PROVIDENCE – Whether state regulators’ approval of plans to relocate the National Grid electrical towers and power lines above India Point Park amounted to a perfunctory – and illegal – rubber stamp was the central question in arguments before the R.I. Supreme Court Tuesday.
The virtual hearing marks the latest in a two-decades-long battle over where the overhead transmission lines and lattice towers crossing the Providence park should go.
Inside Scoop on PC’s Sports Administration Program
This past August Providence College announced its newest graduate program, an online Master of Science…
Learn More
Community groups and the city of Providence want the lines buried underground, preserving the waterfront views and economic development that accompanies it, along with environmental and safety benefits. National Grid initially agreed to put the power lines below ground under a 2004 settlement agreement.
But subsequent review of the burial plan deemed it infeasible, and the $34 million price tag too expensive. So National Grid sought approval of one of the alternative plans in the agreement, which would relocate the 100-year-old lines slightly north of their current configuration, crossing the Seekonk River just south of the Washington Bridge near Interstate 195.
The R.I. Energy Facility Siting Board in 2018 signed off on National Grid’s relocation plan, prompting the same groups who wanted underground lines to take their fight to the courts. The appeal filed by Friends of India Point Park and the city of Providence says state regulators failed to consider the environmental and socio economic impacts of the alternative power line plan in their approval, and asks the court to send the decision back for subsequent hearings and review.
In arguments before the court Monday, Patrick Lynch, an attorney representing Friends of India Point Park, accused the state energy board of “willfully ignoring” its own rules. State laws governing the board require that they determine that major energy projects do not cause “unacceptable harm to the environment and will enhance the socio-economic fabric of the state.” The four-page 2018 decision is a “paltry summary” that fails to prove this review, Lynch said.
The R.I. Attorney General’s office also filed a brief in the appeal finding that the Energy Facility Siting Board “did not evaluate the project based on that criteria,” according to a statement.
Jeffrey Pine, the attorney for the city of Providence, also went after National Grid in his arguments, saying the company failed to complete the financial, environmental and construction reviews that would prove the overhead power line alternative was the only option.
“National Grid has failed every step of the way to even get to first base as to what their responsibilities are,” Pine said.
Attorneys for National Grid, the city of East Providence and the Energy Facility Siting Board pushed back, pointing to the 2004 agreement which the city of Providence also signed as sufficient. The energy board’s 2018 approval was really a compliance order reiterating the terms of the 2004 agreement, said Steven Boyajian, an attorney representing National Grid.
Boyajian also said the appeal was “more than a decade too late,” noting the 2004 agreement went unchallenged for more than 14 years despite clearly stipulating a plan for overhead power lines if the below-ground choice didn’t pan out.
While the court did not rule on the appeal Tuesday, at least one justice – Maureen McKenna Goldberg – appeared to side with National Grid. Goldberg peppered Lynch and Pine with questions during an at-times heated back-and-forth over the details of the 2004 agreement, suggesting that the original deal was all that was needed for the approved plan to go forward.
“They were given a license to do this,” Goldberg said. “The idea was to pick one [of the four plans] and keep us apprised of what they’re doing.”
Lynch in rebuttal pointed out how much has changed in the 18 years since that first settlement was reached – an overhead bridge built above I-195 and a new brewery and hotel along the entrances to the park – necessitating an updated and more thorough review.
“A whole lot of disinfectant needs to be sprayed onto the process directing them to do their job,” he said.
When the court will make its decision is unclear.
Nancy Lavin is a staff writer for the PBN. Contact her at Lavin@PBN.com.
