Coverage
of Charlestown’s success at winning a place at the table documented by several
sources
By
Will Collette
My
thanks to Tim Faulkner at ecoRI and Steve Ahlquist of Rhode Island’s Future for the great coverage of last night’s
hearing.
Last
night, the Energy Facilities Siting Board ruled on a number of motions,
including Charlestown’s motion for formal intervenor status in the case
involving the proposed Invenergy fossil fuel power plant in Burrillville.
Charlestown
has a direct stake in the power plant at the far end of the state because a
single official of the Narragansett Tribe apparently signed a contract with
Invenergy to provide cooling water pumped from the aquifer that serves all of
us.
The
water would then be trucked from Charlestown by Ashaway’s Benn & Son Water
to the Invenergy plant in Burrillville, presuming that plant gets built.
The
Narragansett contract has been vigorously protested by many Narragansetts who
say the deal is illegitimate because it was never presented for tribal approval.
They vow to prevent any such water removal. Read more here
and here.
There’s
a lot of detail to the story of last night’s hearing. If you only have a
Twitter-sized memory, you probably won’t read in all (in fact, you’ve probably
moved on already).
But
for those who still read things, I present two firsthand reports from our
friends at ecoRI and RI Future where you can get the full story about what
happened and what it means.
You
should also read Catherine Hewitt’s report in the
Westerly Sun or the ProJo’s
coverage.
By Steve Ahlquist in
Rhode Island’s Future
The Energy Facilities Siting Board granted
a motion from Charlestown that allows
the town limited intervenor status in the application process concerning Invenergy‘s $1 billion fracked
gas and diesel oil burning power plant aimed at Burrillville.
Having decided, despite the arguments of Invenergy lawyers, that Charlestown is an “affected community” as defined under the Energy Facilities Siting Act, the town was allowed intervenor status as it pertains to the water supply only.
Having decided, despite the arguments of Invenergy lawyers, that Charlestown is an “affected community” as defined under the Energy Facilities Siting Act, the town was allowed intervenor status as it pertains to the water supply only.
Charlestown asked to
intervene after Invenergy announced that they had struck a deal to buy water from
the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
The aquifer that the tribe will be drawing from is the same as the one that supplies the town’s water. Narragansett Tribe members have been vocal in their opposition to the water sale, which they say was made with tribal leadership without their consent.
The aquifer that the tribe will be drawing from is the same as the one that supplies the town’s water. Narragansett Tribe members have been vocal in their opposition to the water sale, which they say was made with tribal leadership without their consent.
Anywhere from 15,000
to 750,000 gallons will be needed to cool the power plant turbines, every day.
Charlestown
Attorney Peter Ruggiero said that
there is an industrial waste landfill in the area that could be affected if the
aquifer is drawn down, risking the contamination of the entire aquifer.
Ruggiero also said that the Narragansett Tribal lands are not sovereign territory, and subject to the laws of Rhode Island.
Ruggiero also said that the Narragansett Tribal lands are not sovereign territory, and subject to the laws of Rhode Island.
As a result of this
ruling, the EFSB must hold a public hearing in Charlestown with 30 days’
advance notice.
Only after that hearing can the final hearings begin, meaning that hearings can begin no earlier than the week of December 11. The final hearing was suppose to begin on October 31.
As a date and location for the hearing Charlestown has yet to be determined, though the week of December 4 is the target and the Charlestown elementary or middle school is under consideration.
Only after that hearing can the final hearings begin, meaning that hearings can begin no earlier than the week of December 11. The final hearing was suppose to begin on October 31.
As a date and location for the hearing Charlestown has yet to be determined, though the week of December 4 is the target and the Charlestown elementary or middle school is under consideration.
“The decision to
postpone the commencement of the Final Hearing by at least 6 weeks will,
overall, help opponents of Invenergy,” wrote Conservation
Law Foundation (CLF)
attorney Jerry Elmer.
“This is because all of the recent information coming out of the ISO wholesale markets tends to show why Invenergy is not needed.”
“This is because all of the recent information coming out of the ISO wholesale markets tends to show why Invenergy is not needed.”
Other motions were
also decided Tuesday morning. Invenergy’s motion to exclude
Burrillville exhibits 20, 21, and 22 and relegate them to the status of public
comment, was approved. The exhibits consisted of the resolutions ratified by
the councils of 35 cities and towns in opposition to Invenergy’s power plant.
In arguing against including
the exhibits, Invenergy’s lawyer Elizabeth
Noonan cited the law that said exhibits can be excluded if they
are deemed prejudicial, confusing or a waste of time. She also called into
question the authenticity of the resolutions.
The EFSB agreed with
Noonan’s characterization of the 35 city and town resolutions. Attorney Jerry
Elmer noted that the resolutions are from the “legally constituted legal
entities” that are tasked with protecting the “public health, safety, and
welfare” of their inhabitants.
The Building Trades
won with their motion to have the rebuttal testimony of Dr Marc Vatter admitted. The
Building Trades were granted intervenor status as to the jobs created by the
building of the power plant. Vatter’s rebuttal testimony speaks to the supposed
need of a fracked gas power plant and is a best only tangentially related, but
the EFSB ruled in favor of the Building Trades.
Another motion, to
un-redact some of the testimony of Burrillville’s witness, Glenn Walker was deferred
until the hearings. CLF believes that “strongly supports CLF’s argument that
the Invenergy plant is not needed.”
Steve Ahlquist
is an award-winning journalist, writer, artist and founding member of the
Humanists of Rhode Island, a non-profit group dedicated to reason, compassion,
optimism, courage and action. The views expressed are his own and not
necessarily those of any organization of which he is a member. atomicsteve@gmail.com and Twitter:
@SteveAhlquist
By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff
There’s officially a new
player in the Burrillville power-plant saga.
The town of Charlestown
was recently given approval to weigh in on the proposed Clear River Energy
Center, after the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) voted 3-0 at its Oct.
17 meeting to let the coastal town join as an intervener in the case.
The decision means
Charlestown will host a public hearing and have a limited say in the remaining
months of the approval process. It also delays by about six weeks the start of
the final stage of the power-plant vetting process, which was set to start Oct.
31 and run through January.
The hearing requires a
30-day public notice and will likely be held the week after Thanksgiving at
Charlestown Elementary School, 363 Carolina Back Road. The final evidentiary
hearings will now begin Dec. 11 or later.
Charlestown sought
intervenor status after the Narragansett Indian Tribe announced plans to
sell water to Inventory Thermal Development LLC, the Chicago-based developer of
the nearly 1-gigawatt fossil-fuel power plant.
The delay is considered
a victory for opponents of the power plant, who believe that a prolonged
application process may force Invenergy to abandon the project. Due to the
latest postponement, a decision on the project isn't expected until March 2018
or later.
“The decision to
postpone the commencement of the final hearing by at least six weeks will,
overall, help opponents of Invenergy. This is because all of the recent
information coming out of the ISO (New England) wholesale markets tends to show
why Invenergy is not needed,” wrote Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), one of the intervenors in the power-plant docket.
Demand for power from
the $1 billion project is one the key issues the three-member EFSB will
consider in its deliberation, and will be debated by CLF, the town of
Burrillville, and Invenergy.
The Illinois developer says the natural-gas/diesel facility will replace retiring power plants and aid the transition to renewable energy.
CLF and the town of Burrillville argue that ISO New England has yet to agree to buy all of the electricity from the power plant and that the rapid addition of renewable energy and improvements in energy efficiency make the proposed power plant obsolete.
The Illinois developer says the natural-gas/diesel facility will replace retiring power plants and aid the transition to renewable energy.
CLF and the town of Burrillville argue that ISO New England has yet to agree to buy all of the electricity from the power plant and that the rapid addition of renewable energy and improvements in energy efficiency make the proposed power plant obsolete.
As an intervenor,
Charlestown is limited to arguing the issue of water taken from its town to
cool the power plant.
Last month, Invenergy announced that it will pay the Narragansett Indian Tribe to serve as a backup water source to its primary water source, the town of Johnston.
CLF and the town of Burrillvillle are suing Invenergy over its agreement with Johnston. The outcome of the court case was considered a critical issue in the fate of the power project until Invenergy announced its backup water sources, which also includes Benn Water of Hopkinton.
Last month, Invenergy announced that it will pay the Narragansett Indian Tribe to serve as a backup water source to its primary water source, the town of Johnston.
CLF and the town of Burrillvillle are suing Invenergy over its agreement with Johnston. The outcome of the court case was considered a critical issue in the fate of the power project until Invenergy announced its backup water sources, which also includes Benn Water of Hopkinton.
On Oct. 10, the
Charleston Town Council voted to investigate the effects of drawing water from
the tribe’s reservation, which is within the lower Wood River aquifer.
Charlestown then asked the EFSB to host a public hearing and to grant
intervenor status as an “affected community."
Invenergy argued against
granting Charlestown intervenor status because it said the town wouldn't be
directly impacted by the proposed power plant.
The EFSB made four other
decisions at its Oct. 17 hearing in favor of Invenergy.
All but one of the resolutions opposing
the Clear River Energy Center passed by 35 cities and towns in Rhode Island,
Connecticut and Massachusetts was allowed to be submitted as evidence in the
final hearing phase.
Only Burrillville’s resolution was accepted. The remaining will be classified as public comment. Invenergy had questioned the lack of an expert witness to answer questions about the resolutions.
Only Burrillville’s resolution was accepted. The remaining will be classified as public comment. Invenergy had questioned the lack of an expert witness to answer questions about the resolutions.
After the recent
hearing, Burrillville town manager Michael Wood told ecoRI News that he was
displeased with the decision.
“This (power plant) is a
statewide issue. Everyone should have a voice and a say. So it doesn’t make
sense to me,” Wood said.
The EFSB approved late-filed testimony on behalf of
Invenergy from energy economist Marc Vatter. The testimony is a rebuttal
to testimony by CLF’s
expert witness Robert Fagan, who argued that the electricity from the Clear
River Energy Center would exceed demand from the power grid.
The EFSB also delayed a
motion by CLF to expose redacted testimony from
Burrillville’s expert witness Glenn Walker, a New Hampshire-based energy
consultant.
Walker argued that there will be no demand for the electricity from the power plant in Rhode Island and New England. Invenergy claims releasing the data would hurt its business. The EFSB will decide on the motion once the final evidentiary hearings begin in December.
Walker argued that there will be no demand for the electricity from the power plant in Rhode Island and New England. Invenergy claims releasing the data would hurt its business. The EFSB will decide on the motion once the final evidentiary hearings begin in December.
EFSB hearings scheduled
for Oct. 18 and 19 have been canceled, since all of the motions and objections
were addressed at the Oct. 17 meeting.
The delay means that the
EFSB will continue to accept public comments.