PUC urging state regulators to approve proposed natural gas power plant in Burrillville

A RENDERING of the proposed natural gas-powered electrical plant in Burrillville.  / COURTESY INVENERGY LLC
A RENDERING of the proposed natural gas-powered electrical plant in Burrillville. / COURTESY INVENERGY LLC

(Updated 3:09 and 4:46 p.m.)
Citing demand, cost and reliability, the R.I. Public Utilities Commission is urging state regulators to approve a proposed natural gas power plant in Burrillville.
Chicago-based Invenergy Thermal Development LLC is proposing to build a 850-1,000-megawatt natural gas power plant in the northern Rhode Island community, which has been the focus of much debate in the Ocean State.
The R.I. Energy Facility Siting Board, a three-member board charged with deciding whether to allow the $700-million power plant known as the Clear River Energy Center, asked for advisory opinions from various stakeholders, including the PUC. The commission on Monday filed its opinion, calling on the EFSB to allow the proposed power plant – despite opposition.
“It is my opinion that Invenergy has met its burden of proof that the entire [facility] is needed in order to meet the electric generation reliability needs of Southeastern New England and Rhode Island consumers,” wrote PUC Commissioner Herbert F. DiSimone Jr. “I further believe that the facility will provide meaningful savings in the capacity market for a period up to four years, and generate savings to wholesale energy prices in New England for many years, the effects of which should benefit Rhode Island consumers.”
The PUC comprises three commissioners, but DiSimone was the only one to render an opinion on the matter. PUC chairperson Margaret E. Curran is precluded from the advisory process, as she also sits on the EFSB. PUC newcomer Marion Gold – who would typically partake in the process with DiSimone – recused herself to “avoid any appearance of impropriety.” Gold previously served as R.I. Office of Energy Resources commissioner and formerly appeared before the PUC on the matter. She’s also previously spoken out in favor of the power plant, but not in her capacity as a regulator.
With the opinion left to DiSimone, the commissioner voiced his support, arguing the power plant would add reliability to the electric grid and benefit ratepayers in the long term.
“I further believe that the facility will provide meaningful savings in the capacity market for a period up to four years, and generate savings to wholesale energy prices in New England, the effects of which should benefit Rhode Island consumers,” DiSimone wrote. “As the facility will be operated as a merchant plant by Invenergy, all of the costs and risk relative to the plant will be borne by the applicant and not the ratepayers.”
The opinion likely comes as welcome news to many of the state’s largest energy consumers, whose bottom lines suffer from high electricity prices in Rhode Island. But it’s a stark contrast to the ongoing efforts of environmentalist, renewable-energy advocates and many Burrillville residents who are fighting the power plant. The opposition argues the plant is a step in the wrong direction, as it increases the state’s reliance on fossil fuels and will hurt its efforts toward diversifying its energy portfolio with more renewable energy resources.
There’s also been debate about whether the state really needs the added capacity.
DiSimone, however, believes the need is real – at least for now.
“I am convinced that energy efficiency and renewable energy supply cannot, at this time, reliably meet the need for which [the power plant] will be built,” he wrote. “The record revealed that at least in the foreseeable future, generating units such as the proposed [power plant] facility are needed in order to meet Rhode Island’s clean energy goals.”
John Niland, development director for Invenergy, said, “We welcome the thoughtful analysis by the R.I. PUC, which clearly recognizes the important role the Clear River Energy Center would play in meeting Rhode Island’s energy demand by generating efficient, affordable and reliable energy this state needs. As the PUC notes, the project would also become an essential part of building a cleaner energy mix for Rhode Island by displacing older, less efficient and more polluting generation sources, and supporting the introduction of more renewable energy into the state’s grid.”
A handful of other advisory opinions were also filed Monday, including the OER, Gold’s former office, which echoed the PUC, saying the facility would help reduce dangerous emissions associated with electricity used in Rhode Island, “which is derived from generating resources across New England, as well as imports from neighboring regions.”
Carol Grant, the current OER commissioner, wrote in the opinion that the “development and operation is consistent with state energy policies, and will not hinder Rhode Island from meeting its [greenhouse gas] reduction targets.” And that it would “not be detrimental to implementing Rhode Island’s policies and statutory initiatives to increase energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable sources of electricity.”

The R.I. Department of Environmental Management broke down the project into various sections. And while the department doesn’t believe the project would negatively affect the state’s ability to comply with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative annual emission cap, or its Federal Clean Power Plan, it does raises concerns about how it would likely impact the natural environment, forest, and fish and wildlife surrounding the proposed site. In some instances, there was not enough information available to render an opinion:
“DEM cannot, with such little site-specific information, make conjectures of the full suite of species that would be impacted by the project and the exact nature and extent of those impacts. It can, however, reasonably assume that the further fragmentation of one of the largest remaining intact forests in the state will negatively impact area fish and wildlife.”

The proposed power plant also has a water problem, as the Pascoag Utility District last week filed an opinion saying it has voted to not supply the project with water.
“[The] Pascoag Utility District has concluded that use of the [well] to supply water for this proposed project poses too many significant risks to the environment and that the proposed treatment systems cannot ensure that the risks to the environment and that public health will be eliminated,” according to its opinion.

Joseph Raymond, the Burrillville building official and zoning enforcement officer, also raised concerns about the location of the proposed power plant, criticizing Invenergy’s approach to siting the project.
“From the beginning, I have been unable to get pertinent information needed to make the advisory opinions you have requested,” Raymond wrote. “I believe the major obstacle is two years ago, Invenergy identified a parcel of land, did what they had to do to get control [of] the site, and has now put themselves into the position of having to defend why this parcel was determined by Invenergy to be the ideal site for the [plant] when more and more it appears not to be, at least speaking as the zoning official.”
With the mixed bag of opinions, it’s unclear how much weight will be given to each one.
“It appears that the Energy Facility Siting Board has the daunting task in making this decision as to whether the [power plant] should be constructed,” he wrote. “I do not envy you having to make this decision.”

- Advertisement -

The EFSB is expected to make its decision this fall.

No posts to display