Mike’s oral argument on October 31 obviously worked in having the EFSB vote to reject the PUC Advisory Opinion but I believe Mike’s oral argument also worked in another very important way as well: planting the idea firmly in the minds of the EFSB members that the loss of the CSO means that the proposed plant is not needed. The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Invenergy’s own repetition of this assertion was that – now that the CSO has been cancelled – it is clear that Invenergy is not needed. That oral argument quoted the many, many, many times that Invenergy has argued that the fact that it had a CSO from the ISO meant that the plant was needed. ![]() “And there is a fourth reason for optimism as well: The oral argument presented on October 31 by Burrillville’s lawyer, Michael McElroy, in support of Burrillville’s motion to reject the PUC Advisory Opinion. Thus, these three factors together show both that the plant is not needed and that the EFSB seems to understand that fact. This EFSB decision was indicative of a growing skepticism on the part of (at least some) EFSB members as to whether the proposed plant is needed. “Third, on October 31, the EFSB voted to reject the Advisory Opinion it had received from the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission ( PUC), which Advisory Opinion stated that the Invenergy plant was needed and cost effective. If the plant is needed, it would be difficult to deny it a permit conversely, if the plant is not needed, it will be difficult to grant it a permit. This is important because the most important single issue in the case is whether the proposed plant is needed. Taken together, these two actions by the ISO signaled in an unmistakable way that Invenergy’s electricity is neither needed nor wanted for keeping the New England electricity grid reliable. “Second, on September 28, the ISO disqualified Invenergy from even participating in the ISO’s next Forward Capacity Auction (on February 4). “First, on September 20, the ISO – the operator of the New England electricity grid – terminated Invenergy’s Capacity Supply Obligation ( CSO) over Invenergy’s very strong objections. “Opponents of Invenergy start the new year in a better position than we have been in since the case started October 29, 2015. The other attorney is Michael McElroy, litigating on behalf of the Town of Burrillville.)Įlmer provided a set of insights into the case that is the basis of this piece. Jerry Elmer, senior attorney at Conservation Law Foundation ( CLF) is one of the lawyers litigating against the power plant before the EFSB. Equally firm, it appears, is Invenergy’s intention to build the plant. Opposition to the power plant in Burrillville, where the plant is intended to be built and across the state, stands firm. Invenergy‘s proposal for a $1 billion fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, aimed at the pristine forests of northwest Rhode Island is still before the Energy Facilities Siting Board ( EFSB) and the case is now in its fourth year.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |