EFSB – Page 3 – RI Future

May 9, 2016May 10, 2016

Raimondo agrees to meet with Burrillville residents about 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

Governor Gina Raimondo agreed to meet with Burrillville residents about the proposed Invenergy power plant Monday evening after Kathy Martley, a Burrillville resident and founder of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion) invited her. Raimondo was in Warwick, at the Veterans Memorial High School, as part of her “series of community conversations” around issues of job training. As the question and answer period began, Martley rose to give the Governor a flower and a card and invite her to Burrillville to discuss the power plant.

“We have a lot of worries about it,” said Martley.

Raimondo took Martley’s card and said, “Yes. I will do it… if you will host me at a community meeting in Burrillville I’d be very happy to do it.”

Raimondo has been an unwavering supporter of the fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant since the plan was announced back in August of last year.

Before the event started, outside the entrance to the school, members of BASE approached Representative Joseph Shekarchi, who doesn’t think the RI House will be voting on the plant, but said he is very close to Burrillville Representative Cale Keable and that he would support Keable’s opposition to the plant. Keable, along with Burrillville State Senator Paul Fogarty, wrote a strong letter to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) in opposition to the plant. The EFSB has the ability to approve or reject Invenergy’s application.

In a Facebook post Keable wrote:

I have been exploring legislative possibilities with the State House legal staff. As the application has already been submitted, there are significant legal hurdles to simply “stopping” the plant. There is no doubt we could seek to change the law for future applications. We will continue to explore all possibilities. Legislation will be introduced shortly and there will be a public hearing scheduled at the State House. We are looking at requesting this hearing on the same day as a planned rally at the State House designed to let the Governor hear our voices. More on that as soon as I know.

On Tuesday, May 10 the EFSB will be holding the second half of its first public commentary hearing, starting from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM in the Burrillville Middle School Auditorium, 2200 Broncos Highway, Harrisville.

On Wednesday, May 11 the Burrillville Town Council will have its regular meeting at 7:00 PM in the Town Council Chambers, 105 Harrisville Main St., Harrisville. It is unclear whether any of the business or public comment will concern the proposed power plant.

April 15, 2016May 3, 2016

Burrillville Town Council can stand up to Invenergy

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

The revelation that the Burrillville Town Council, under the leadership of John Pacheco III, has been engaged in ongoing negotiations with Invenergy LLC over potential tax breaks for their Clear River Energy Center gas and oil burning power plant, came as a surprise to many Burrillville residents Wednesday evening. Burrillville Town Solicitor Oleg Nikolyszyn, in a comment on the piece that broke this story objected to the word “secret” saying that the negotiations he and Town Manager Michael Wood were engaged in were “due diligence” and “not behind anyone’s back, or in secret, but openly.” He also says that, “Until now, the Council has not been engaged or negotiating with Invenergy.”

Nikolyszyn feels that he and the Town Manager, “would be remiss if we did not take into consideration what financial benefit the Town would receive.” They are doing, “what professionals are expected to do in a business environment.” At the meeting Nikolyszyn said that the town had a “fiduciary duty” to enter into negotiations.

That’s not what the law says.

Conservation Law Foundation senior lawyer Jerry Elmer maintains that, “one of the most effective ways that the Town Council can seek to prevent the siting of the Invenergy plant is to deny Invenergy the tax treaty it seeks.”

Not entering into a tax treaty with Invenergy will not necessarily stop Invenergy in its tracks, the plant could still go forward and pay higher taxes to the town, taking a hit to their profitability in the process. Elmer reminded me that the profitability of the plant has already suffered two recent hits “when (a) Invenergy cleared only one of two turbines in the February 8 Forward Capacity Auction; and (b) the SENE zonal clearing price had zero premium over the clearing price in Rest of Pool, unlike the previous two auctions in which our zone cleared at a huge premium.”

How many more hits to the plant’s profitability can Invenergy afford?

At Wednesday evening’s Town Council meeting Nikolyszyn was correct when he said that Burrillville has no say in whether or not the plant gets approved for Burrillville. As Elmer helpfully explained,

The underlying reason that the General Assembly created the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) by enacting the Energy Facility Siting Act (EFSA), was that it was assumed that — whenever any major power generation facility is planned to be built anywhere — the local residents in the local town would oppose the plant because of local impacts. The purpose of the EFSA is to take the power out of the hands of the local officials, who may be subject to constituent pressure to oppose the plant. That is the reason that all the opinions that the EFSB gets under the EFSA (from DEM, OER, Town of Burrillvile, etc.) are advisory opinions only. The final decision to grant or deny a permit to build the plant rests solely with the EFSB. This was the purpose of the law.”

However, “it is in the sole discretion of the Town Council whether or not to grant a beneficial tax treaty to Invenergy. The Governor cannot force them to do that. The EFSB cannot force them to do that.”

Pacheco and other Town Council members said over and over that they need to be neutral ahead of any reports that their boards are preparing for the EFSB, because it was the Town Council that nominated the members of these boards. This is of course nonsense. Governor Gina Raimondo, who nominated the members of the EFSB board, has been a major proponent of the plant. Where is her neutrality? Why is she not afraid that her support for the project will affect the people she’s nominated to board positions?

This pretension of neutrality merely shields the Town Council from their responsibility to their constituents, who overwhelmingly do not want this plant. Nikolyszyn might think this is all business as usual but he forgets: government is not business.

The Town Council would be completely in their power to pass a resolution declaring that they will not, under any circumstances, engage in a tax treaty with Invenergy. The company could then decide to go forward with the plant or not, but not only will their profitability suffer, so will their public image.

Reaching a deal with the Town will give Invenergy and Governor Raimondo political coverage. With a tax treaty in place it will be harder to say that the plant was forced on the Town against the will of the people since the company negotiated with the representatives of the people for an “equitable” deal.

Democracy will have worked, supposedly.

Not engaging with Invenergy sends a strong message that this plant is not wanted by the people of Burrillville. The plant can then only proceed against the will of the people, against the wishes of a democratically elected government. A Governor that blatantly disregards the will of the people in such a situation is a tyrant. A company that builds an unwanted facility against a community’s interests is not a community partner but a despoiler.

Now is not the time for wishy-washy politics, business as usual and secret (not secret) negotiations.

If the Burrillville Town Council can’t take a stand, it’s time for the citizens of Burrillville to find new Town Councillors.

April 14, 2016May 3, 2016

Burrillville Town Council secretly negotiating tax deals with Invenergy

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

In a stunning revelation, Burrillville Town Council legal counsel Oleg Nikolyszyn confirmed under questioning from Burrillville resident Jeremy Bailey that the council has been secretly negotiating a tax agreement with Invenergy for the proposed gas and oil burning power plant. Before this revelation, the existence of such negotiations may have been suspected, but were not confirmed. Shortly after Nikolyszyn’s revelation, Councillor Kimberly Brissette Brown questioned whether the item was properly before the Council. Council President John Pacheco III said that the item was not properly before the council, and said that if Bailey wanted to discuss the issue of the Council’s tax agreement deliberations with Invenergy, he would have to put that item on the agenda.

How Bailey would know to put previously unknown secret meetings with Invenergy on the agenda was not discussed.

Nikolyszyn’s admission capped a stressful and difficult Burrillville Town Council meeting, in which council members, aided by legal counsel Nikolyszyn, once again said that they have no power to stand against Invenergy. President Pacheco said that if the Town Council doesn’t remain absolutely neutral about the plant, it may seem that they are unfairly influencing various boards, the members of which the Town Council has nominated. Why this level of neutrality is necessary from the Burrillville Town Council in relation to boards they nominate but such neutrality is not necessary for Governor Gina Raimondo, who nominates the members of the Energy Facilities Siting Board and has taken a position in strong support of the power plant, is unknown.

Burrillville resident Jonathan Dyson later followed up with the Town Council about the tax negotiations with Invenergy, asking if there was any board, regulation or law that forced the tax agreement meetings. Despite saying earlier that the item wasn’t properly before the board, Pacheco answered Dyson and maintained that entering into such discussions was a fiduciary duty of the Town Council. Then Pachco added that these negotiations also include the “potential abutters to the power plant,” that is, people who own property next to Invenergy’s land.

Pacheco didn’t explain exactly what this means, but it seems to indicate that Invenergy is actively negotiating what payments, if any, abutters to the project might receive in the event that the power plant is built.

When Dyson then asked the Town Council “under what conditions would the Town Council say no to Invenergy,” Town manager Michael Wood angrily said, “That is not an agenda item.” But in fact, it was an agenda item 16-106 (b). Wood then said that the item was too vague and would not be discussed, never mind that earlier, Council President Pacheco had complimented Gary Patterson, who requested that item be placed on the the agenda, saying, “Your item on the agenda was properly phrased. I appreciate that.”

Throughout the meeting the Town Council took great pains to tell the people attending that the fix wasn’t in and this wasn’t a done deal. However, to the consternation of most of those present, the Town Council has admitted to secretly negotiating tax agreements and issues of abutment with Invenergy. Worse, theses discussion have been going on for some time, as the earliest discussions seem to precede Oleg Nikolyszyn becoming town solicitor.

By the end of the meeting the public was more angry and distrustful of the Town Council than when the meeting began.

I’ll be writing much more about this meeting in a future piece, but right now, questions remain: How long has the Town Council been in negotiation with Invenergy? Who has been party to these negotiations? The Town Council says that this isn’t a done deal, that the “fix isn’t in” but what other unknown meetings and negotiations are happening without the public’s knowledge?

April 7, 2016May 3, 2016

Is Raimondo’s power plant support softening?

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

In light of the letter to the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) from Representative Cale Keable and State Senator Paul Fogarty expressing “unequivocal opposition” to the new “1000-megawatt, fracked gas power plant in the heart of Burrillville’s idyllic village of Pascoag” I reached out to the Invenergy‘s earliest booster, Governor Gina Raimondo for comment. Raimondo spokesperson Marie Aberger responded (italics mine):

The Governor and her team are closely monitoring the plans and listening to community feedback and concerns. We will be learning more about the health and environmental impacts of the plans as the Energy Facility Siting Board continues its review of the proposal, and reviewing those impacts carefully.

“At the same time, the Governor believes we need to take action to address our energy costs in the present for all Rhode Island families and businesses. A large part of the Governor’s strategy is to adopt new solutions that will lead us to a cleaner, more reliable energy system in the future, including offshore wind and solar power.”

It’s difficult to tell if this statement shows a softening of the Governor’s position on the plant, which she called, “something that’s good for Rhode Island” when she announced the project in July of last year. Since she announced the plant Raimondo has been petitioned by environmental activists to change her position and has been confronted by sign carrying protesters at many public events.

But recently opposition to the plant has been building Burrillville, where residents are facing potential economic and environmental disaster due to the plant. Hundreds showed up at a community meeting with Keable and Fogarty at the Jesse Smith Memorial Library in Burrillville and hundreds more came out to the EFSB public hearing at the Burrillville High School. The political pressure is intensifying and many residents feel that Raimondo talk about being an environmental champion rings hollow given her support.

It was perhaps because he wanted to protect his status as an environmental champion that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse went from supporting the plant in an interview with Channel 12’s Ted Nesi to claiming that he can’t oppose or support the plant for political reasons in an interview with Bill Rappleye of Channel 10.

It turns out you can’t support the environment and fracked methane.

Still, Raimondo’s statement said that she’s “listening to community feedback and concerns” so that seems to mean that she needs to hear from people opposed to this plant and who want to see Rhode Island embrace a clean energy future. Given that, here’s the governor’s address, phone number and a link to the Governor’s contact page:

Office of the Governor
82 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02903

Phone: (401) 222-2080

http://www.governor.ri.gov/contact/

April 7, 2016May 3, 2016

Burrillville legislators oppose Invenergy’s fracked gas 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

Brian Newberry, Cale Keable, Paul Fogarty

Sen. Paul Fogarty (D-Dist. 23, Glocester, Burrillville, North Smithfield) and Rep. Cale Keable (D-Dist. 47, Burrillville, Glocester) announced today their unequivocal opposition to Invenergy’s application to construct a 1,000-megawatt, fracked gas power plant in the heart of Burrillville’s idyllic village of Pascoag.

In a letter to the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, the Burrillville legislators stated that their opposition was the result of lengthy discussions with their constituents.

“As an initial matter, it must be stated that Burrillville has already done more than its fair share for the cause of the region’s energy needs,” Senator Fogarty and Representative Keable wrote in their letter.

“As you know, Burrillville already hosts a fossil fuel burning power plant and has done so for over two decades. Siting a second power plant in the same town does not comport with any rational notion of fairness. More importantly, having two power plants within five miles of one another raises serious concerns regarding cumulative negative health effects,” the letter continued.

“Additionally, the very residents who would be impacted most adversely by the proposed power plant have already endured – and continue to endure – the extreme inconvenience of a gas pipeline compression station located directly adjacent to the proposed site of this power plant. These residents have sacrificed enough of the quiet enjoyment of their homes. No more should be asked of them. We certainly should not ask them to suffer the loss in market value to their homes that the siting of this power plant would entail,” stated the letter.

In their letter, Senator Fogarty and Representative Keable noted that Burrillville and neighboring Glocester contain many of Rhode Island’s natural resources – a significant reason that so many people have chosen to live in those rural towns. The George Washington Management Area, Casimir Pulaski Memorial State Park, the Buck Hill Management Area, and the Black Hut Management Area are all in the immediate vicinity. There are also in the immediate vicinity numerous pristine bodies of water including Wilson’s Reservoir, Wakefield Pond, Round Lake, Wallum Lake, Pascoag Reservoir/Echo Lake, Pulaski Pond, Bowdish Reservoir and Lake Washington.

In regard to these natural resources, Representative Keable and Senator Fogarty stated that, “[t]o put these natural resources at risk by siting a colossal power plant in the middle of them would be unconscionable.”

Senator Fogarty and Representative Keable made a strong case in their letter that the proximity of Zambarano Hospital to the proposed power plant makes the location an especially bad idea.

The letter states, “[W]e view as sacrosanct our obligation to speak on behalf of the patients at Zambarano Hospital, many of whom lack the capacity to speak on their own behalf. Our friends at Zambarano Hospital are the very people that government exists to protect – government should not now put them in harm’s way.”

“Our concerns with regard to Zambarano are twofold. First, the hospital’s water supply is drawn directly from Wallum Lake. That water supply must be protected. Second, in the event that there were a catastrophe at the proposed power plant, it seems highly unlikely that the nearly 120 patients at Zambarano could possibly be evacuated in a safe manner. We understand that he likelihood of this contingency is low. Should it come to pass, however, the humanitarian crises it would create would be unfathomable.”

The letter also focused on the negative impact to the nearby town of Glocester and village of Chepachet.

“For our Glocester constituents, this proposed power plant promises only burden, without any corresponding benefit. For example, we have serious concerns that during the proposed construction of this power plant traffic flow through the historic village of Chepachet would be unworkable. The village of Chepachet is already burdened with heavy traffic during peak times.”

The letter noted that the traffic and congestion concerns will also be a problem for Burrillville residents.

“Our concerns regarding traffic extend not only to Glocester, but also to Burrillville and in particular to those living on Route 100. Obviously, the sheer amount of heavy traffic that would be involved in building the proposed power plant would be incredibly burdensome for anyone living on Wallum Lake Road. Our peaceful town would be subjected to nuisance activity of all kinds: congestion, noise, light, and, in all likelihood, dropping property values.”

Representative Keable and Senator Fogarty also took note that they both voted to support the Resilient Rhode Island Act of 2014 which calls for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2025, 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2035, and 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. They noted that the proposed power plant is in likely violation of the Act by furthering the state’s reliance on fossil fuels.

[from a press release]

April 1, 2016May 3, 2016

Public comment on Burrillville power plant: Video

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

Here’s the full video from the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) public comment hearing held in the Burrillville High School auditorium last night. You can read the report and see pictures from the hearing here:

Labor, citizens clash over power plant in Burrillville

Labor, citizens clash over power plant 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

For full video of all public commentary, see here.

It has been a long wait, but the people of Burrillville finally got their chance to speak out on the Clear River Energy Center (CREC), Invenergy’s proposed $700 million gas and oil burning electrical plant last night. The Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) held the first public comment hearing in the Burrillville High School auditorium, which holds 600 people. More than 100 people were outside, unable to get in. Hundreds of people signed up to speak, only 48 people got to do so.

The EFSB board is made up of Margaret Curran, chair of the RI Public Utilities Commission and Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management. The third seat on the board has recently been filled, since Parag Agrawal has been hired as the associate director of the Rhode Island Division of Planning. He begins his new job on April 18, so should be at the next EFSB hearing.

Tensions were high in the auditorium. Michael Sabitoni, president of the Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council and over a hundred union members arrived early, and many Burrillville natives resented their presence. One speaker from Burrillville claimed that the union members were “intimidating.” A union speaker objected to this, calling the accusation of intimidation, “B.S.”

As near as I can tell, the eight speakers in favor of the power plant were all union members. They made their case based on the 300 construction and 24 permanent jobs that would be created. Sabitoni said that he’s run into meetings like this before, where a community shows up to complain about a large project to be built in their town. He dismissed the concerns of Burrillville citizens as NIMBYism.

Donna Woods was the first speaker, and she was set the tone for the evening. She said that there is a fear that the decision to approve the power plant has already been made, despite Curran and Coit’s insistence to the contrary. During Wood’s testimony, Curran broke protocol and addressed Wood directly, insisting that no decision has been made.

“Many of us feel that we’ve been screaming underwater,” said Woods, “This is real life stuff and we’re really afraid.”

2016-03-31 Burrillville EFSB 021 — Janet Coit and Margaret Curran

Residents of Burrillville and the surrounding communities are worried about the noise, air pollution, water pollution, the destruction of a pristine environment to make room for the power plant and their property values, which are already dropping. But many speakers spoke of the environmental dangers of fracking, about helping to prevent global warming and sea level rise, and about our greater duty to future generations.

Burrillville has experienced environmental disaster first hand. Well water was contaminated years ago with MBTE from a leaking gas station gas tank. MBTE causes cancer, and many in the auditorium last night have friends and relatives who suffered and died. Between the gas pipeline compressor stations, the Ocean State Power Plant and the MBTE disaster, many residents feel, in the words of one speaker, that, “Burrillville has given enough.”

Invenergy began the public comment hearing with a presentation. I wrote about this 30-60 minute long presentation and questioned the need for it here. Curran introduced the presentation saying it would last 20 minutes, but in fact it lasted longer, much closer to the originally estimated 30 minutes. After cutting the presentation short for time, Curran said that the full report was on the EFSB website, which is a point I made in my piece. An additional six members of the public could have spoken had Invenergy not been needlessly granted that time.

The frustration that the citizens of Burrillville feel about the proposed Invenergy power plant and the EFSB process is only expected to magnify over the next weeks and months. Frustration with their elected leaders in the Town Council, General Assembly and state wide offices is widespread and no one should be surprised if Burrillville seeks change in the upcoming elections.

The next public comment meeting is scheduled for 6pm, Monday, May 23.

March 29, 2016May 3, 2016

Burrillville state reps in the hot seat over Invenergy 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

Burrillville Libray 002 — photo (c) Pia Ward

Sixty people quickly filled the small meeting room, and when the librarian stopped letting in, between two and three times that number were forced to idle in in the parking lot, listen in through the window screens, or leave in frustration.

Kathy Martley of BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion) had invited Representative Cale Keable and State Senator Paul Fogarty to meet with their constituents at the Jesse M. Smith Memorial Library in Harrisville to discuss what can be done about Invenergy’s Clear River Energy Center, a new gas and oil burning energy plant currently planned for the Town of Burrillville. The turnout exceeded everyone’s expectations.

Senator Fogarty set the tone early on, saying that there’s “not a lot the General Assembly can do about [the power plant].” Claiming that he hasn’t yet made up his mind, Fogarty said, “I’m not here to stop the power plant, but I’m not here to put a shovel in the ground [either].”

Rep Keable agreed, saying that the General Assembly has no control over the EFSB (Energy Facilities Siting Board), the political body tasked with determining the fate of the planned power plant, while acknowledging that “There’a a lot of anger out there.”

In many ways I was reminded of the first Burrillville Town Council meeting I attended back in October, when council members claimed to be powerless against the power plant.

The Town Council recommended contacting Governor Gina Raimondo or State Representative Cale Keable. Now here was Rep Keable and Senator Fogarty, telling residents that, “It comes down to a local issue.” Keable and Fogarty recommend taking it up with the Town Council.

A man stands and tells his state representatives that this isn’t good enough. “The answer is ’no.’ We don’t want the power plant,” he says, “We want you,” said the man, pointing to Keable and Fogarty, “to help us do this. We want you to talk to the Town Council. When there are meetings we want you to be our advocate there…

“There’s going to be a block of people, believe me, standing against this power plant. It’s going to be a movement.”

Burrillville has a history with large corporate projects like this ruining their town. Some well water in town is poisoned with MBTE from an Exxon gas station leak. One woman stood and said that three members of her family contracted cancer during that time. Her property abutted the land used to build the Ocean State Power Plant. She sold her home and moved, only to find that Invenergy wants to build its power plant in her front yard. She wonders about the toxins the plants pollution will rain on her property and into her air and water. “Our property values are already going down. What help are we going to have?

“Am I going to have to wait until my grand kids come down with cancer? Or my busband or my children still living at home? Because that’s what happened to my niece, her husband and her daughter.”

The new power plant will have little to no effect on Burrillville’s electric rates. There are few positives on offer: Some jobs, some tax relief, and a plan to clean the water contaminated with MBTE. The negatives are declining property values, pollution in both air and water, and a degradation of Burrillville’s pristine natural environment.

On Thursday night the people of Burrillville will have their first chance to bring their concerns to the EFSB. If tonight’s informal meeting is any indication, that meeting ought to be very interesting.

Full video of the meeting can be viewed here:

Burrillville Libray 001 — Paul Fogarty, Kathy Martley, Cale Keable (photo (c) Pia Ward)

March 21, 2016May 3, 2016

Invenergy co-opts public comment hearing for infomercial

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

At an upcoming hearing concerning the new gas and oil power plant planned for Burrillville, Invenergy, the multi-billion dollar Chicago-based company behind the project, is to be given 30-60 minutes of public commentary time when ordinary citizens will be limited to merely five minutes each. This isn’t how Todd Bianco, coordinator of the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) would put it, but the issue is raising deep concerns among citizens who plan on attending.

The public hearing, scheduled for 6 PM on March 31 at Burrillville High School, is the first opportunity for the public to speak out on the proposed power plant since the EFSB application process began. So far all hearings have taken place at the RI Public Utility Commission offices in Warwick and no public comment has been allowed. At the first EFSB meeting, Invenergy presented a PowerPoint that explained their plans for Burrillville, and made their case for the power plant.

Invenergy then went on to hold two “open houses” in the Burrillville Middle School cafeteria, the first on Dec 1 of last year and the second on March 8, 2016. In addition, all of the documents submitted by Invenergy and others are available on the EFSB docket here.

Recently I learned that Bianco granted Invenergy a substantial portion of the upcoming public commentary EFSB meeting in Burrillville. Invenergy has been given the opportunity to present what amounts to a one hour, pro-power plant infomercial before any public commentary will be heard. Meanwhile, each member of the public will be granted approximately 5 minutes to speak.

This isn’t the first time the public has had access to the EFSB approval process co-opted and blocked. At the beginning of the year several private citizens and environmental groups were blocked from legally intervening in the process. Also there has been a disturbing pattern emerging of anti-power plant protesters being denied access to public events where Governor Gina Raimondo is speaking.

According to Bianco, “At this point, it cannot be predicted how much time will be allotted to individual members of the public over the course of the public comment hearings… as that will depend on how many attend to provide comment.”

However, in an email to Paul A. Roselli, who represents the Burrillville Land Trust, Bianco said, “I truly don’t know how much time will be given to each member of the public, but you might plan for no more than five minutes.”

Bianco went on to tell me that Invenergy’s presentation is required by law and is “for the benefit of members of the public, particularly for those who may have not made it to the preliminary hearing, which occurred during work hours, on a cold winter day, at a location outside of Burrillville.”

This is a weird defense. It was the EFSB that decided to have the preliminary meeting, “during work hours, on a cold winter day, at a location outside of Burrillville.” They could have scheduled the meeting in Burrillville at a time residents could be in attendance, and chose not to.

“Furthermore,” said Bianco, “Invenergy is not being ‘allowed 60 minutes to do a presentation,’ as you suggested. Invenergy’s brief overview of their project is mandated” by law. In a response to Roselli, Bianco said, “I expect Invenergy’s presentation will last between thirty minutes to an hour.”

Bianco cited R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-98-9.1(b), that states in part:

The [B]oard shall have at least one public hearing in each town or city affected prior to holding its own hearings and prior to taking final action on the application. All details of acceptance for filing in § 42-98-8(a)(1) – (a)(6) shall be presented at town or city hearings for public comment.

As Paul Roselli points out, however, there is nothing in the law that mandates an oral presentation from Invenergy. “If they are required to present their information at a public hearing,” said Roselli, “then they can present their testimony in written form.”

Mandating that Invenergy present their case at the hearing in written form in no way hinders Invenergy’s ability to be heard, if one follows Bianco’s logic. As Bianco says, “the Board also accepts written public comment electronically, by mail, and by hand delivery. Oral and written public comment are given the same weight required by the Act.” [emphasis mine] If this applies to the public, then surely it applies to Invenergy as well.

Roselli told me that there is much concern about Invenergy making a presentation and taking up valuable public comment time. “Many feel that [Invenergy] has already made their case” said Roselli, noting that he feels that Governor Gina Raimondo, and board members Janet Coit and Margaret Curran have already expressed their support for the project either intentionally or unintentionally.

In short, the EFSB is taking away precious public speaking time and giving it to Invenergy, a large and powerful company with a virtually unlimited amount of money with which to purchase advertising and curry favor with connected politicians.

The public interest is not being served by allowing Invenergy to swallow up their public speaking time.

“The Board expects that all those who provide comments will respect the process and each other’s time,” said Bianco in an email.

It would be far easier to respect a fair process: one that does not favor big money corporations over the rights of the public to be heard.

February 23, 2016May 3, 2016

Secrecy and heavy security for Janet Coit’s Invenergy visit on Monday

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

Janet Coit’s visit to the proposed site of Invenergy’s new gas and oil powered energy plant in Burrillville on Monday raises very real questions about what the DEM director calls a “fire wall” that prohibits communication between her and the parties involved in the case she is deciding. In response to my questions, Todd Anthony Bianco, coordinator of the RI Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB), said:

“A site visit of the Invenergy property will not violate the Energy Facility Siting Board Rule regarding ex parte communication. All parties were given notice through counsel and have the opportunity to attend. The purpose of the visit is for a Board member to familiarize herself or himself with the area in order to ask informed questions through discovery and during the hearing.”

Janet Coit, director of the RI Department of Environmental Management, is one of the two people sitting on a three person board (alongside RI Public Utilities Commissioner Margaret Curran) who will ultimately be deciding on whether or not to grant Invenergy permission to build an unneeded, polluting gas and oil burning power plant in Burrillville.

Anthony Bianco’s explanation that, “parties given notice and hav[ing] the opportunity to attend” is not the legal standard. The correct legal standard was accurately stated by EFSB Chairperson Margaret Curran at the January 29 EFSB Open Meeting: “We are not allowed to discuss anything about this [case] except in public at an Open Meeting.”

What was said to Janet Coit yesterday in the woods in Burrillville was not, in Chairperson Curran’s words, either: (a) in public (the public was not permitted to be present); nor (b) in a formal Open Meeting.

What the public can’t know, and may never know, is:

What exactly this visit was about, what was said at this visit between Director Coit and Invenergy representatives, and whether there was record keeping and documentation of this visit to ensure compliance with the rules regarding ex parte communication. Will the specifics of what is being discussed at the site, outside the public hearing process, be made public? Is there a public record of this event? Why wasn’t the press and public invited to attend this?

In response to these questions, Anthony Bianco sent me the following statement:

“After notice and invitation to the attorneys for all parties, Director Coit, as well as attorneys for some of the parties, visited the Invenergy site in compliance with R.I. Gen. Laws §42-98-13(a) which authorizes member of the siting board to inspect the property where the applicant intends to construct a facility. During that visit, conversation about the matter was to identify where the various components of the facility, the access road and transmission line would be located. Any questions Director Coit may have regarding what she observed during the visit will be asked through the hearing process and made part of the record. Conversations between Chairperson Curran and Director Coit about this matter must be during an open meeting, on the record, and properly noticed. Since the visit did not constitute an open meeting, as only one Board member was present, public notice was not required. Because the site visit took place on private property, only parties to the proceeding were invited. Beyond the parties to the proceeding during this board member’s visit, all decisions regarding access to the property belong to Invenergy and Spectra.”

Before, during and after Director Coit’s visit to the site of the proposed plant, the Burrillville Police Department and other law enforcement officials stood guard to prevent the public and the media from attending. As Anthony Bianco said, “all decisions regarding access to the property belong to Invenergy and Spectra.”

Sure, the site has been the scene of multiple arrests over the last year or so as environmental activists protested the fracked gas infrastructure build up that is threatening the survival of our planet, but the heavy police presence is a sure sign that Invenergy wants to keep the visit as secret as possible. One local opponent of the proposed power plant, a Burrillville resident, informed me that the police followed her to her home that day when she drove by the entrance to the site. This smacks of intimidation, to my mind.

The presence of the police at the site continues a practice seen in Rhode Island before: When the interests of a powerful energy company are questioned by the public, the police become involved, even if there are no laws being broken. National Grid behaved the same way back in August during a public hearing for the Field’s Point LNG expansion.

February 22, 2016May 3, 2016

DEM Director Coit’s Invenergy visit calls ‘fire wall’ into question

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

clear river energy center — Clear River Energy Center

UPDATE: Todd Anthony Bianco, Coordinator of the RI Energy Facility Siting Board, said the following in an email:

Janet Coit, director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), will be touring the site of Invenergy’s proposed gas and oil burning power plant today at 1pm. As one of the two members of the EFSB (Energy Facilities Siting Board) she is legally not allowed to receive “any information about the case at any time or in any manner outside the hearing process,” according to Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

At issue is the Clear River Energy Center, a proposed 900-1000MW power plant to be located in Burrillville, RI. Last week, the ISO-New England Forward Capacity Auction demonstrated that there is no need for this plant to be built. We also have evidence accumulating that building this plant will ensure that RI will not meet its commitments to a clean energy future.

Not having conversations with any of the various interests concerned with the proposed power plant is important to the process. During the EFSB hearing on January 12, Coit explained that she was “firewalling” herself from any information that may come up as the DEM does its part towards certifying the plant. At the time, some activists in the room openly doubted Coit’s remarks. At a protest of Governor Gina Raimondo’s support for the plant at Goddard Park, orchestrated by members of Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) and Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE), Coit told BASE founder and activist Kathy Martley that she could not speak to her about the plant because of the firewall.

The CLF, according to Elmer, “does not want in any way to interfere with the usefulness of the visit,” but they were sure to remind the EFSB board of the RI Supreme Court’s holding in Arnold v. Lebel, 941 A.2d 813 (2007). This ruling “prohibits anyone from giving EFSB members any information about the case at any time or in any manner outside the hearing process,” says Elmer.

What is interesting about the site visit is that Tod Bianco, the EFSB “coordinator”, sent out the email invitations not to the entire list of parties working through the EFSB process, but only to the lawyers involved. To Elmer, “This means, almost by definition, that what is said in the woods in Burrillville to Janet [Coit] is outside the hearing process.”

Also, what exactly the law is on what can or cannot be said to Coit during this meeting is unclear. “Arguably,” says Elmer, “Janet asking, ‘Where is the route that the transmission interconnection will go,’ and the answer, ‘From that point over there to this point over here,’ is not allowed.”

An email to Coit, the Governor’s office and DEM staff has gone unanswered as of this writing, but we will be glad to update the story should any of these parties respond. A lawyer representing the CLF will also be on the site visit, to “observe what occurs and who says what to whom.”

If there are improper conversations between Invenergy officials and Director Coit, it will be a matter for the courts to decide, though as was said earlier, figuring out the law here could be tricky. In any event, saying the wrong thing outside an official hearing puts Invenergy in the position of having the entire case closed, meaning that the plant cannot be built.

February 16, 2016May 3, 2016

Recent power auction proves Burrillville power plant unneeded

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

Southeast-New-England-Zone-9-Source-ISO-NE-for-web — SENE (SouthEast New England)

The Clear River Energy Center, a gas and oil fired energy plant proposed by Invenergy for Burrillville, Rhode Island is not needed, according to the results of ISO New England Forward Capacity Auction, the results of which were released last Monday. The results of the auction means that cost of energy in Rhode Island in 2019-2020 will be reduced and these lower costs have nothing to do with the energy offered by Invenergy.

[Note: Jerry Elmer had this to say in an email received after the story ran: “Energy and capacity are two different commodities. (The third component of electricity price is ‘ancillary services.’) The price of both energy and capacity are elements of the ultimate price of electricity that is paid by ratepayers (electricity customers) but energy and capacity are not the same thing. (That is, energy and capacity are not the same thing as each other; and energy and capacity prices are not the same thing as the price of electricity.) As components of the overall electricity market in New England, energy represents about 80% of the value (price) of electricity and capacity represents about 20%. (Ancillary services are a very, very small part of the price.)]

Forward Capacity Auctions (FCA) are somewhat complicated, and making sense of the ISO NE press release was a big lift, so I talked to Jerry Elmer, senior staff attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), to get my head around it.

“Invenergy is planning to build a 900 – 1000 MegaWatt (MW) plant,” said Elmer, “Only 485 MWs cleared in that auction and got a capacity supply obligation (CSO). So what that tells you immediately is that the plant is not needed in RI. If the plant were needed it would have gotten a CSO of 900 MW.”

Hold up. Let’s take this a little slower.

The way electrical prices are determined in Rhode Island is through a series of annual auctions. Most recently we completed FCA 10 (Forward Capacity Auction 10). Power companies bid to supply energy and ISO NE takes the best offers at the lowest price. The companies in the bidding are then obligated to supply that power during the time period specified and at the determined price. This is the capacity supply obligation (CSO).

In the most recent auction, FCA 10, Invenergy cleared only 485 MWs, about half of what their proposed 900-1000 MW plant could produce.

Under the rules of ISO NE, a certain amount of energy must be locally sourced in each zone. Here in Rhode Island, we are in the South Eastern New England (SENE) zone and the amount of locally sourced power required is 10,028 MW.

As Elmer explained the math, “The zone cleared the auction at 11,348 MW. So do a thought experiment: Invenergy got a CSO for 485 MW. Take 485 MW out of 11,348 MW and you’ve got 10,843 MW in the zone without Invenergy. You’ve got a surplus. You’ve 500 MW more than you need, without Invenergy.”

This is not what Invenergy expected when they presented their plans for the new plant. “If you look at Invenergy’s filing with the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB),” says Elmer, “they were talking about how desperately the plant is needed, it’s needed in RI to keep the lights on, and that the clearing price of capacity is going to be much higher in RI than in the rest of the ISO NE pool, what they call ‘rest of pool.’”

In the previous auction, Rhode Island did not fare so well. The reason for this is that between FCA 9 and FCA 10 the zones were restructured. “It used to be, up until this auction, there were two separate zones,” said Elmer, “There was SEMA RI (SouthEast Massachusetts and RI), NEMA Boston (SouthEast Massachusetts and Boston), and ‘Rest of Pool,’ but for FCA 10, the ISO collapsed what used to be the NEMA Boston zone with the SEMA RI zone and made one SouthEast New England (SENE) zone.

“The interesting thing here is that Invenergy has been planning this plant for a couple of years and it is true that in the two previous actions, FCA 8 and FCA 9 one year ago, the SEMA RI zone cleared much higher than rest of pool. Invenergy was right about that. So they start this plan for this plant, and they figure that they are going to absolutely clean up financially.

“This is an import constrained zone, clearing price is double what the rest of the pool is, we’re going to put 900 or 1000 MW into this very high priced zone, we are going to make a fortune. This was their thinking.

“Between FCA 9 and FCA 10, ISO NE collapsed the NEMA Boston and SEMA RI zone into a big zone, and now, instead of the zone that includes RI being very constrained with a shortage of power, we now have an excess of power in the zone.”

Drawing the lines of the various zones has nothing to do with politics, said Elmer, “It’s nothing you can vote on or put political pressure on. It’s physics! It’s where the transmission does or does not exist.”

Let’s look at this from Invenergy’s point of view for a minute: Invenergy “thought they were supposed to have 900 or 1000 MW cleared, at a very high price,” said Elmer, “instead only half the plant cleared, 485 MW. What cleared went at exactly the same price as rest of pool, no premium, zero. The rest of pool came out 25 percent lower than last year’s clearing price, and the zone here [in Rhode Island] cleared at about half the price of last years price for this zone.”

This is great news for Rhode Island, but for Invenergy, not so much. “Here’s the kicker,” said Elmer, “Invenergy got a CSO for 485 MW. That means they have got to build the plant. They are on the hook. They posted a huge bond with the ISO called Financial Assurance (FA) just to be allowed to play in the auction. So now Invenergy has the worst of all worlds.

“It only sold half its capacity to the ISO and at a much lower price than anticipated, but they still have to build the plant, or as an alternative, they could sell their CSO between now and June 1, 2019 in one of the annual or monthly reconfiguration auctions that the ISO runs, and get out of the business altogether and not even build the plant.

“They are now forced to build the plant that will be much less profitable and lucrative than they thought, or get out of it.”

Currently, the EFSB is holding hearings to determine whether or not the plant will be built. In their filing with the EFSB, Invenergy’s two major arguments in favor of the plant were, “The plant is needed for system reliability, to prevent blackouts, to keep the lights on” and “The plant will end up lowering the bill for ratepayers,” said Elmer.

“What the results of the auction shows is that both of Invenergy’s main arguments are just wrong. They are false,” said Elmer, “The plant is not needed for system reliability, it is not needed to keep the lights on and the net effect on the clearing price is either zero or very close to zero because the plant wasn’t needed.”

“CLF is presenting three witnesses to the EFSB,” said Elmer, “one witness for each of the three arguments that Invenergy is making in favor of the plant. We’ve got one witness on the system reliability issue: Is the plant needed to keep the lights on? The answer is no and this auction proves it.

“We have a separate witness on the money issue. Will building the plant save money for rate payers? This auction result says no, the answer is no.

“And then we’ve got another witness on the climate change/carbon emission issues whose testimony is going to be that if the plant is built, it will be impossible for the state to meet its carbon emission reduction goals.”

This information is “absolutely all relevant to the EFSB. In fact, Invenergy is the party before the EFSB that raised these issues! CLF is not raising these issues. We’re addressing these issues because Invenergy raised them. In legal terms, Invenergy opened the door on each of these issues, we’re just walking through it. We’re not raising these issues, Invenergy’s raising these issues. The reason we’ve got witnesses addressing these issues is because Invenergy raised them!”

The arguments in favor of the plant that we are hearing from our elected leaders, such as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, that Rhode Island suffers from an energy “choke point” and needs this plant for grid reliability, is simply not true any more, if it ever was. Given this new information, Senator Whitehouse should now feel very free to change his position on the proposed plant.

The low energy prices available now allows Rhode Island the luxury of planning a just transition to renewable energy sources and the time we need to concentrate on efforts to lower the amount of energy we need. Political leadership is needed to take advantage of this opportunity, and should not be squandered on an unnecessary fossil fuel plant that will harm Rhode Island’s environment and keep us addicted to fossil fuels for at least another half century.

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 25, 2016May 1, 2016

Invenergy’s proposed power plant will burn oil

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

The Clear River Energy Center, a power plant that Invenergy wants to build in Burrillville, has been advertised as a “natural” gas powered facility that will cut climate change causing emissions, but Invenergy’s plans call for “two one million gallon fuel oil storage tanks on site.” The power plant planned for Burrillville is to be equipped with “new combustion turbines” that will be “dual fuel,” meaning they will be able to burn gas or oil.

“In order to comply with the Pay-for-Performance initiative, many natural gas generators are installing dual fuel capability,” said Invenergy, during their presentation to the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB). “Duel fuel facilities typically burn fuel oil during periods of natural gas scarcity, leading to overall more emissions intensive footprints than facilities that have secured firm natural gas as a cleaner solution, such as Clear River.” (emphasis mine)

It should be noted that Invenergy is planning to buy “firm gas.” They are building their plant on land adjacent to the Spectra gas pipeline, and they are actually going to enter into a contract guaranteeing them gas. Invenergy may be the first electricity power plant in the entire ISO-NE footprint to contract for firm gas. Invenergy hopes that this will ensure that their plant needs to burn oil very seldom. There is a plus and a minus to contracting for firm gas. The minus is that you pay a premium for the guarantee of firm delivery. The plus is that you are guaranteed delivery of much cheaper gas.

However, the term “natural gas scarcity” could refer to any time that natural gas has become more expensive than oil. Every economic textbook begins by explaining the scarcity/price relationship. So it follows that Invenergy intends the Clear River Energy Center to generate its power with oil in the event that gas prices become prohibitive. (As of publication Invenergy has not responded to questions about this.)

Fortunately, shale gas production and fracking will provide cheap, clean natural gas for the next hundred years right? (Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that methane is 80x more potent as a GHG than C02, so the methane emissions are a huge concern.)

Not quite, say an ever increasing number of experts.

As Bill Powers wrote on Forbes, “While many grandiose claims about the potential supply of shale gas, such as ‘the US has a 100-year supply’, have been made in recent years; almost none have ever been supported by any empirical evidence.”

Powers, who does not consider himself an environmentalist, goes on to explain that his analysis of the gas industry does not support the “wildly optimistic” the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s enthusiasm about gas production.

John Manning, at the International Banker, agrees. After presenting a short history followed by a look at the economic impacts of the expensive technology and costly environmental effects of fracking, Manning notes the trend of “a downward revision of the estimated shale oil and gas reserves in the country.”

Manning goes on to say, “A new report from the EIA has revealed that the Monterey shale basin in California, which was previously thought to hold 15.4 billion recoverable barrels of crude, making it the most promising untapped deposit, actually holds just 4% of this amount, or 600 million barrels. Exploitation of the Monterey shale was to create 2.6 million new jobs and add $24.6 billion in tax revenues by 2020. This is a heavy blow, and when it is added to the other pressures on the industry, it resonates all the more deeply as it raises questions about the deposits that have already been exploited, the reserves of which are being reported by the oil industry itself. The future of energy will be all about sustainability and within the fracking industry sustainability is in rather short supply.” (emphasis mine)

Then there’s this graph, courtesy of the Post Carbon Institute, which says that the EIA has been seriously exaggerating gas production.

Finally, take a look at ShaleBubble.org which makes the progressive, environmentalist argument for the gas bubble. The idea that our coming reliance on natural gas is little more than an industry ruse to keep us all hooked on fossil fuels suddenly starts to seem like a very real possibility.

So let’s go back to Invenergy’s plans for Burrillville, which include “dual fuel” combustion turbines. All of Invenergy’s pollution reduction promises are based on the burning of fracked methane (natural gas) which means (again, putting aside the fact that methane is 80x more potent as a GHG than C02, so the methane emissions are a huge concern) that when the plant burns oil, it will generate the very kind of climate changing pollution it has ostensibly been built to prevent.

And Invenergy is fast tracking their application with the EFSB. They want all project permits to be granted this year so they can begin construction by early 2017 and start producing energy by June 2019.

Why the rush?

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) quotes Invenergy as saying it wants to “bid into the ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity Auction number 10 (“FCA 10”) in February 2016, and if selected, commercial operation of the Facility will be required by June 1, 2019, with significant penalties due if this capacity obligation is not met.”

“Invenergy,” says the CLF, “for reasons that seemed appropriate to Invenergy” has put itself in the position of losing a lot of money if their new plant is not producing electricity by 2019. Later in their brief the CLF says, “Invenergy chose to participate in the upcoming auction before it had any of the permits required for its proposed plant, and, as a result, Invenergy is now trying to stampede the EFSB into processing its (Invenergy’s) application prematurely, even while that application is facially incomplete in multiple respects.”

Instead of producing a complete proposal, as required by law, the CLF contends that Invenergy submitted an incomplete application. The CLF does not speculate as to why Invenergy has put itself in such an unfavorable position.

But a clue might be found on the ShaleBubble.org website:

“An exhaustive, county-by-county analysis of the 12 major shale plays in the U.S. (accounting for 89% of current tight oil and 88% of current shale gas production) concludes that both oil and natural gas production will peak this decade and decline to a small fraction of current production by 2040.”

In other words, by 2019, when the plant is operational, there’s a good chance that the gas bubble will have burst or will be about to. Domestic oil and gas prices will soar, leaving only imported oil as an economically viable fuel source. And guess what?

The Burrillville power plant is ready to burn oil.

Now, because oil prices are certain to rise and because power plants burning oil are more heavily regulated and therefore more costly and limited in their operation, the business case for the Invenergy plant running as an oil plant is very different and much less plausible than running on gas. That said, the most compelling case for the new plant is based on cost savings and meeting energy needs. If gas skyrockets in price, so will the cost of energy. Since gas is a limited commodity whether their is a bubble or not, the price is sure to rise. The price trends on renewables, however, is downward.

January 13, 2016May 3, 2016

Fossil Free RI statement on Invenergy power plant hearing

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

At its public meeting today, the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board postponed ruling on giving grassroots groups and individuals the opportunity to get a fair hearing of their objections to the Clear River Energy Center, a fracked-gas power plant proposed by Invenergy, based in Chicago, IL. The board will announce its final ruling on this matter at the next public hearing, scheduled for January 29.

The two remaining members of the three who should make up the board serve at the pleasure of Governor Raimondo, who is on record supporting expansion of the “natural” gas infrastructure. As a result, Janet Coit, one of the two board members, is in a bind. She is Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and an avid environmentalist. Last summer, she spoke at the Sierra Club-sponsored rally, “The Environment is Everyone’s Business.” Coit is painfully aware of the toll climate change is already taking on life in Narragansett Bay. At the rally, she referred to a “profound experience” she had looking at colonial nesting birds on Hope Island. She said: “There are several islands in the Bay that used to host colonies of nesting terns and now they are submerged.”

Said Lisa Petrie of Fossil Free Rhode Island: “We’re calling on Governor Raimondo to wake up and recognize that building more gas-fired power plants threatens the future of our state and of humanity as a whole.” Indeed, the Invenergy proposal is inconsistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, which determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. This language parallels that of the 2007 denial of a fossil-fuel plant permit by Roderick Brembly, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Obviously, team Raimondo is lagging reality by almost a decade.

Fossil Free Rhode Island reiterated that Governor Raimondo’s policies violate Article 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the supreme law of the state, which clearly specifies the duty “to provide for the conservation of the air, land, water, plant, animal, mineral and other natural resources of the state.”

The Conservation Law Foundation has put forth that, by increasing Rhode Island’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Clear River Energy Center would violate the Resilient Rhode Island Act of 2014. The foundation urged the Board to terminate its deliberations, which would effectively deny Invenergy the permit it seeks.

The Burrillville Land Trust, in a blistering take down of Invenergy’s proposal, argued for the same and writes: “We are being denied an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way because of mis-information, inadequate information and outright absence of information.”

Governor Raimondo has tried to make the case that Invenergy’s Energy Center will bring jobs to Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council, in its request for late intervention, agrees with the governor. This view is untenable and Fossil Free Rhode Island referred to a recent report of the Political Economy Research Institute of UMass in Amherst that states: “New investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will generate more jobs for a given amount of spending than maintaining or expanding each country’s existing fossil fuel sectors.”

Fossil Free Rhode Island once again drew attention to current research that shows that, given the urgency of dealing with climate change, “natural” gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal and oil. In other words, Invenergy’s proposed power plant is bad for Rhode Island on all counts: physics, economics and morality.

Sister Mary Pendergast, one of the individual intervenors, said: “I do not think that the spiritual and moral issues of environmental ethics will be adequately represented by excluding my testimony. Any decision the Siting Board makes that is good for the corporation, but not for the environment, is a bad decision and we will live to regret it.”

The Board referred to the ambiguous rules under which they operate. They seem to interpret the rules as the requirement of attorney representation. This interpretation would exclude virtually all members of the public who filed for the status of intervenor. Pat Fontes, representing Occupy Providence, said: “The refusal to admit the voice of Occupy Providence in the deliberations of this board would symbolize and contribute to the likelihood that ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ will indeed perish from the earth.”

[From a press release]

RI Future covered the hearing here: Strong public opposition to Burrillville power plant at hearing

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.

January 7, 2016January 7, 2016

Invenergy fails to gag activists on power plant intervention

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

During the last two days activists filed rebuttals with the Energy Facility Siting Board as they contest Invenergy’s attempt to suppress public input on its proposal to build a fracked-gas power plant proposal.

In a press release late last month Fossil Free Rhode Island cited as reasons for filing a motion for intervention with the Board:

The construction of the proposed power plant —part of the energy policy of team Raimondo— would slow down the transition to renewable energy.

As a recent report of the PERI Institute of UMass in Amherst states: “New investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will generate more jobs for a given amount of spending than maintaining or expanding each country’s existing fossil fuel sectors.”

“Natural” gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal and oil. Clearly, team Raimondo is wrong on all counts: physics, economics and morality.

In response to Invenergy’s objections to their Motions for Intervention Sister Mary Pendergast, Occupy Providence and Fossil Free Rhode Island argue that the company misconstrues the rules according to which the Board operates.

The activists also take Invenergy to task on its claim that they lack sufficient interest to justify intervention. They remind the company of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which declared that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. They also remind Invenergy of the Endangerment Finding of 2009 of the Environmental Protection Agency that determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

In a landmark environmental case (Payne & Buttler v. Providence Gas Co., 1910) the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that citizens can sue corporations for damages caused by “deleterious and poisonous substances.”

If these facts, rulings and liabilities do not constitute a direct interest, nothing will.

Occupy Providence, in its rebuttal, said:

Invenergy cannot credibly argue that Occupy Providence lacks sufficient interests to justify intervention in spite of the fact that “the proposed plant will produce greenhouse gases highly injurious to the 99% for the purpose of producing profits which will go almost entirely and certainly disproportionately to the 1%.”

Sister Mary Pendergast echoed the same sentiment and quoted from Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’:

26. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is minimal access to clean and renewable energy.”

Two members of the Board serve at the pleasure of Governor Raimondo. That does not bode well for the impartiality of the Board. This is very troubling when it is clear that the Raimondo administration fails to understand the moral imperative to act on climate change.

Is there any ethical system under the Sun that holds that near-term profit is the ultimate standard? It is certainly not what is meant by the Affirmation of Humanism that proclaims:

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

Nor is it consistent with, as the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change puts it:

Re-focus their concerns from unethical profit from the environment, to that of preserving it and elevating the condition of the world’s poor.

Citizens of Rhode Island understand that intervention is fully justified and, in spite of Invenergys’ claim to the contrary, that the public interest is not adequately represented by a state government and its corporate allies who willfully act in violation of Article 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the supreme law of the State which establishes the duty to provide for the conservation of the State’s air, water and land.

Note added after original post: Also the RI Democrats of America (RIPDA) have filed a reply to Invenergy’s objection to their motion for intervention. In their conclusion they write:

Invenergy’s desire to block RIPDA’s involvement should concern both the Board and the general public, as it suggests that Invenergy wishes to limit the discourse on this topic and stack the deck in its favor.

January 4, 2016March 31, 2016

CLF uses Resilient RI Act to block Invenergy’s fossil fuel 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

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) against “the application of Invenergy for a permit to build a new 900-megawatt (MW) fossil-fuel power plant in Burrillville, Rhode Island.”

In a blog post, Jerry Elmer, Senior Attorney at CLF in Providence said that the Motion “relies in part on the provisions of the Resilient Rhode Island Act, enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly in 2014… The Resilient Rhode Island Act declares that it is the public policy of Rhode Island to reduce annual statewide carbon emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, 45 percent by 2035, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040.”

This is the first time the Resilient Rhode Island Act has been used in this manner.

“Invenergy’s application to the EFSB,” says Elmer, “is incomplete because the application fails to address these requirements.” The Resilient Rhode Island Act “created the EFSB and the EFSB’s own rules require that permit applications must be complete when they are filed, and that incomplete applications will be rejected.”

Elmer says that Invenergy’s application is especially troubling because the company, “wants to build two separate on-site oil tanks of one million gallons each – and, after coal, oil is the dirtiest, most polluting fuel used in New England to generate electricity…” More ominously, “Invenergy fails to mention how it plans to control any of its unhealthy air pollution, let alone its climate-warming carbon emissions.”

The CLF also explains in its motion, “why Invenergy is trying to stampede the EFSB into a hurried decision based on an incomplete application.”

Invenergy made a decision to take on a so-called ‘Capacity Supply Obligation‘ (CSO) from New England’s regional grid operator, ISO-New England, before Invenergy had any of permits required to build its proposed plant. The CSO means that, by June 1, 2019, Invenergy’s plant must be up and running and ready to supply energy to the regional grid.

“If Invenergy does have its plant operational by June 1, 2019, Invenergy gets tens of millions of dollars a year from the ISO-run energy markets in so-called ‘capacity payments.’ If Invenergy does not have its plant operational by June 1, 2019, the company stands to forfeit tens of millions of dollars of bonding it put up with the ISO.

“Not all companies that build power plants in New England choose to do things in that order. But Invenergy did – and now Invenergy should be forced to live with the consequences of its own decision.”

In a press release, Elmer said, “Spending 700 million dollars on a fuel source our own laws are making obsolete is as foolish as it is futile. New England is on a path to be carbon-free by 2050, and we have a legal and moral responsibility to see it through.”

Elmer asks interested members of the public to contact their leaders in government, such as Governor Raimondo, Nicholas Mattiello and Teresa Paiva Weed and let them know that you are opposed to the build up of fossil fuel infrastructure in Rhode Island.

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