrillville.”

Other speakers that leaped out at me include Paul Roselli of the Burrillville Land Trust, who praised the RI Department of Enviornmental Management‘s advisory opinion.

Cranston native Rhoda Northup said that this was “not just a Burrillville issue, but a statewide issue. It’s also a Connecticut and Massachusetts issue. “Do we go thirsty and the power plant gets the water?” asked Northup.

Suzanne Dumas

Sally Mendzela spoke about the reality of climate change, and how plants like the one proposed by Invenergy will doom our planet.

Lynn Clark

Mary Gauvin

Smart energy conservation could easily absorb the 10,000 megawatts going offline, the power plant is not needed said Vito Buonomano.

Lisa Petrie explained her concerns as a mother, and explained why she chose to be arrested outside Governor Raimondo’s office.

Donna Woods told the EFSB members, “You do know better” than to approve this plant.

Denise Potvin

This public comment meeting was scheduled for after the last of a dozen advisory opinions were filed with the EFSB. Many who spoke at the hearing pointed out that at least six of the advisory opinions are incomplete, because Invenergy could not supply required information.

The testimony and hearing was also colored by the fact that the Burrillville Town Council will be voting tonight on whether or not to oppose the power plant in a meeting at the Burrillville High School Thursday night, and will be voting on whether to approve or reject a proposed tax treaty between the town and Invenergy on Monday evening. The groups in opposition to the power plant from Burrillville do not want the town council to approve the tax treaty, which may characterized as selling the town for a measly $92 million.

There will be one more public comment meeting, originally to be held on October 3 but not postponed, date to be determined due to Invenergy’s request for a thirty day extension as they work to secure a water source for their plant. In the meantime, the EFSB board will hold a meeting to decide on two motions to dismiss Invenergy’s application, one from the Town of Burrillville and the other from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) based on Invenergy’s incomplete application and failure to provide adequate or timely information when requested.

Here is the video of all the speakers:

Richard Dionne said that Invenergy should be required to submit all requested information.

Doug Geblinske of TEC-RI spoke in favor of the power plant.

Eugenia Marks, noted environmentalist former head of the RI Audubon Society, spoke against the plant.

David Brunetti questioned Invenergy’s “cicular logic” in determining that Burrillville was the location for this plant.

Kathryn Scaramella questioned the “small but meaningful savings” ratepayers will receive if the plant is built. She pointed out that the extension Invenergy requested was a violation of terms EFSB Chair Meg Curran set out in May, when she said “all deadlines are set in law.”

Mary Jane Bailey said the location chosen for the power plant was rejected when the Ocean State Power Plant was built in the 1980’s. “If it wasn’t right in the ’80s it’s not right now,” said Bailey.

Ben Weilerstein, of the Toxic Action Center said that the same kind of action taking place in Burrillville is what helped defeat the pipeline project in Massachusetts.

Meg Kerr, senior policy director for the RI Audubon Society spoke against the plant.

John McMullen, business agent for the Plumbers and Pipefitters union spoke in favor of the plant, saying there was a need for the energy and the jobs. He said that RI Building Trades supported Deepwater Wind and that a life of temporary jobs allowed him to raise his daughters and send them to college.

Irene Watson noted that her community’s public speaking skills have improved because of the countless meetings they’ve been to.

Kenneth Putnam Jr spoke from the heart. He’s 76 and 1 day old.

Betty Mancucci

John Anthony Scott

Jeremy Bailey

Roy Coloumbe said he represents two dozen iron workers from Burrillville who support the project.

Attorney Greg Mancini is Richard Sinapi’s law partner and represents the RI Building Trades.

“The power plant will be around 30-40 years from now, says Stephanie Sloman. “”I’ll be dead, you’ll be dead,” she told the EFSB members, “75 percent of the people here will be dead. I’m not trying to be funny.” It’s about the future.

Sloman gave each member of the EFSB this picture, to remind them of the species they will either help to save or destroy, depending on how they decide on the power plant.

Cynthia Crook-Pick compared the power plant to 38 Studios, both are being pushed forward with inadequate information.

Karen Palmer

Jason Olkowski

September 20, 2016September 20, 2016

Scratch the Energy Facility Siting Board process and find naked capitalism

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This Wednesday, September 21 at 6pm, the Energy Facility Siting Board will conduct its next public hearing about Invenergy’s proposed fossil-fuel-fired power plant in Burrillville. The hearing will be held in the Toll Gate High School Auditorium, 575 Centerville Road, Warwick.

The last couple of weeks produced a flurry of advisory opinions on Invenergy’s power plant proposal. The list is here in the Public Utility Commission docket. I should have read all of these documents, but I have not and may never. Why should we keep critiquing the emperor’s clothes knowing full well that he has none?

I did start reading the advisory opinion of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. I keep getting distracted, as I am reminded of sections of Mary Wood’s Nature’s Trust. Take this:

Bureaucratic acronyms and techno-jargon give a ready-made veil to ongoing political manipulation, operating to ward off oversight from judges, journalists, environmental groups, and citizens. Every environmental agency uses dozens or even hundreds of acronyms that blather an alphabetic mix meaningless to the public. Clean Air Act regulations, for example, display the acronyms BACT, BART, MACT, RACT, SIP, NSPS, NSR, CEMS, HAPS, LAER, NESHAPS, PPM, NAAQS, PSD, TAMS, VOC, and dozens of others. Regulations under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act use UST, TSDF, TCLP, SQG, MCL, LQG, HSWA, CAMU, CAS, CESQG, and many more. Encasing agency decisions in an impenetrable vocabulary, this mumbo jumbo goes far in shielding bureaucrats from outside scrutiny.

In the opinion I struggle with I read about API, AST, COA, MDNR, MTBE, NSA, OPC, PUD, PW-3A, RIRPP, RIWAP, ROW, SAS, SDM, SGCN, ULSD, … There is no excuse for this kind of writing: word processors for decades have given users the ability to expand their abbreviations.

Collectively, we have spent countless hours exposing the science missing in these opinions. Unfortunately, very little of what is relevant is consistent with the statutes that govern the process. As Mary Wood puts it:

Despite its original goals, environmental law now institutionalizes a marriage of power and wealth behind the veil of bureaucratic formality.

Indeed, the evidence gushes off the page in the documents of our hallowed process. The problem is not that the professionals of the various departments do not understand the science. The problem is that they are—undoubtedly much to their chagrin—subordinate to politically appointed masters. They are subject to statutes that reflect decades of industry insider subversion of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

Government as a whole is failing. The short version of the story is that the White House serves at the pleasure of the fossil fuel industry. The same applies to our state leadership, the majority of Congress, and our state legislature.

Two government branches down, one to go. Mary Wood explains what happened to the third, the judiciary. It has largely excused abandoned its fiduciary duty to preserve Nature’s Trust for present and future generations. Mary Wood lists the following problems:

Closing the gates: the standing doctrine—To win a law suit you must have standing: you have to show that you have a personal stake in the outcome of the suit you bring. Apparently, in the world of our revered American law schools, we’re all from outer space and have no stake in the health of this planet.
The judicial deference syndrome—Supposedly, regulatory agencies have technical expertise and objective scientific facts on their side. Thus, the courts shy away from “micro-managing” these bureaucracies. Of course, the courts disregard that many decisions that are presented as scientific are products of political pressure and a process captured by industry.
Narrow (often procedural) grounds—Ecological matters are rarely the issue in court. What counts is whether the process followed its often ambiguous and arbitrary rules and regulations. The courts end up dealing with form rather than substance.
The ineffectual remedy—When a court case is occasionally won, the winner must, once again, spend limitless resources to implement the often inadequate remedies.
The remote public—by the time the chainsaws, bulldozers, and dynamite arrive, people are still trying to master the acronyms, but the process has already ended. It’s too late.

The Rhode Island process puts our politically appointed Director of the Department of Environmental Management in an impossible position, inaccessible behind a firewall on the Energy Facility Siting Board. Corrupted statutes silence the experts in the various departments, but the statutes have done their dirty work and the upshot is clear and all we have is:

A process inconsistent with the “duty of the general assembly to provide for the conservation of the air, land, water.”
A process designed to clothe the villainy of naked capitalism.

September 17, 2016

Disruption and evolution at energy meeting

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) Meeting happens four times a year and its a chance for ISO-NE to exchange information with electricity consumers in New England. ISO-NE is the group that regulates our electricity markets and keeps the lights on by coordinating electricity generation and transmission. They run billion dollar markets and interact with companies like Spectra Energy, Invenergy, National Grid and Deepwater Wind. Pretty much every aspect of the process of getting electricity to your television is touched upon by ISO-NE in some way.

The latest meeting of the CLG, in Providence on Thursday, featured a panel discussion with representatives from the four companies mentioned above. The panel was pulled together with the help of Douglas Gablinske, executive director of The Energy Council of Rhode Island (TEC-RI) an advocacy group for energy company concerns. Readers of RI Future may remember that Gablinske was a vocal opponent of Cale Keable’s bill to reform the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB). He was also the only speaker at the RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) to speak in favor of the pipeline tariff.

Gablinske surprised me by asking if I knew about any planned protests or disruptions. I said I didn’t. He asked me specifically about the FANG Collective. I had no idea of what plans they have, if any, I said. Then Gablinske said that he noticed Mary Pendergast on the list of people who had signed up to attend. Pendergast was sitting in the room, and he soon went over to introduce himself to her.

2016-09-15 ISON-NE PVD 001 — As the meeting ended, protesters unfurled a banner

During the course of the presentation there was a disruption. As Invenergy’s John Niland gave his presentation to the room, Mary Pendergast stood and display a small sign that said, “No fracked gas Power plant.” Her protest was silent but it did seem to throw Niland off a bit, as his delivery seemed somewhat distracted.

It was during the third presentation that the disruptions became more pronounced. As Richard Kruse, vice president at Spectra Energy spoke glowingly about the need for bigger and better pipelines in our fracked gas infrastructure future, Kathy Martley of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion), Keith Clougherty of the FANG Collective and Sally Mendzela stood up.

“Spectra Energy, Energy for Death,” said Martley as I headed for my camera. “Say no to Invenergy and tell Invenergy to go home,” Martley continued.

As the protest continued, Gablinske took the podium and said, “You have a right to be here but not be disruptive” as Clougherty continued to speak.

Lennette Boiselle, an ally of Geblinske and a lobbyist for the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce got up and left the room, presumably in search of security. Readers might remember Boiselle as the person arguing against democracy at the public comment hearing concerning Cale Keable’s EFSB bill.

“The political correctness, of not allowing other people to talk is sweeping through this country,” said Geblinske, “It’s an incorrect assumption, this gentlemen has the right to speak…”

“We’ve been listening to you our whole lives, Pal,” interrupted Sally Mendzela.

Gablinske ultimately offered to set up a forum where “both sides” could be heard but it is unknown if this will actually happen. The protesters took their seats, no one was ejected from the forum, and Kruse finished his talk.

Amazingly, though, that wasn’t the end. During a brief question and answer period at the end of the presentations, Gablinske called on Clougherty to ask a question!

“I would ask for a question, not a speech or a statement,” said Gablinske, when he realized who he had called upon.

Clougherty then asked Niland, Kruse and Bill Malee, a National Grid VP, “Do your companies have any money set aside for restitution for the millions of people who are going to be displaced and killed by the infrastructure projects you all are proposing?”

There is no good answer representatives from these companies can give, yet Niland attempted one. As expected, it was not good.

I found the most interesting talk of the day came from Mary Louise “Weezie” Nuara, External Affairs Representative for ISO-NE.

“The region’s competitive wholesale electricity markets are really designed to maintain reliability through the selection of the most economically efficient set of resources,” said Nuara, but the states “have environmental and renewable energy goals that are beyond the objectives of the wholesale electricity markets.”

What’s happening is that states are setting goals to increase renewables and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (like the goals set out in ResilientRI, but all the New England states have some version of this idea.) ISO-NE is designed to deliver energy as reliably and cheaply as possible. As a market, it cannot deliver renewables or reduce emissions unless those options are cheaper and cleaner. In August, NEPOOL (which represents the interest of the New England states when dealing with ISO-NE) began looking into how to adjust wholesale electricity markets to accommodate the goals of the states. It is NEPOOL’s goal to develop a “framework document” by December 2 to provide guidance to ISO-NE regarding potential changes. (A kind of advisory opinion, if you will.)

What makes this interesting, to my mind, is that if ISO-NE starts taking the climate change concerns of the states into account, plants like the one Invenergy is planning for Burrillville will have a harder time selling their energy into the markets.

ISO-NE is a little over a decade old, but already it’s finding that its systems are in need of being updated over concerns of climate change. By contrast, the EFSB here in Rhode Island was established thirty years ago, in 1986. The RI General Assembly has shown little inclination towards revising the EFSB’s mandate in lieu of climate change.

Below please find all the video from the CLg meeting except for the closing comments.

Rebecca Tepper, chair of the CLG Coordinating Committee and chief of the Energy & Telecommunications Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office introduced keynote speaker Rhode Island General Treasurer Seth Magaziner.

Douglas Gablinske, executive director, The Energy Council of Rhode Island

Jeffrey Grybowski, chief executive officer, Deepwater Wind

John Niland, director of business development, Invenergy

Richard Kruse, vice president and regulatory & FERC compliance officer for Spectra Energy

Bill Malee, vice president of regulatory affairs, for National Grid

ISO-NE Q&A

August 17, 2016August 26, 2016

Court kills pipeline tariff in Mass, RI still considering

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission considers a request from National Grid to have ratepayers help subsidize a controversial pipeline project, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against such pipeline tariffs in a decision released Wednesday.

“This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay, the Conservation Law Foundation’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.”

The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may have an impact on National Grid‘s proposed “pipeline tariff” here in Rhode Island. The Massachusetts court deemed “it unlawful for Massachusetts to force residential electricity customers to subsidize the construction of private gas pipelines, requiring the companies themselves to shoulder the substantial risks of such projects rather than allowing that risk to be placed on hardworking families across the Commonwealth,” according the the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) who brought the case.

The CLF was the plaintiff in the Massachusetts case. The CLF maintained in their motion to intervene in the Rhode Island case that “an electricity distribution company” entering “into a contract for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services” and receiving “cost recovery for its gas contract from electricity ratepayers” is “something that has never occurred in the United States since the Federal Power Act was enacted in 1935, during President Roosevelt’s first term in office.”

Megan Herzog, one of the two lawyers representing the CLF before the RIPUC said in a phone call that the “pipeline is a bad deal for the whole region and that the Massachusetts court affirmed that.” Though the judge ruled on the case using Massachusetts law, there are statutes in Rhode Island that reflect similar principles.

According to Craig S. Altemose, a senior advisor forthe anti-LNG advocacy group 350 Mass for a Better Future, “It is unclear how much this will be a fatal blow to any of Spectra’s proposed projects, but we have absolutely undercut their financing (to the tune of $3 billion), called into question similar pipeline tax proposals in other states, [italics added] and have given Spectra’s investors greater reason for pause. Either way, we have unambiguously won a victory that the people’s money should be not used for private projects that further commit us to climate catastrophe.”

“Today’s decision reinforces what we already know: it’s not in the public interest to subsidize new fossil fuel infrastructure. It deals a serious blow to companies like Spectra who wanted to subsidize their risky projects with handouts from ratepayers. Communities facing an onslaught of fracked gas projects in their backyards like those in Burrillville have good reason to feel hopeful right now. We urge Governor [Gina] Raimondo and the Rhode Island PUC to follow the lead of Massachusetts and reject the pipeline tax,” Ben Weilerstein, Rhode Island community organizer with Toxics Action Center said.

Though the ruling in Massachusetts has no statutory value in Rhode Island, it may establish some lines of legal reasoning that will be helpful as the Rhode Island Public Utilities (RIPUC) Commission decides on Docket 4267, the Rhode Island part of National Grid’s ambitious plan to charge electrical ratepayers not only for pipeline infrastructure investments, but also to guarantee the company’s profits as they do so.

National Grid responded with the following statement: “This is a disappointing setback for the project, which is designed to help secure New England’s clean energy future, ensure the reliability of the electricity system, and most importantly, save customers more than $1 billion annually on their electricity bills. We will explore our options for a potential path forward with Access Northeast and pursue a balanced portfolio of solutions to provide the clean, reliable, and secure energy our customers deserve. While natural gas remains a key component in helping to secure New England’s long-term energy future, the recently passed clean energy bill also presents a welcomed opportunity to support the development of large-scale clean energy, such as hydro and wind.”

Yesterday The RIPUC held a hearing on Docket 4627, asking National Grid to explain why it used such a “broad brush” in redacting information in its application. In the meeting announcement it was said that RIPUC Chair Margaret Curran thought “it is not intuitively clear how the information redacted falls within the exception to the Access to Public Records Act.” Much of what National Grid argues that much of what it wants to keep secret falls into the category of trade secrets, and releasing the information would put it at an unfair disadvantage with competitors, such as NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra).

As pointed out previously, National Grid will not release how much money ratepayers will be on the hook for if this idea is approved by the RIPUC.

Here’s full video of the hearing:

NextEra brought a separate motion to allow its lawyers access to highly confidential parts of National Grid’s application.

Here’s the full video of that hearing:

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) released the following statement today in response to the favorable decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Conservation Law Foundation v. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU):

‘This is an incredibly important and timely decision,’ said David Ismay, CLF’s lead attorney on the case. ‘Today our highest court affirmed Massachusetts’ commitment to an open energy future by rejecting the Baker Administration’s attempt to subsidize to the dying fossil fuel industry. The course of our economy and our energy markets runs counter to the will of multi-billion dollar pipeline companies, and thanks to today’s decision, the government will no longer be able to unfairly and unlawfully tip the scales in their favor.’

According to the opinion by Justice Cordy, DPU’s 2015 rule (“Order 15-37”) allowing Massachusetts electric customers to be charged for the construction of interstate gas pipelines is prohibited by the plain languages of statutes that have been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost two decades.

In his opinion, Justice Cordy wrote, Order 15-37 is ‘invalid in light of the statutory language and purpose of G. L. c. 164, § 94A, as amended by the restructuring act, because, among other things, it would undermine the main objectives of the act and reexpose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.’

August 5, 2016August 26, 2016

National Grid says cost of proposed ratepayer fee is a trade secret

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

National Grid will not reveal the amount of money they hope to charge customers in their proposed pipeline tariff. That information is a trade secret, and will not be revealed until after the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) decides on the proposal.

On Tuesday evening RIPUC heard public testimony against National Grid’s plan to charge customers for its efforts in building fracked gas pipelines and infrastructure in our state. National Grid also wants ratepayers to guarantee their profits for the venture as well. After the hearing I searched in vain through National Grid’s 572 page application for anything that would indicate how much this plan would cost. Finally I wrote Todd Bianco, principal policy associate at RIPUC for clarification.

“I do not believe there are any costs or rates in the filing that have not been redacted and marked as confidential. You should contact National Grid’s attorney or their spokesperson to confirm that,” said Bianco.

Following Bianco’s advice, I wrote to David Graves, National Grid’s Rhode Island Director of Strategic Communications.

“Portions of the filing are redacted because the document includes confidential information,” wrote Graves in an email, “which if revealed, would give competitors an unfair advantage in building their bids. The same procedure is in place in commodity rate setting. The information is shared with the regulators and is used in their assessment of our proposed rates, but the hard numbers in the estimates are not shared publicly until after the contract has been awarded.”

Graves did note that ratepayer impacts are discussed in the application starting on page 545. All the important numbers for determining actual impacts have been redacted.

August 3, 2016August 3, 2016

National Grid wants RI ratepayers to guarantee its profits

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

National Grid is requesting that the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) approve a 20-year gas capacity contract” with Algonquin Gas Transmission Company LLC (Algonquin) for natural gas transportation capacity and storage services on Algonquin’s Access Northeast Project (ANE Project).”

The multinational energy conglomerate not only wants Rhode Island ratepayers to subsidize the construction of fracked gas infrastructure, they want consumers to ensure that the project is profitable for the company.

Part of National Grid’s 572 page application includes “a Capacity Cost Recovery Provision tariff, which allows the Company to recover all incremental costs associated with the ANE Agreement, as well as the Company’s proposed financial incentive.” Understand that when National Grid says “financial incentives” they are talking about company profits.

The logic that National Grid is using to claim the right to tariffs is that the RIPUC has allowed such charges when it comes to “long-term renewable electricity for retail customers from wholesale power providers.” [emphasis added] In other words, because the government has taken an interest in expanding renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and allowed tariffs to support these efforts, National Grid argues that it should be allowed similar considerations for fossil fuels such as fracked gas.

2016-08-02 RIPUC 006 Pricilla De la Cruz — Pricilla De la Cruz

National Grid owns a 20 percent stake in the ANE Project, so Rhode Islanders will be ensuring that the company generates a profit as they buy fracked gas from themselves if the RIPUC approves this request.

A similar tariff stalled in the Massachusetts legislature, where the state Senate unanimously rejected the idea but the session ended before a House vote. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is deciding on the validity of the tariff, since the Massachusetts PUC approved the idea.

National Grid also asked that their request be approved “as expeditiously as possible,” meaning that they want the decision fast tracked. As a result, the public comment meeting held last night at the RIPUC offices in Warwick was the first and last opportunity for public comment, unless RIPUC commissioners Margaret Curran and Herbert DeSimone III decide to hold another public comment meeting. (The third member of the RIPUC board, Marion Gold, has recused herself.) Written comment can be sent to thomas.kogut@dpuc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.

The first speaker of the night, Doug Gablinske of The Energy Council of New England (TEC-RI), was also the only speaker in favor of the idea. Gablinske called the project “a novel approach” and said that “it’s good for ratepayers, for employees, for employers and for business.”

From there, things went downhill pretty quickly.

Calling the tariff an “unprecedented charge” Priscilla De La Cruz of the People’s Power and Light called on the RIPUC to reject National Grid’s request. “Why should consumers take on the risk of a new, unnecessary gas pipeline?” De La Cruz maintained that the entire idea conflicts with the goals of the 2014 Resilient Rhode Island Act. (You can read De La Cruz’s full testimony here.)

Lynn Clark came down from Burrillville, wearing her “No New Power Plant” tee shirt to argue against the proposal. She said that allowing National Grid to pass the costs of their LNG project onto consumers adds “insult to injury” to everyone living in her part of the state.

Other states did comprehensive studies before considering pipeline tariffs, said Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective, who has been fighting pipeline projects in and around Rhode Island for three years. Massachusetts and Maine have both produced studies that concluded that pipeline tariffs are a bad idea, said Katkevich. “It’s shameful that National Grid wants to have guaranteed profits as part of this,” said Katkevich. “They don’t care about people. They don’t care about people’s utility rates… if they did they wouldn’t put guaranteed profits in there.”

“No one wants these pipelines,” said Katkevich, “across the region people are resisting the first of the three Spectra expansions… There have been 240 people arrested as part of direct action in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”

If you have an opinion on this project, you can send it to Luly.massaro@puc.ri.gov. Mention that you are commenting on Docket No. 4627.

Below find all the testimony from the hearing.

July 27, 2016

CLF makes its case against need for Burrillville power plant at RIPUC hearing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

2016-07-26 PUC Burrillville 3026 — Robert Fagan

On the second day of the RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC)’s evidentiary hearing concerning Invenergy‘s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, to be located in Burrillville, Jerry Elmer of the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) presented his witnesses who argued that the power plant is not needed and that it’s effect on ratepayers would be negligible.

The CLF’s case is one of nuance, and much depends on the views of Commissioner Herbert DeSimone Jr. DeSimone is the one commissioner on the PUC board that did not recuse themself, and the one commissioner who will write the RIPUC’s advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the body ultimately responsible for deciding on the plant. Invenergy is making the case that since the proposed plant has already sold half its capacity in an energy futures market run by ISO-NE, the plant is by definition needed. This is the default position not only of Invenergy, but also of the RI Office of Energy Resources (OER) and the RIPUC, if the questioning from their attorneys at the hearing are any indication.

The CLF is maintaining that what ISO-NE did was purchase extra power, and if Invenergy’s plant is taken out, there will still be more than enough electricity on the grid to power all of New England. Also, going forward, as more and more renewables come on line, the need for the plant will go down, not increase. Unfortunately, ISO-NE is somewhat of a black box. Though they publish thousands of pages on how their energy auctions are run, figuring out why one plant’s energy was purchased and another was not is virtually impossible, and no one from ISO-NE was at the hearing to answer questions.

As for ratepayer savings, on the first day of the hearing Invenergy’s attorney Alan Shoer called his witnesses and made his case that the savings to ratepayers would be significant. On the stand, John Niland, director of development for Invenergy admitted that the $280 million number he gave to Burrillville residents earlier in the year was false, and that he knew it was false when he presented it. The true number was closer to $36 million in rate payer savings.

2016-07-26 PUC Burrillville 3031 — All lawyers at the bench for a huddle

The CLF’s witness, Christopher Stix, also ruled out the $280 million number, saying it took him one week after the ISO-NE auction results were published to perform his calculations that the actual savings ranged from between zero and $36 million. John Niland testified that Invenergy did not know this number when he falsely gave the $280 million figure to the audience in Burrillville seven weeks after the auction published its results.

It is up to DeSimone to decide whether or not a savings of between zero and $36 million to rate payers is worth the additional pollution, the despoilment of Burrillville’s pristine habitats and the continued dependency on fracked gas for our energy needs in New England for decades to come. It is worth noting that $280 million was a number too big to ignore, from an economic standpoint, where as zero to $36 million (which is a bell curve, the actual number may be closer to $20 million) is not nearly as tantalizing.

The CLF’s first witness, Robert Fagan, testified for a marathon five hours.

“We know now is that the Invenergy plant is not needed for electrical needs in New England,” said Fagan, and under cross examination he did not falter.

Getting through Fagan’s testimony required defining a host of terms and acronyms. ICR, LOLE, NERC, sloping versus vertical demand curves etc. were defined and discussed. It was very technical, but it served two functions. One, it established Fagan’s expertise, something Invenergy tried to call into question in pre-filed testimony, and two, it helped prove Fagan’s case that the proposed power plant was not necessary.

Though high-powered attorneys Alan Shoer and Jerry Elmer set the tone for the meeting, it’s most likely that RIPUC attorney Cynthia Wilson-Frias will have the most impact on Commissioner DeSimone’s advisory opinion, given that she will likely help author it and DeSimone can be expected to lean heavily on RIPUC’s in house legal expertise. Wilson-Frias asked pointed questions about the fact that Invenergy already sold some of its expected output to ISO-NE. She indicated that since the energy sold, it is by definition needed. Fagan countered this logic well, his entire testimony was in fact a rebuttal of sorts to this idea, so it comes down to how much weight Wilson-Frias gives Fagan’s views versus the more mainstream “free” market ideas favored by Invenergy.

The last day of the hearing is today, and unfortunately I will not be in attendance. I hope to get an update from Jerry Elmer after the hearing.

You can view the entire days proceedings below:

February 9, 2016

CLF wants the ‘highly successful’ Renewable Energy Standard extended

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), will today speak in favor of extending Rhode Island’s “highly successful” Renewable Energy Standard (RES) before the House Committee on Corporations. RES was first passed in 2004 and scheduled run until 2019, unless it is renewed, per the current bill, to run until 2035.

According to Elmer, who made an advanced copy of his testimony available, “In June 2004, when this General Assembly enacted Rhode Island’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES)… Rhode Island was a pioneer. We were one of the first states to enact such a renewable energy mandate. The statute that this legislature enacted then was correctly seen as an experiment. The new statute obligated Rhode Island’s electricity utility to buy some of its electricity from renewable energy sources. As you know, the obligation started quite small, 3 percent of load in 2007, and it was to ramp up to 16 percent of load in 2019.”

Elmer goes on to say,

Not every statute this General Assembly enacts is successful; and not every law works as the legislature intends for it to work. But the RES Statute that you enacted in 2004 has been extremely successful; and it has worked pretty much the way you intended it to work.

“I know this to be true from first-hand experience. Since the RES was enacted in 2004, CLF has been a party in every proceeding at the Public Utilities Commission that has enforced the statute.

“When Rhode Island adopted its RES mandate in 2004, we were a true pioneer. Today, 29 states have mandatory renewable energy laws, including five of the six New England states (all except Vermont) as well as New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona. and New Mexico.

“Some, like California’s, are more aggressive than Rhode Island’s; but none has worked more according to plan than Rhode Island’s.

“Of course, the RES Statute you designed in 2004 ends it annual ramp-up in 2019. Thus, now is the time to extend the RES Statute until 2035. Eleven years ago, you enacted a new experimental statute; your idea was to re-visit the statute after a decade in order to determine whether or not it worked, and whether or not it was worth extending. Today. we have the answer to that question: the statute has been extremely successful. Yes, the RES should be extended.”

February 2, 2016

Powerful video about National Grid’s disregard for customer health

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A heartbreaking video, The Lifeline Campaign, about National Grid’s seeming disregard for the law, has just been released on Vimeo. National Grid is being sued by the RI Center for Justice because they routinely shut off the electricity of seriously ill and disabled customers with past due bills, despite the presence of a doctor’s note that says the patient’s life will be imperiled if they lose service. This is against Rhode Island law.

Worse, the RI Public Utilities Commission, charged with protecting consumers, routinely rubber stamps National Grid’s requests to terminate service and does not review each case on the merits.

There is one particularly chilling sequence in which Ramon, who has a machine that allows him to breathe, tells us about the reaction of the National Grid employee when he was confronted with the fact that Ramon might die without electricity.

“It’s my job, and National Grid ordered me to shut it off,” said the National Grid employee, “so, it’s my job to do it. I hate to do it. See, I wouldn’t like to do it because I know your life depends on it, but it’s my job and I have to do it.”

You don’t have to read Hannah Arendt to understand what’s happening here.

You can watch The Lifeline Project in its entirety, below:

I’ve covered this story here:

The Lifeline Campaign is a documentary film produced by Brown University undergraduates Arohi Kapoor, Drew Williams, Isabelle DeBre, and Victoria Kidd, with the support and involvement of the George Wiley Center. The George Wiley Center is a grassroots community organization that fights for utility justice and other forms of social and economic justice through community organizing to win concrete changes in public policy. Learn more at: georgewileycenter.org.

The Rhode Island Center for Justice is a non-profit public interest law office that collaborates with the George Wiley Center to operate the Lifeline Project, a program designed to enforce and protect the rights of seriously ill and disabled low-income utility consumers in the State of Rhode Island. Learn more about the work of the Rhode Island Center for Justice at: centerforjustice.org.

January 29, 2016May 3, 2016

Siting Board acting on Invenergy’s schedule for Burrillville gas plant

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

EFSB Chair Margaret Curran said that because of the “tight time schedule” it’s critical that the board get advisory opinions “as soon as possible,” raising the question as to why the board feels the need to rush Invenergy‘s application process.

The EFSB also denied all but two motions that were brought before it today.

The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) met today to decide a number of issues pertaining to the “Clear River Energy Center” a new methane gas power plant planned by Invenergy for the Town of Burrillville.

Things did not go well for opponents of the plan.

Curran began the meeting reminding those in attendance that their would be no public comment. This did not stop people from standing and loudly declaring their dissatisfaction with some decisions made by the board.

EFSB board member Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), asked that people “respect the process” and stressed that there would be ample opportunity for public comment. Then the board began making their decisions.

Dennis and Kathryn Sherman and Paul and Mary Bolduc whose properties are near the site of the proposed plant and whose interests are not covered by any other intervenors, were granted intervenor status by the EFSB.

The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA) were denied. They do not have an adequately expressed interest.

Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) and Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE) are also denied, their intervention was decided to be not in the public interest.The simple allegation “however heart felt” of public interest is not enough.

Fossil Free Rhode Island (FFRI), Sister Mary Pendergast and Occupy Providence filed identical applications, and there is no reason to grant intervenor status said Curran and Coit.

Peter Nightingale, from Fossil Free RI, issued the following statement upon the group being denied intervenor status:

“Rhode Island government may decide to sell Rhode Island down the “Clear River.”

“If it does, it may have acted in accordance with twisted statuary law.
“But government, in that case, will have failed in its fiduciary duty to protect the natural resources —air, land and water— it holds in trust for the People.
“When the time comes, those responsible will be held accountable for their crimes against humanity and nature.”

Nightingale was escorted from the room by security when he rose and loudly read his statement to the board.

Pat Fontes, representing Occupy Providence, also rose and spoke, as she left the room. Fontes said, in a statement, “The predator’s pursuit of profit produces pain for poorer people. It’s the weakest who inherit the consequences without ever having their opinion about the risks taken into account.” She said, “Remember Flint, Michigan!” as she left.

Sally J. Mendzela‘s motion was dismissed because her ideas were “outside the scope” of the process.

The Burrillville Land Trust‘s motion for intervention was denied. Their concerns will be dealt with by the DEM, said the board. “I think their will be other opportunities” said Coit, for the Burrillville Land Trust to make their concerns known. The Land Trust’s motion to close the docket was rendered moot by their denial of intervenor status.

Paul Roselli, president of the Burrillville Land Trust was not surprised by the Board’s decision. He maintains that the issue of biodiversity will not be covered. The impact on species is dependent on an individual species’ status as endangered or threatened, etc. The overall or “holistic” impact of something like Clear River is not considered, and this is the perspective Roselli hoped the Land Trust would bring.

Still, some good came out of the Land Trust’s motion. Invenergy’s application has been updated to ensure compliance with section 44 of the Clean Water Act.

RI Administration for Planning, Office of Energy Resources, the DEM, the RIPUC, RIDOT, the Department of Health and other state agencies will all be asked for advisory opinions. Curran says that because of the “tight time schedule” it’s critical that we get advisory opinions “as soon as possible.”

This raises the question: Why is the EFSB on a Invenergy’s time table?

The Office of Energy Resources will render advisory opinions regarding all issues per the Resilient RI Act. as bought up by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

The board will be looking for specific limitations on the use of “secondary fuels,” said Curran. The proposed power plant is made to run on fuel oil as well as methane, as discussed on RI Future here.

There was also some consideration given to Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

The EFSB is chaired by RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) Chairperson Margaret Curran and has only one other sitting member, Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The third position on the board is usually filled by the associate director of the RI Administration for Planning, a position currently unfilled.

The first public hearing will be on Thursday, March 31 in the cafeteria of the Burrillville’s High School. The meeting will be officially announced soon.

January 12, 2016May 3, 2016

Strong public opposition to Burrillville power plant at hearing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The new methane gas power plant planned by Invenergy for the Town of Burrillville met strong opposition from a variety of environmental groups but also had what seemed like strong support from both members of the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) which will ultimately approve or deny the application. The EFSB is chaired by RI Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) Chairperson Margaret Curran and has only one other sitting member, Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The third position on the board is usually filled by the associate director of the RI Administration for Planning, a position currently unfilled, but it is expected that Governor Gina Raimondo will choose someone to fill that role soon.

As the standing room only hearing got under way, Chairperson Curran noted that there hasn’t been a hearing like this since 1999, the last time an energy project of this size was considered. No public comment was allowed at this meeting, but Curran said that there were three public comment meetings scheduled. (It turns out they have not been scheduled at the time of this writing.)

Board member Coit spent some time near the beginning of the hearing informing the room that her position as head of the DEM will not impact her decisions as an EFSB board member. The duties of the DEM in deciding on key aspects of Invenergy’s proposed power plant have been delegated to her assistant, Terry Gray, and Coit says she is firewalling herself from her department’s work in this area. Some activists in the room expressed doubt in the possibility of such a firewall. It should be noted that Governor Gina Raimondo nominates all three EFSB board positions and that she has publicly backed Invenergy’s plan.

The two member board’s first order of business was to deal with an unprecedented number of motions for intervention, which if granted, would allow standing in these hearings for several groups and individuals. Invenergy objected to many of the motions, but did not object to allowing intervenor status for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Burrillville Land Trust (BLT), The RI Department of Energy Resources, the RI Building Trades Council and National Grid. The board granted all but the Burrillville Land Trust intervenor status, and said that the decisions on the rest of the motions for intervention would be announced at a January 29 meeting.

One motion immediately granted to Invenergy allowed the company to keep certain “proprietary” financial information secret from the public. Between this and Invenergy’s eagerness to deny intervenor status, it becomes difficult to believe the company is truly committed to an open, public process.

I covered Invenergy’s objections to granting intervene status here. Since then the Building Trades filed for last minute intervenor status because their union would represent the vast majority of workers who will build the plant if approved. The Building Trades were granted limited intervenor status pertaining to employment.

Both the Conservation Law Foundation and the Burrillville Land Trust had motions before the board asking that Invenergy’s application be denied. BLT said bluntly that the Invenergy application contains erroneous information or deliberate omissions. There are, says BLT, no biodiversity impacts and no noise impacts cited in Invenergy’s application. BLT maintains that Invenergy underestimated the impact of their power plant on species diversity by half. The effects on birds and bats, so important to keep insect populations down, is likely to be severe. Invenergy’s estimated water impacts are 75% less than what BLT expects. Ultimately, says the BLT, the impact of this power plant will be felt for decades after its estimated 40-50 life span.

The CLF’s motion to dismiss was based in part on the Resilient Rhode Island Act, and on the fact that Invenergy’s application is incomplete. Under the law, says CLF attorney Jerry Elmer, “Incomplete applications must be rejected.”

Invenergy could not argue that their application was complete. They even admitted that they are still in negotiation for some permits. But Invenergy maintained that this is business as usual and not a reason to reject the application. Invenergy is pushing hard on this application, and want the EFSB to make a quick decision because if this application process drags on too long, they could be out hundreds of millions of dollars, said the CLF. But Attorney Elmer said that Invernergy needs to live with their business decisions, and the EFSB must deny incomplete objections even if Invenergy might face a monetary loss.

Chairperson Curran argued for Invenergy’s position, it seems to me, better than Invenergy’s own lawyers. Curran said that she thinks incomplete applications can move ahead despite what the CLF sees as important, material omissions. The application, says Curran, will be finished by the time the EFSB makes a decision, but Attorney Elmer countered that the statute and rules say that the application must be complete when filed, not when decided upon.

Board member Coit also argued passionately for Invenergy’s position. If Curran and Coit want to obey the law though, it would seem that they might have to reject Invenergy’s application, something they clearly didn’t want to do.

Invenergy’s lawyers were clearly pleased with Curran and Coit’s defense of their application. They assured the EFSB board that the board will have plenty of information about the power plant by the time they make their decision. The lawyers maintained that what isn’t in the application isn’t important. In fact, in all their years of practice, these lawyers say they have, “never seen such a detailed application.”

The CLF was next questioned about their reliance on the Resilient RI Act. Under the law, all state agencies shall follow this act. This means that the act applies to the EFSB and that the EFSB has the discretion to consider the climate change impact of the proposed energy plant.

Invenergy seems to feel that the Resilient RI Act is a toothless reminder about the importance of greenhouse gas reductions. They said that the act says nothing about their project and really doesn’t apply.

The second half of the hearing consisted of Invenergy’s sales pitch, a 51 page PowerPoint presentation that is both an ad for Invenergy (including slides touting the companies wind and solar projects, projects they seem to have no interest in bringing to Rhode Island) and plenty of information about the robustness of the company’s finances.

October 30, 2015

RIPUC adopts emergency regulations to help shut-off victims

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) today adopted “emergency regulations” designed to make it easier for those who have fallen behind on their payments to National Grid to restore power and heat to their homes. Margaret E Curran, chair of the board, lead fellow commissioners Paul J Roberti and Herbert F DeSimone Jr in an unanimous vote to allow people to get their power restored for a 15 percent payment of the total owed upfront plus the adoption of a regular payment plan. Currently that number can be 50 percent or higher.

The George Wiley Center made the request on behalf of utility customers, as they have for the last seven years, but had requested the number be set at 10 percent. After some discussion, Curran arrived at 15 percent because in the past there was a tiered system that allowed for down payments of between 10 and 20 percent. Curran eliminated the tiers and came up with 15 percent as a compromise.

In the past it was routine to allow these emergency regulations to last for 3 months, but in the last two years this was shortened to thirty days. Curran suggested that the new thirty day mark is somehow “traditional,” though one might argue that recent changes to a tradition are not themselves traditional. Given the shortened time, it’s important, says George Wiley organizer Camilo Viveiros, to get the word out to families and individuals in need.

Over thirty people attended today’s RIPUC meeting a good crowd considering the last minute change in date and time of the meeting. Had the board met when originally planned, people would be that much closer to having their power restored. Though the board’s ruling came as a relief to many, to some it will have little effect. Anna told me that she has spent money she might have used to reinstate her gas heat to purchase electric space heaters. In order to have the money back on her debit card in time, she will have to return the space heaters today, wait for the money to be back on her card early next week, and make her payment then. This means that she and her children will be in a house with no heat all weekend.

Today’s ruling has no effect on those affected by National Grid’s policy of ignoring rules against shutting off power on the elderly and those suffering from illnesses. That lawsuit is still ongoing.

Further complicating this year’s execution of emergency relief is Governor Gina Raimondo‘s executive order 15-07, which will have the impact of delaying this much needed emergency regulation. Under this order, rules adopted by the RIPUC need to be reviewed and signed off on by the Office of Regulatory Reform (ORR) prior to the effective date. Why the governor is mandating the adoption of bureaucratic practices that delay good policy is not yet clear. The governor’s office has been asked for comment. The policy was supported by both Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello and Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed.

Despite these difficulties, today’s ruling is good news for many Rhode Islanders suffering from shut-offs due to financial constraints.