Invenergy
blames its failures and delays on power plant opponents in FERC filing
Invenergy‘s proposed $1 billion fracked gas and diesel
oil burning power plant is in trouble.
But instead of taking responsibility for
its own poor decisions, lack of honesty and bad planning, Invenergy is blaming
“opponents” of the project, including this author and UpriseRI, of delaying the permitting of the power
plant.
On September 20, in the
midst of the Energy Facility
Siting Board (EFSB)
hearings to determine the fate of the power plant, Invenergy dropped a
bombshell: For the first time in its 22 year history, ISO-New England canceled a Capacity Supply Obligation (CSO).
CSOs are essentially
promises to provide energy into the electrical grid at an agreed upon price and
at an agreed upon time. Without a power plant, Invenergy cannot be counted on
to keep that promise, so ISO-New England canceled their CSO.
Invenergy is now
contesting ISO-New England’s decision before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
In its filing,
Invenergy makes some pretty startling claims, and subtly rewrites history to
cast itself as the victim, rather than as a perpetrator foisting an unwanted
and unneeded power plant.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Damn right it's community opposition that is killing this project. For once, Invenergy is telling the truth. If not for the intensity of opposition - even in Charlestown! - the Raimondo administration would have rammed this project through the approval process. I hope Invenergy's opponents will not get defensive about being "blamed" but rather accept what I see as a grudging compliment to the power of people exercising their Constitutional right to "petition the government for redress of grievances." - Will Collette
“Aside from it further delaying the EFSB proceeding in the short-term
thereby contributing to ISO-NE’s decision to terminate Clear River’s CSO in
furtherance, unintentionally, of the Project’s opponents’ objectives, over the
longer term, the filing will send an unintended message to all those parties
who oppose gas-fired generation in general… that, as long as they can cause
enough of a ruckus, they can wait out the Project Sponsor and effectively let
the Tariff do their bidding.”
(Loosely speaking, the
“Tariff” refers to the set of rules by which ISO and the electrical grid is
managed.)
Invenergy is not just
arguing their particular case. They are asking FERC to look at the public’s
response to fossil fuel projects in general, and asking the Commission to rule
in a way that minimizes the effectiveness of local resistance to new fossil
fuel infrastructure nationwide.
“To be sure, the issue
is not whether Clear River has experienced an especially litigious permitting
process in today’s environment,” writes Invenergy in their filing, “but that
its opponents’ tactics are increasingly common and, as such, these types of
extensive delays are now the norm in New England and elsewhere. It is
essential, then, that the Tariff be applied in a manner that recognizes that
such delays are the norm, and not the egregious case warranting termination.”
Invenergy rewrites the
history of opposition to its proposed power plant power plant when it claims:
“Initial local support
resulted in a tax and property value agreement with the Town of Burrillville
(which was executed in November 2016), and on March 6, 2015, Clear River
entered into a letter of intent (LOI) with the Pascoag Utility District (PUD) to develop a water supply
plan for the project; then, on September 25, 2015, Clear River and the PUD
entered into a second LOI to develop a more detailed plan to design and install
a treatment system to reactivate a contaminated local well for Clear River’s
sole use. However, almost a year later, after an aggressive campaign by local
and outside parties, the PUD Board voted to terminate the LOI in August of
2016. This, coupled with delays in obtaining an alternate water source
(resulting from the same opposition efforts) created an approximately one year
delay in the EFSB permitting process.”
In truth, the “property
value agreement” Invenergy entered into with the Town of Burrillville was a
tactic of resistance, not “local support.”
When the Burrillville Town Council presented
the tax treaty with Invenergy to to people of Burrillville, they presented it
as a way to get the money they needed to fight the company during the EFSB
hearings and in court if necessary. As part of the negotiations, Invenergy
began to pay the Town money, money the Town plunged into the legal battle
against the proposed power plant.
Attorney Michael McElroy, who negotiated
the tax treaty and is representing the Town of Burrillville before the EFSB,
said that the opposing the power plant and signing a tax treaty were not
inconsistent actions and would not be seen that way.
“I want to make it…
clear that I see no inconsistency between entering into these agreements and
dead set opposition to the plant,” said McElroy.
In their filing with
FERC, Invenergy is trying to cast the tax treaty as proof that the project once
had support in the Town of Burrillville, but this is not the case.
In the filing, Invenergy
hints that the board members of the EFSB may be overworked and not up to the
task of processing the application quickly, writing, “The ineluctable
conclusion is that overloaded tribunals oftentimes are incapable of acting
quickly enough so as not to jeopardize the 39-month planning period.”
Reading the FERC filing,
it is apparent that Invenergy is very annoyed with the opponents of the
proposed power plant. The company notes the delays suffered when their first
choice for a water source was denied them, and the difficulty the company had
in finding a water source for it’s plant, difficulties they lay at the feet of
opponents to the power plant.
“Importantly,” writes Invenergy, “most permitting
process delays are outside of a resource’s reasonable control. Certainly, the
delays relevant here were beyond Clear River’s control.”
Invenergy sees the
actions of opponents in denying the company water as a tactic to delay the
licensing of the power plant.
“Delay, then, is the
weapon of choice: delay the permitting process and you thereby jeopardize the
project’s meeting the Tariff-required milestones,” writes Invenergy. “Delay
enough, and failure to meet those milestones can be terminal.”
As part of their filing
with FERC Invenergy included a copy of a post I wrote.
“Adding to the
challenges is the Catch-22 facing developers like Clear River when the
project’s opponents argue that permitting agencies are looking (when erroneously
urged by intervenors) to view whether a project has cleared in the auction as a
factor to be considered in their need determinations,” writes Invenergy, with a
footnote directing people to my piece.
In the footnote Invenergy explains that,
“The opposition’s erroneous ‘mantra’ is that ISO-NE’s request to terminate the
CSO stems from a determination that the Clear River Project is not needed… Need
was not a factor considered by ISO-NE.”
But I never wrote that
need was a factor considered by ISO-NE. I wrote:
Invenergy understands the question of need very well. On August 18, 2016 the company filed a brief (see here) that declared that the, “competitive market will determine whether [the proposed power plant] is necessary to meet the needs of the region.”“ISO-New England evaluates the market and sets prices that maintain system reliability while encouraging new efficient generation in the zones where needed,” writes Invenergy in their brief. With the cancellation of the CSO for Turbine 1 and Turbine 2 being disallowed in the upcoming auction, it looks like the competitive market has spoken.
It was Invenergy that
implied being granted a CSO by ISO New England was proof that their proposed
power plant is needed, not me. I merely quoted them accurately.
You can read Invenergy’s FERC filing
here.