Rhode Island’s Energy Facility Siting Board decided last week to deny construction of a $1 billion fossil fuel burning plant that would have been among New England’s largest. The three-member regulatory panel made the decision after a four-year debate among manufacturers, environmentalists and energy experts.
There was an element of NIMBY —the familiar Not-In-My-Backyard syndrome— that lurks over sudden changes just about everywhere in New England. The plant was bitterly opposed in Burrillville, where residents believed a huge development was being foisted upon their rural, wooded community.
The board, comprised of Meg Curran, the former Rhode Island U.S. attorney and chairwoman of the state, Janet Coit, director of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and Meredith Brady, associate director of the state planning division, decided unanimously that the state and region did not need the new plant to meet energy needs. The board cited a drop on wholesale energy prices as evidence that New England is not facing a shortage of electricity supply.
The company pushing to build the plant, Chicago-based Invenergy, has the right to appeal the decision to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, but experts say the legal hurdles are high. Company executives have not said what they will do.
A coalition of local manufacturers and large energy users lobbied for building the plant. And the building trades unions —whose members build such large and complicated structures— also favored it. Those supporting the plant score New England’s lack of political will to plan for energy sources to replace outdated power plants, such as decommissioned nuclear facilities and the shuttered Brayton Point coal-fired plant on Mount Hope Bay.
Opponents and environmentalists believe it would have been wrong —given the reality of climate change and global warming— to build a new fossil-fuel facility that could be a white elephant in just a few years. They assert that renewable energy sources, including wind and solar generated electricity, are fast becoming cheaper than traditional fossil fuel burning plants.
Energy planning is often fraught. In volatile times, it’s not often easy to see the future. And there are competing economic interests.
Run the clock back to the early 1960s, to the era before the Arab oil boycotts that shook the American economy in the 1970s. A visionary Vermont governor, Democrat Philip Hoff, had a plan to bring Canadian hydroelectric power to New England. Under the proposal, his state would have owned the power, which would have made Vermont a major exporter of electricity.
Hoff’s plan was derailed due to fierce opposition from the state’s private electric utilities. Utility executives argued that the better route was to go all in for nuclear generated power, which they boasted would be too cheap to meter. The private utilities owned the nuclear plants. After Hoff left office and the 1978 Three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred, a later Vermont governor, along with Rhode Island’s then-Gov. Joseph Garrahy, would support bringing Canadian hydro to New England.
National policy also plays a role. In the 1970s, Democratic President Jimmy Carter famously installed solar panels on the White House roof. His Republican successor, Ronald Reagan, pulled them down. The nation’s current president, Republican Donald Trump, has walked renewable energy backward, vowing instead to keep coal plants running. And Carter has recently been involved in a solar project designed to provide half the electricity needed in his small hometown of Plains, Georgia.
Every form of energy generation has a downside. Residents of Vermont and New Hampshire decry the visual pollution of large transmission lines that slice through mountains to bring electricity to cities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Big Canadian-style hydroelectric plants flood the ancestral lands of native people. Wind turbines have been questioned by the fishing industry. And large-scale solar farms have been opposed as neighborhood blight and for taking land better used for farming or open space.
Yet, a warming planet has brought a new urgency in seeking renewable energy. Richard Sedano is a former utility regulator and founder of the Regulatory Assistance Project, which assists states and companies in energy efficiency projects. Sedano says killing the Burrillville project is likely to spur New England to seek more renewables and work harder on making homes and buildings more energy efficient.
This new reality is why Rhode Island must pay close attention to ensuring that new buildings —such as the millions in upcoming school repairs— meet strict energy standards. And that Rhode Island and Massachusetts continue to support the nascent wind industry.
As the bumper sticker says: There is no Planet B.
Scott MacKay’s commentary can be heard every Monday at 6:45 and 8:45 and at 5:44 in the afternoon.
