By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff
The need for the proposed
Burrillville power plant — a key issue in deciding the fate of the fossil-fuel
project — was thrown into question Oct. 31 by the Energy Facilities Siting
Board (EFSB).
EFSB members Janet Coit and Meredith
Brady — chairwoman Margaret Curran excused herself at the midpoint of the
recent proceedings — ruled that developments in September and earlier have
nullified a key advisory opinion that the board relies on for its decision.
The advisory opinion from the Public Utilities Commission,
submitted Sept. 12, 2016, argued that the power plant was “cost justified” and
necessary to deliver power to the regional grid while saving ratepayers money.
The report also concluded that renewable energy and energy efficiency wouldn’t be able to supplant the power from the nearly 1,000-megawatt Clear River Energy Center and that the natural-gas/diesel facility is needed to meet “clean energy goals.”
The report also concluded that renewable energy and energy efficiency wouldn’t be able to supplant the power from the nearly 1,000-megawatt Clear River Energy Center and that the natural-gas/diesel facility is needed to meet “clean energy goals.”
All of those assertions were thrown
into doubt in September when ISO New England, the operator of the regional
power grid, took away a power-purchase agreement from Invenergy Thermal
Development LLC, the Chicago-based developer of the proposed Clear River Energy
Center.
“Things have changed a lot in the past three years, and in the last two years since we’ve had the advisory opinion from the PUC,” Coit said.
Coit noted her failed motion to have
the PUC update its advisory opinion in March 2017. She and Brady both said the
EFSB has the authority to reject, approve, or modify an advisory opinion.
At the Oct. 31 EFSB hearing, the
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the town of Burrillville presented
testimony from Invenergy’s expert witnesses that declared the power-purchase
agreement, called a capacity-supply obligation or CSO, was proof that the power
plant was needed in the years ahead, while the lack of one proved the plant was
unnecessary.
They pointed to a 2017 decision by the Connecticut Siting Council that rejected a 1,000-megawatt power plant in Killingly for lacking a CSO.
They pointed to a 2017 decision by the Connecticut Siting Council that rejected a 1,000-megawatt power plant in Killingly for lacking a CSO.
The proposed Burrillville facility
received more bad news in September when Invenergy was told not to submit its
second 485-megawatt turbine for an upcoming CSO auction.
Coit and Brady alluded that both
were reasons as to why the PUC advisory opinion was “stale.”
Michael Blazer, chief legal council
for Invenergy, said the PUC advisory opinion didn’t need to be rejected and
that testimony at future hearings would update any information that is
outdated. Blazer has maintained that delays in the hearing process prompted ISO
New England to withdraw the CSO.
Southeastern New England needs a fast-starting, cleaner-burning power plant as older, higher-polluting plants retire and renewable energy gains a foothold in the region’s energy mix, he said.
Southeastern New England needs a fast-starting, cleaner-burning power plant as older, higher-polluting plants retire and renewable energy gains a foothold in the region’s energy mix, he said.
Praise for the EFSB’s decision was
swift by opponents of the $1 billion project.
“We are pleased with the board’s
commonsense decision,” said Burrillville town manager Michael Wood. “The town
is painstakingly making the case that building a new power plant in Rhode
Island is not justified.”
“How much more proof do we need that
this plant is unnecessary?” asked CLF senior attorney Jerry Elmer. “Today’s
decision makes it clear: Invenergy needs to admit defeat and stop forcing this
unwanted plant on Rhode Islanders.”
The conclusions of the PUC advisory
opinion will no longer be considered by the EFSB in its review of the
power-plant application. A new advisory opinion from the PUC will not be
sought. Updated supplemental information will be submitted by Invenergy, CLF,
and the town of Burrillville by Dec. 14.
The Invenergy application is on hold
until late November, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is expected
to affirm or reject the decision by ISO New England to cancel Invenergy’s
power-purchase agreement.
A multi-day hearing to address the
cost benefits and need of the Clear River Energy Center is scheduled to begin
Jan. 8.
On Nov. 28, the EFSB is scheduled to
hear testimony about traffic and a new access road to the proposed power plant.
On Dec. 5-6, testimony is expected to cover lighting impacts and cultural and
historical impacts. The advisory opinions from the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management and the Burrillville town planner are also scheduled
to be debated on those dates.
A decision on the power plant isn’t
expected until February or later.
