Ryan Hardy – RI Future

October 3, 2016October 3, 2016

Invenergy power plant application faces suspension

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) today decided to issue an executive order demanding that Invenergy show cause as to why the docket for their proposed $700M fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant shouldn’t be suspended until such a time as the company can produce a reasonable plan for where the company intends to get the water needed to cool the plant. The show cause hearing has been scheduled for October 13.

The suggestion for the show cause motion came from EFSB board member Janet Coit, who noted the lack of a water plan and said that “from the perspective of the board, we have a big gap.” All meetings past the October 10 date have been canceled, and may or may not be re-scheduled depending on the outcome of the show cause hearing.

The meeting of the EFSB in Warwick also dealt with a short list of procedural motions. The Harrisville Fire District had entered a late motion to intervene, but were denied without prejudice. This motion gave attorney Richard Sinapi the opportunity to rise and speak to the board in favor of Harrisville, only to be told, for the second time, that there was no input allowed from attorneys or the public at this open meeting.

Two motions by Invenergy, to hold confidential some evidence from previous hearings, including the testimony of Ryan Hardy and Invenergy’s responses to the Office of Energy Resources second set of data requests, were approved.

The decision as to whether to change venues for the final hearings on the project was put on hold. Anticipating great public interest in the hearings, and noting that the hearing room at the Public Utilities Commission where the EFSB meets is small, the Town of Burrillville asked for a change to a larger venue.

Instead, the EFSB is exploring options to televise the proceedings on both cable access and the web. The EFSB’s Todd Bianco told me after the meeting that some effort will be made to archive the videos so that people could watch them if their schedules prevent them from watching live.

Board member Parag Agrawal said that “fairness and transparency” were the most important considerations, so broadcasting the hearings was important.

Invenergy has sold energy into a forward capacity market. Not building the plant or completing construction late could cost the company millions. The company initially asked that the application be fast tracked. Today’s decision by the EFSB essentially amounts to another extension, and ultimately could result in a suspension or even dismissal of the docket if no credible water supply can be found.

July 26, 2016July 26, 2016

Invenergy’s John Niland under oath at PUC hearing for Burrillville power plant

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

There were two big reveals at the first day of the PUC evidentiary hearing in Warwick on Monday. First, John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, admitted under oath that he knowingly gave false information to the EFSB at the March 31, 2016 EFSB hearing held at the Burrillville High School. Second, Invenergy’s proposed plant will not be clean: It’s emissions will be higher than the the current New England average of all power plants.

Everyone seemed surprised that the evidentiary hearing at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant for the Town of Burrillville wasn’t packed with Burrillville residents. The Warwick police officer seated at the back of the room looked almost bored. Michael McElroy rescinded his motion to hold the hearing in a larger venue because, as his co-counsel Oleg Nikolyszyn said, “there are plenty of seats.” Of course, holding the meeting 40 minutes outside Burrillville during a work day was a surefire way to limit attendance.

The Public Utilities Commission hearing is being held to help the one PUC commissioner that did not recuse himself craft an opinion on whether or not the plant is needed and what effects the plant will have on ratepayers. The one commissioner is lawyer Herbert F. DeSimone, Jr.. Of his co-commissioners, Margaret Curran is on the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the body ultimately deciding on Invenergy’s application. Obviously she cannot write an advisory opinion to herself. Marion Gold is on record for having supported the plant during her stint as the executive director of the RI Office of Energy Resources. This leaves only Herbert DeSimone on the board. He will author the advisory opinion to the EFSB.

For what it’s worth DeSimone ruled early on that having only one person on the board does not violate any rules, as he will not be making any decisions, but will simply be crafting an advisory opinion.

Lawyers Alan Shoer, representing Invenergy and Jerry Elmer, representing the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), delivered opening statements. Shoer argued that the plant is needed, that it will reduce air emissions and save ratepayers money. Elmer explained that Invenergy’s promises were unlikely.

The first witness was Building Trades president Michael Sabitoni. He testified on the “socio-economic impacts of project” i.e., the jobs. Elmer objected, because jobs are not within the scope of this hearing. DeSimone overruled Elmer, saying, “I’ll allow the statement to stand but I’ll give it the weight that is appropriate.”

Under grilling from Burrilville’s lawyer Michael McElroy, Sabitoni estimated that 80 percent of the jobs created by this project will be from Rhode Island. He had no estimates on the number of jobs that will be created for Burrillville. He said that the members of his unions will be well placed to get the more permanent jobs on offer at the plant as well.

Next up was John Niland, director of development at Invenergy. His testimony stretched out for over 80 minutes, and there were some interesting exchanges along the way.

Under oath and under the examination of Jerry Elmer, Niland admitted that when he said, to the EFSB on March 31 in Burrillville, that Rhode Islanders would save $280 million on electricity after the new plant was built, he knew the number was wrong. He said that he didn’t have a better number to give, so he went with the older, wrong number. The true savings cannot be over $30 million, and could be closer to zero, maintains the CLF.

Under examination, Jerry Elmer also forced Niland to concede that Invenergy’s claim that coal and oil together account for 28 percent of New England’s energy footprint is incorrect. The true number is closer to six percent.

Niland claimed that since Invenergy sold half it’s output in the most recent energy auction, the plant is needed, by definition. Burrillville’s lawyer Michael McElroy pointed out that if only half the proposed plant’s energy is sold, then by Niland’s own logic only half the plant is needed. And if half the plant is all that’s needed, savings to ratepayers can be expected to be “substantially less.”

Niland ageed.

The growth of renewable energy sources will reduce the need for the power plant over time, said Niland. The plant has a life expectancy of 40 years. Niland knows of LNG plants still operating after 60 years. Niland admitted that Rhode Island’s dependency on fossil fuels will increase once the plant is built. If the plant is built, Rhode Island’s carbon footprint will go up, admitted Niland. Though technically, said Niland, given that RI is a net energy importer our emissions, “could be reduced.”

McElroy was not happy with Niland’s caveat. Within Rhode Island’s borders, asked McElroy, “Emissions will go up, correct?”

“I believe so,” said Niland.

McElroy asked about why Burrillville was chosen as a location for the plant. Niland said that the location was chosen due to its proximity to the Algonquin gas pipeline and electrical transmission wires. (Both of which were updated recently, I should note.) Niland’s job is to locate and develop projects like the one planned for Burrillville. He was initially lured here because of the state’s high energy prices, near $17 a killowatt hour. The new lower prices at the recent energy auction, closer to $7, will probably reduce interest in bringing large projects like this to the region, said Niland. If an energy plant doesn’t clear the energy auction, said Niland, it isn’t needed.

2016-07-25 PUC Burrillville 3021 — Ryan Hardy

The next and last witness for Invenergy was Ryan Hardy. Hardy is the person who prepared Invenergy’s report that calculated the rate savings should the plant be built. Jerry Elmer began his cross examination by handing Hardy a calculator and asking him to run the numbers, based on Invenergy’s own specs. After a long pause, Hardy came up with the plant producing 817 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. Hardy’s written testimony was 760 pounds. Ryan countered that he was basing his number on estimates of actual plant use, which he estimated to be about 70 percent of capacity. The numbers Elmer had him calculate were maximum possible output.

Also, said Hardy, the plant will be “primarily run on LNG, never on fuel oil, unless gas is not available.”

However, both of Hardy’s estimates are over the New England average, meaning that the plant can’t reduce emissions, because the plant’s emissions are higher than the average plant emissions in New England.

Elmer asked Hardy about ratepayer savings next. “Was your analysis of FCA-10 [the electricity auction] based on selling both turbines?”

“Yes,” said Hardy.

“Were you wrong about that?”

“Yes.”

“Was it reasonable for Niland to estimate savings of $280 million when he knew otherwise?”

“Yes,” said Ryan.

You can read Jerry Elmer’s thoughts about day one of the hearing here.

2016-07-25 PUC Burrillville 3009 — Michael Sabitoni

June 14, 2016

CLF: Invenergy lied to public at EFSB hearing in Burrillville

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

John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, knowingly mislead both the public and the EFSB, the board tasked with deciding the fate of the Burrillville power plant proposal, at a public hearing on the matter, according to the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed two expert witness testimonies with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that reveals Invenergy representatives knowingly presented false facts and figures at a public Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) hearing in Burrillville attended by 700 people.

The CLF testimony also provides further evidence that the electricity produced by a proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel burning power plant in Burrillville is not needed in New England.

Invenergy’s estimates of consumer savings from the proposed plant are grossly inflated and inaccurate, says the CLF. Invenergy claims the power plant will save between $118 to $120 million for ratepayers. The actual number, according to CLF’s witnesses, is between 0 and $36 million.

Christopher Stix, first witness

The first testimony is from Christopher Stix, a volunteer financial analyst for the CLF providing financial and market analysis for CLF’s energy initiatives, specifically in the area of power plant licensing and electric and gas transmission. The testimony is lengthy and technical (and can be downloaded at the link above) but the actual conclusions of the testimony are fairly easy to present.

False Facts

Stix claims in his testimony that Invenergy knowingly presented false information at the March 31, 2016 EFSB hearing at the Burrillville High School.

“…on March 31, in front of 700 people, Invenergy presented in two different ways… information that Invenergy knew, at the time, was false. First, the words “$280 million in Savings” appear in big, green letters on Slide 12 of Invenergy’s presentation… Second, the false information was emphasized by Invenergy’s John Niland, who said, “Talking about ratepayer savings, the analysis we’ve done looks at what happens to the cost of power to the region when you put in a plant like this. – – [T]hat’s really what the $280 million number represents.” [EFSB March 31, 2016 Hearing Transcript. page 16, lines 8-11; 15-17.)

“…eventually Invenergy backed off its wrong assertion of $180 – $120 million in capacity savings in just FCA-10. In Ryan Hardy’s April 22 testimony, page 13, lines 20-21, Invenergy touts ‘Capacity cost savings to Rhode Island ratepayers . . . to be $170 million from 2019 to 2022, or $42 million annually on average.’ It is important to note here that in his testimony, Mr. Hardy gives no specific figure at all for projected capacity savings from just FCA-10. Instead, he sticks with a vague average over a period of several years.

“Mr. Hardy does not acknowledge in his April 22 testimony that his figure had changed radically from his sworn testimony before the EFSB on January 12, 2016, when he stated under oath that ‘the savings from capacity costs alone is nearly 212 million…’” [January 12, 2016 Transcript. page 164, lines 6-14; and Slide 24.]

“Third, and importantly, nothing changed between March 31, when Invenergy publicly presented figures that were grossly wrong, and April 22, when Invenergy presented very different figures. The relevant FCA had occurred on February 8. Invenergy acquired no new information between March 31 and April 22. Thus, there was absolutely no reason for Invenergy to have presented inaccurate information to the EFSB and Burrillville residents on March 31.”

Power plant not needed

Early on, Stix was asked if the New England electricity grid needs the proposed Invenergy plant.

Stix replied, “neither the New England electricity grid, nor the ISO, needs Invenergy in order to keep the grid reliable. Overall, in FCA-lO, the ISO procured fully 1,416 MW more than its ICR. Even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would have still over-procured 931MW. And, here in the SENE zone, the ISO procured 1,321 MW more than its LSR Again, even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would still have over-procured 836 MW in the zone The result of FCA-10 shows that the generation capacity that the Invenergy plant would bring to the electricity grid is not needed in Rhode Island, and is not needed in New England.”

Inaccurate consumer savings

Stix testified that “[t]he irrefutable, bottom-line fact is that Mr. Hardy and [PA Consulting Group] wrongly predicted savings to Rhode Island ratepayers,just from capacity, and just from FCA-l0, to be between $118 and $120 million dollars. The actual figure was somewhere between zero and $36 million. Mr. Hardy’s projected figure was 272% of the actual figure, and maybe much, much more than that. To put it another way, it is just not true to say that a predicted result of $118 million in ratepayer savings in one year “is very close to” ratepayer savings of between zero and $36 million. I doubt very much if Rhode Island ratepayers consider $118 million in one-year savings to be “very close” to zero to $36 million. And I doubt that the PUC will view it that way, either.”

Robert Fagan, second witness

The second witness testimony presented by the CLF today is from Robert Fagan, a Principal Associate at Synapse Energy Economics, a research and consulting firm specializing in electricity industry regulation, planning and analysis.

Fagan also says the proposed power plant is not needed in both the short, medium and long terms. He says there is no “near-to-medium term reliability need for the proposed Invenergy plant,” pointing out that “existing and projected energy efficiency and behind-the-meter solar PV resources in New England more than supplant the energy output of the proposed plant and support a reliable electric sector in Rhode Island and New England without the proposed plant” and “there is no longer-term reliability need for the proposed plant.”

Fagan says that “Rhode Island and New England net loads… exhibit declining trends, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.” Invenergy claims that the ISO-New England Forward Capacity Markets indicate need, but as we have seen, they do not.

Further, Invenergy offers, “no evidence of any longer-term reliability or other need for the proposed plant. They incorrectly inflate the energy forecast need for Rhode Island and New England. Their narrative on alternative energy resources, including energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, is completely absent of any quantitative analysis of the effect of a portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable resource supply as an alternative to the proposed plant.

Looking to the longer term future of energy in Rhode Island, Fagan says, “When considering energy efficiency and alternative new resources including behind-the-meter solar PV, other solar PV (utility scale), onshore wind, offshore wind, Canadian hydro, demand response, and storage alternatives – in addition to existing capacity resources and a recently strengthened New England transmission system – near-term and long-term reliability of Rhode Island and New England electric power sectors can be assured without reliance on the proposed power plant.”

Fagan also says that, “The applicant’s failure to present any evidence of a long-term reliability need for the plant is significant, because absent such a need, I don’t see how this proposed plant fits with Rhode Island state energy policy that, according to the applicant, emphasizes increasing energy efficiency, integration of renewable energy into the system, and achieving reductions in greenhouse gases.”