State stalls power plant application for 90 days
BURRILLVILLE – The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) Thursday voted to suspend the application for Invenergy’s proposed $700 million natural gas-fired power plant in Pascoag for 90 days and to order Invenergy to report back in 60 days with a status update on its efforts to secure a water source for the plant.
That means Chicago-based Invenergy has until mid-December to submit a status report that identifies a potential water supply as well as information regarding the quality and quantity of that water; how it will be transported; and any contingency plans.
Invenergy would then have 30 days after that - roughly mid-January - to come up with a formal water supply agreement before a review of the proposal can move forward.
“We appreciate the Energy Facility Siting Board’s decision to temporarily ‘pause’ the review process as we finalize an alternate water supply for the Clear River Energy Center,” Invenergy Development Director John Niland said in a statement after the show cause hearing in Warwick. “We look forward to presenting those details to the board in the near future and continuing the process.”
Burrillville Town Manager Michael C. Wood, in a statement after the hearing, called into question the objectivity and motives of the EFSB.
“After it became clear that the EFSB was not going to dismiss the docket, the Town Council’s attorneys made very sound and reasonable arguments to the board, including recommending a course of action that would have required Invenergy to produce meaningful results or suffer the consequences, but our arguments fell on deaf ears,” he said.
The board’s vote to suspend did not sit well with the handful of power plant protestors in the audience who booed with the vote was taken.
“It’s disgusting,” said Burrillville Town Council President John Pacheco. “We followed the process, and look what that got us. But we’re not giving up.”
The three-member EFSB had issued an executive order demanding that Invenergy show cause as to why the docket for the proposed power
plant shouldn’t be suspended after Invenergy failed to provide a cooling water source for the facility after the Pascoag Utility District took the proposed water supply off the table. Thursday’s hearing was also held to discuss motions by the town of Burrillville and the Conservation Land Trust to dismiss the power plant application entirely. The EFSB did not consider those motions, which will be heard at a later date.
That did not stop the town’s attorney, Michael R. McElroy, from reiterating his argument that Invenergy’s application should be dismissed - not suspended - because it is incomplete and lacks a water supply plan.
Over the summer, the Burrillville Planning Board and Zoning Board rejected Invenergy’s proposal in advisory opinions submitted to the EFSB. Both panels cited serious concerns about water usage, noise, traffic and the potential of the plant to negatively impact the environment
Before that, Harrisville Fire District Operating Committee voted to reject the company’s proposal to pay for a new well and purchase water to cool the plant. And following that vote, the Pascoag Utility District Board of Utility Commissioners formally voted against Invenergy’s proposal to reactivate and use water from the two Pascoag Utility District wells that were contaminated with MTBE in 2001.
McElroy said in his motion to dismiss that Invenergy’s application originally envisioned the use of water from MTBE polluted Well 3A of the Pascoag Utility District. However, on Aug. 19, the Pascoag Utility District’s Board of Utility Commissioners voted not to supply the project with water and terminated its letter of intent with Invenergy, thus closing the door on Invenergy’s planned used of Well 3A.
“The 30-day extension that this board granted has come and gone and still they do not have a water plan,” McElroy said. “Suspending the docket instead of dismissing it would give Invenergy what amounts to the gift of an indefinite extension, subjecting the town to endless expensive litigation. Enough is enough. It’s time for this board to dismiss this application - not give the gift of another extension.”
“Invenergy needs to suffer the consequences of its own actions by not having a binding (water) agreement with Pascoag,” he said. “They should not be able to profit from their own mistake.”
McElroy suggested that if the board was intent on suspending the application at the very least there should be a conditional order of dismissal so that if there is no potential water plan in place 60 days from now the board could dismiss the application at that time.
“This plant would be a polluting monster that would violate the town’s comprehensive plan and it’s zoning ordinances. It would negatively impact the quality of life of all Burrillville residents,” he said.
Invenergy attorney Alan Shore, who accompanied Niland, objected to an outright dismissal, saying a suspension would protect the efforts of those town and state agencies that had been asked to submit advisory opinions on the application.
“The most important consideration is efficiency and preserving the effort and cost that has been expended to date,” he said. “If you suspend you preserve all the efforts of these other agencies and you can resume the process and not have to ask those agencies to do it all over.”
Shore said suspending the pro- ceedings is not unprecedented, adding that when the Ocean State Power plant in Burrillville was proposed years ago, there were questions about that plant’s water supply and the EFSB agreed to suspend the docket for several months.
“So, there is precedent for this type of circumstance,” he said.
It was EFSB board member Janet Coit who made the motion to suspend for 90 days, but she strongly suggested that the board would need to see progress in Invenergy’s search for water within 60 days.
“Under our rules, reasonable opportunity should be given to the applicant so I’m inclined to suspend, but I’m concerned about any type of indefinite suspension,” she said.
EFSB member Parag Agrawal agreed saying, “We want to see some type of progress in 60 days.”
“I agree that under the act the matter should be suspended for 90 days,” said EFSB Chairwoman Meg Curren. “In mid-January we would come back to either react to a plan in front of us or to dismiss.”