Energy

New Power Plant Reports Offer Conflicting Opinions

BURRILLVILLE, R.I. — The latest advisory opinions for the proposed Clear River Energy Center don’t offer much in the way of recommendations on whether the $1 billion fossil fuel project should be built. They do, however, outline additional environmental risks and identify vulnerable wildlife, while also providing support for advocates of the power plant.

The advisory report from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) avoids declaring whether the power plant should be approved or denied. The agency’s non-answer stems from a reluctance to determine if the power plant — proposed by Chicago-based Invenergy Thermal Development — will cause unacceptable harm to the environment. The state Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) hoped to have DEM answer that query, but DEM says its response is contingent on the outcome of pending permits: three pollution permits, one permit to destroy wetlands, and permits for stormwater and wastewater management. The permits are still pending and the EFSB doesn’t require that they be issued as part of the application vetting process.

If those permits are granted, DEM says, “It is a formal declaration that the proposed facility has met the standards and criteria for acceptable harm to the environment as established in state and federal laws and regulations.” 

DEM’s advisory opinion also outlines environmental harms. The report’s biggest concern is the destruction of forest. The proposed 67-acre site sits in one of the largest stretches of woodlands in the state and the largest in the northern half of Rhode Island. The Aug. 15 report highlights the “fragmentation” of habitat, which conflicts with state plans to preserve open space.

In 2010, DEM classified the region as a priority forest and wetland area, and a large parcel of undeveloped habitat to be preserved. The site is also part a tract of open space that runs the length of the state. The land, however, is private property, owned by Houston-based Spectra Energy. Spectra owns and operates the Algonquin natural-gas pipeline and a massive compressor station that already operates on its 730-acre property.

In its original advisory opinion, DEM concluded that, “The location of a [power plant] of this size and scope immediately adjacent to substantial acreage of state holdings of conservation land is not consistent with the conservation priorities that informed these state conservation lands.”

According to that advisory opinion, “Given the weight of this threat in an already fragmented landscape, the best course of action is to avoid further fragmentation to the greatest extent practicable.”

DEM’s latest advisory opinion also reviews data from a detailed wildlife study conducted by ESS Group Inc. and paid for by Invenergy. That report states that the nearly 1,000-megawatt power plant would displace and disrupt numerous species: 81 birds, 21 mammals, eight amphibians, three reptiles, 220 invertebrates and 187 plants. Of these, one is a state-endangered species, four are threatened, 10 are species of concern, and two are protected species.

The report singles out the presence of the black-throated blue warbler and the blackburnian warbler, two state-threatened birds. Local bird experts conducted an independent survey near the site and identified rare cerulean warblers and bobcats, a state-threatened species.

Despite contrary beliefs from some power-plant opponents, DEM’s latest advisory opinion maintains its original conclusion that the power plant will not impact the state’s compliance with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the federal Clean Power Plan.

DEM also didn’t answer a request by the EFSB not to comment on the cumulative impacts of the proposed power plant, the nearby compressor station, and the town’s existing power plant, Ocean State Power, until Invenergy submitted its wetland destruction application and its plans for the interconnection project.

DEM, however, made a point to “reaffirm its assertion” that “substantial forest clearing and fragmentation will negatively impact area-sensitive wildlife (and plants) … and will inhibit DEM’s attempt to enhance landscape resiliency to mitigate the loss of biodiversity through habitat fragmentation and climate change.”

An updated advisory opinion from the Statewide Planning Program contradicts DEM’s assertion about land protection. The state entity said the power plant doesn’t conflict with the state planning documents for outdoor recreation, forest protection, a protected nature corridor, and any other aspects of the State Guide Plan, including state water and transportation plans. The report claims the site was never singled out in state plans for land protection.

Statewide Planning also noted the financial gains from the project. During construction, the project will generate between 477 and 1,193 jobs. The overall economic impact is between $196 million and $447 million, according to the agency.

Statewide Planning applauded the proposal for building near existing fossil-fuel facilities instead of in a new tract of land. It concluded, “the State Guide Plan recognizes that additional development is needed for the wellbeing of our society in terms of housing, jobs, and particularly with regard to our need for viable energy sources both over the long term, as well as the immediate future.”

An updated advisory opinion from the Burrillville town building/zoning inspector, Joseph Raymond, maintained that the proposed fossil-fuel power plant in unacceptable. Invenergy has failed to submit adequate plans to the town and, based on the limited information Invenergy has produced, the project will require several variances from the Zoning Board.

“It is clear, two years into the public portion process, that the choice for the Clear River Energy Center, from a planning and zoning perspective alone, was poorly thought through,” according to the opinion.

The updated advisory opinions were requested by the EFSB, after Invenergy reached an agreement with the town of Johnston to supply water to cool the facility. That agreement is being challenged in Rhode Island Superior Court by the Conservation Law Foundation and the town of Burrillville.

A final round of public hearings is scheduled to begin in October. A decision on the power plant is not expected until at least January.

Categories

Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. This is incorrect: "Local bird experts conducted an independent survey near the site and identified rare cerulean warblers and bobcats, a state-threatened species."

    The Cerulean Warbler and the Bobcat were identified in ESS Group’s excellent field study. Their report contains a Bobcat game-cam photo from this past June, and a wintertime Bobcat snow track photo. The Bobcat, the Cerulean, and the other 15 "State Listed Species" found on the site are listed in the report and their locations mapped.

    The report also notes are larger figure of conservation concern: 47 species found on the site that are among the "Species of Greatest Conservation Need," identified in DEM’s 2015 Wildlife Action Plan.

    Altogether, this report details an unusually rich chunk of an unusually rich ecosystem of the highest conservation value. It is no wonder that when you step over the south property line of the site, you are in a state wildlife management area. An even more damning indictment of Statewide Planning’s ridiculous opinion is the fact that, if you include the privately protected Narragansett Council Boy & Cub Scout Reservation, the George Washington Wildlife Management Area is contiguous with five other state forests in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts, together totaling 25.02 square miles!

    Additionally, the 2015 Wildlife Action Plan’s "Conservation Opportunity Areas" map identifies the entire site as part of a wildlife corridor, running along the bottom lands of Iron Mine Brook, as a wildlife corridor connecting the state forest complex with the highly valued Clear River headwaters basin to the east, on the other side of Wallum Lake Road.

    And not mentioned by DEM or Statewide Planning, is the fact that this Invenergy/Algonquin/Spectra site next to the wildlife management area was studied once before as a power plant location. Exercising its full responsibility—as the current Energy Facilities Siting Board has decidedly not—the EFSB in 1986, when vetting the Ocean State Power plant, six miles to the east in Burrillville, ordered that a full Environmental Impact Statement be conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As a part of the process, alternatives to OSP’s preferred site were considered. One of them was the present Invenergy site. It was rejected precisely because of it location on the border of the state-owned conservation land, and the vast, mostly publicly forest contiguous with it. Putting the rejection in a nutshell was DEM biologist, Chris Raithel—whom I understand is still employed by DEM. On July 22, 1987, ("Ocean State Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, vol. II, Letters and Correspondence, 1988,") he wrote that, "On the basis of what I know of these sites I have listed, this seems by far the most inappropriate location for a power plant."

    "By far" indeed!

    I urge everyone to read the ESS Group report and judge for yourself. It is full of data and lots of excellent photograph and mapping

    And then, please, do something about it.

  2. A footnote for my prior comment: A pair of birding experts did bird the property line of the power plant site, from the George Washington WMA, side early in July. Not sure, though, that "local" is the best description for Carlos Pedro and his nephew, Dylan Pedro. As the opposition to the power plant is often pinned by its lobbyists as a "NIMBY" phenomenon, and the word "local" might suggest "Burrillville," their status experts needs clarification.

    Carlos Pedro is one of the leading figures in Rhode Island’s deep-rooted birding community. One of the area’s best known birding tour guides, as well as a respected contributor to academic ornithology, he has led birding expeditions to South America, Central America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Africa, as well as being a ubiquitous guide in New England and the northeast.

    Dylan Pedro is a Board member of the Ocean State Bird Club, and a technical coordinator for the currently in progress Rhode Island Bird Atlas, overseen by the Rhode Island Natural History Survey.

    On July 8, a late date in the nesting season, they identified 28 species along and leading to the power plant property line. Nine are "state listed" for protection, and/or "Species of Greatest Conservation Need," including the "state-threatened" Black-throated Blue Warbler, for whom the northwest corner forest is the last serious breeding refuge in the state.

    Noting these birds and their habitat, the Pedros, too, wonder why DEM is not more strident in its defense of the George Washington Wildlife Management Area and the largest ecosystem it is a part of.

  3. I follow this only as an occasional observer, but I’d say my takeaway from the DEM reports is that this is the wrong site for an industrial scale power plant. But I wonder if there is a possible compromise whereby some kind of additional power supply could be built along the pipeline route in a less sensitive location, a site already highly disturbed, where it is easier to supply water, with less impact on wildlife. That might also take into account the interests of the construction workers, consumers and businesses concerned about adequacy of supplies as older plants are retired, and the politicians trying to please everyone. But it will surely require regional cooperation.

  4. Brayton Point would be a perfect example. If a gas-fired power plant were certainly needed, why not recycle an existing site? Plus, for the trades unions, you would have the extra work there of dismantling one or more of the old, shut down units before building new ones. I know of two sites in New England that are being recycled now: oil to gas at Bridgeport Harbor, Ct, and coal to gas at Salem Harbor, Ma.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.

Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.

cookie

We use cookies to improve your experience and deliver personalized content. View Cookie Settings