Rhode Island AG seeks to file brief opposing power plant
BURRILLVILLE – Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin has come out as the first high-ranking state official to publicly oppose Invenergy’s proposed $1 billion power plant in Pascoag.
In an announcement Friday, Kilmartin added his voice to the opposition to the proposed plant, saying he intends to seek permission from the court to file an amicus brief in Rhode Island Superior Court challenging the plant’s controversial water-supply plan.
Amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.
Kilmartin says he is asking for permission to file the brief because of the “legal uncertainty” as to where In- venergy will get the water it needs to cool the facility. The Amicus brief will be filed in Superior Court in connection with two lawsuits filed against Invenergy by the Town of Burrillville and the Conservation Law Foundation last year.
The lawsuits pending before Superior Court Justice Michael A. Silverstein both seek a declaration from the court that the town of Johnston has no legal right under the 1915 Act to obtain water from Providence for the power plant. Both the Conservation Law Foundation and the Town of Burrillville are seeking a summary judgment in the matter.
Kilmartin’s opposition comes two weeks before the state Energy Facility Siting Board’s show-cause hearing on Jan. 30 at which Invenergy will be asked to show why its power plant application should not be suspended indefinitely pending the outcome of two power plant-related lawsuits currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C..
“A great deal has changed since the Invenergy power plant was proposed, and there is growing evidence that the power plant is neither needed nor a positive for our economy or our environment,” Kilmartin said in a statement Friday. “In our role as the environmental advocate for the State of Rhode Island, I believe this power plant is not in the best interest of the state, the taxpayers, or our natural resources.”
Kilmartin cited several areas of concern as the reasons for his opposition.
The first is Kilmartin’s belief that a fossil-fuel facility the size and scope of Invenergy’s proposed plant will exacerbate climate change and undermine Rhode Island’s ability to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth in the 2014 Resilient Rhode Island Act.
Kilmartin cited the lack of need for the power plant. He said when the power plant was first proposed in 2015, there was evidence that there was a need for the plant, “but circumstances have changed with the increase of renewable energy sources, most notably solar which has nearly doubled in the time since the plant was proposed.”
According to Kilmartin, solar output now exceeds prior forecasts by an amount sufficient to nearly cover the power to be made available by the contested Invenergy plant.
“Climate change is a reality and rising sea level is already having an impact in Rhode Island,” he said. “Under these circumstances, the state should not allow the building of another fossil-fuel power plant. Instead, we should focus on renewable energy to generate electricity, thereby decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels.”
Third, and the reason Kilmartin says he is asking permission to file an amicus brief, is the legal uncertainty surrounding Invenergy’s water plan.
Invenergy says it has a valid plan to obtain its water from the Town of John- ston based on an agreement made in January of last year, but Kilmartin disputes that, saying Johnston would be reselling water it buys from the Scituate Reservoir, and use of that water is restricted by statute for “domestic … municipal … purposes.” Extra-territorial shipment by Johnston does not constitute “municipal purposes,” he says.
“The agreement to buy water from Johnston would be precedent setting, and in our legal opinion, in violation of state law,” Kilmartin said. “Perhaps there is no greater or important natural resource than water, and the General Assembly foresaw a century ago the need to properly regulate how municipalities are able to purchase, use, and sell water.”
Finally, Kilmartin says he is “deeply troubled” by Invenergy’s recently-revealed plan to have the ratepayers pay the bill for the installation of the transmission lines from the plant to the existing grid.
“Invenergy is attempting to have electric ratepayers pick up the tab for the more than $100 million transmission power line costs that the company had previously promised to absorb itself. It’s a classic bait and switch and the ratepayers should not be on the hook for it,” he said.
The Town of Burrillville issued a statement Friday applauding Kilmartin’s “well-reasoned and thoughtful opposition.”
“Attorney General Kilmartin has listened to the objections presented by many parties since this ill-advised proposal was made in 2015, including 32 Rhode Island cities and towns that have passed resolutions against the plant. He has clearly done his homework on this issue and we encourage other public officials to do the same. This proposed project is not viable, not needed, and would negatively impact our state in many ways. We need to put a stop to it now.”