The plan to improve the Port of Providence and a proposal to build a new power plan in Burrillville have stirred vigorous debates in recent weeks.
Gov. Gina Raimondo has scheduled a sit-down with plant opponents. Rhode Island. RIPR political analyst Scott MacKay wonders if these plans will reprise the 20th Century battles between environmentalists and business and labor interests.
The proposed fossil-fuel powered energy plant in Burrillville and an expansion of the Providence port have put the spotlight on the ancient, and too often unproductive, Rhode Island jousts of pitting the case for jobs versus the environment.
First, a cursory look at the expansion plan for ProvPort. Advocates for the roughly $20 million bond issue to finance improvements at the deep-water port at the top of Narragansett Bay say it will yield 300 well-paying jobs at what was once a thriving entry point. They dismiss claims from Save The Bay, the venerable environmental group, that this is merely a down payment on a project that eventually will lead to filling in 30 or more acres of Narragansett Bay.
The sad aspect of this one is that this bond issue was done in a manner many of us had hoped Gov. Gina Raimondo and the General Assembly would abandon – namely a last-minute Statehouse deal that included scant discussion of the merits of this expenditure. Political science geeks often assert that it’s the results, not the process that matters. And Rhode Islanders are often bashed, by Raimondo in particular, for negativity towards anything new.
What can the political elite expect? Rhode Islanders have been burned too many times by wee hours deals: the slippery special pensions of the 1970s and 80s; the loosening of regulations on credit unions during the same era that led to the banking collapse of 1991; the introduction of video-slot machines with no public debate in the 1990s. Not to mention the Curt Schilling–38 Studios fiasco of 2010.
But the Smith Hill crowd never learns. Turns out the $20 million for Providence was at the eleventh-hour welded to a $50 million bond for upgrades at the Quonset port. This means voters can’t vote separately on the port issues. Not only was this sneaky, but it completely avoids an important discussion the city and state have never had – what should be the future of the capital city’s port? Is a residential and recreational port a better investment than an industrial port? Is a mixed use port workable? Is the 300 job yield worth $20 million?
Most important is whether the environmental advocates and those who seek port expansion can forge a compromise.A few jobs should not trump the environmental protection of Narragansett Bay. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. In the 1950s, every week brought news of another textile factory moving to the Carolinas. Things got so bleak that state government hatched a plan to build a big oil refinery on the northern tip of Jamestown. The deal crashed when wealthy Newport summer residents challenged it in federal court. When asked years later why he would support such a polluting industry on the bay, Gov. Dennis Roberts said the state was desperate for jobs.
Just imagine what a refinery belching pollutants would have done to our fishing, boating and tourism industries that depend on a clean bay?
Across the state in Burrillville is the power plant, which the governor and others are touting as a job-generator. Proponents also say this natural gas facility is needed to ensure a steady flow of energy for industry, says Doug Gablinske of TEC-RI, a group of large industrial electricity users.
On the other side are environmental interests who argue that banking on fracked fossil fuels is mortgaging the future to technology soon to be obsolete. So far, there has been very little guidance from top political leaders. Raimondo has been a cheerleader, which may change after her scheduled meeting with anti-plant Burrillville residents tonight (July 18). But the congressional delegation has been largely silent. Notably absent in this debate is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who has gained a national reputation for focusing on climate change and the environment. Yet, when it comes to a serious home state energy issue, he is as wobbly as a pair of stilettos navigating a cobblestone street. Perhaps Whitehouse fears frosting Democratic base groups such as organized labor more than environmentalists. His tepid support for the plant means that fighting climate change is fine for other states, not the one he represents. (Whitehouse originally told Channel 12 that environmental groups supported his pro-plant stance. After that one, the Environmental Council of Rhode Island said the senator misrepresented their views).
In Massachusetts, Atty. Gen. Maura Healey has launched a report stating that the state doesn’t need increased gas capacity to meet energy needs. In Burlington, Vermont’s largest city, the municipally owned electric utility is currently using 100 percent renewables.
Would it be better for Rhode Island to exploring more aggressively the purchase of Canadian hydro power? How about floating a state bond to make energy efficient state and municipal buildings? That would have the twin virtues of creating jobs in the building trades along with tamping down electricity demand? Are we really doing enough to develop renewable sources? Before we dump millions more on ratepayers’ bills, let’s have serious scrutiny of the alternatives.
The time is long past for grasping short-term gain for long-term pain. We’ve done that too often in Rhode Island.
Scott MacKay’s commentary can be heard every Monday on Morning Edition at 6:45 and 8:45 and on All Things Considered at 5:44. You can also follow his political reporting and analysis at our `On Politics’ blog at RIPR.org
