This month Rhode Island’s dominant utility, National Grid, made its second-ever filing with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) under Rhode Island’s “revenue decoupling” statute. Grid’s filing clarifies matters in a debate that swirled around the environmental community in Rhode Island (and the rest of New England) for years but ought now to be resolved once and for all – an argument over whether decoupling is a rip-off of utility rate-payers. CLF (and other environmental advocates) have argued for years that there are important environmental benefits to be reaped from decoupling. Opponents, including some ratepayer advocates, argued that decoupling would be bad for rate-payers because it would inevitably lead to unjustified rate hikes.

Grid’s highly technical, 59-page filing with the PUC this month is dense reading, with pages upon pages of complicated charts, but at the end of the day the filing resolves the controversy. Decoupling is good for ratepayers. In the year that ended on March 31, 2013, Rhode Island electricity ratepayers will receive a collective refund from National Grid of $4.2 million, including over $42,000 in interest on ratepayer overpayments.

Some explanation of what decoupling is and how this controversy has developed is in order.

Traditional utility regulation provides little incentive for utilities to promote energy efficiency. This is because reduction in sales equals a reduction in profits for the utility.

Decoupling is a way to address this problem and to align the utility’s pecuniary interest with the public interest in efficiency and conservation. Decoupling separates (that is, “decouples”) a utility’s income from the amount of commodity the utility sells. This effectively removes a major disincentive to utility enthusiasm for and participation in energy efficiency measures.

Decoupling is not all that is needed to achieve carbon-emission reductions through energy efficiency; but decoupling is one important and necessary ingredient. Many states have decoupled, and there is a high correlation between states that reduce carbon emissions the most (thereby lowering ratepayer bills the most) and states that have decoupled.

Work on “decoupling” is one aspect of CLF’s wider work on reducing carbon emissions in order to address the climate change emergency. More specifically, decoupling is closely linked to our work on energy efficiency. One of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions in the short- and medium-term is to work on energy efficiency.

In 2008, CLF participated in a litigation in the PUC in which we tried to get the PUC to decouple gas prices. The litigation, PUC Docket # 3943, took weeks, and CLF presented an expert witness, crossed examined witnesses of other parties, submitted briefs. But CLF lost the case; the PUC ruled that it would not decouple gas prices in Rhode Island.

In 2009, CLF tried again, this time trying to get the PUC to decouple electricity prices. This litigation, PUC Docket 4065, also took weeks – again, we presented an expert witness, cross-examined other parties’ witnesses, briefed the issue. Again we lost; the PUC ruled that it would not decouple electricity prices.

The main argument against decoupling was that it would hurt ratepayers. The Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (this is the statutory ratepayer advocate in Rhode Island, and is different than the PUC) opposed decoupling for this reason, as did others. One expert witness against decoupling put it this way: “[T]he plan would allow a broad range of automatic rate adjustments that would result in rate increases . . . .There is no down side to the Company. The only down side is to the ratepayers.”

In response, CLF introduced evidence that actually came from 28 natural gas utilities and 12 electric utilities in 17 states across the country that have operative decoupling mechanisms. This broad range of utilities showed two important results from decoupling. The first, and smaller point is that decoupling adjustments tend to be minor. Compared to total residential retail rates, decoupling adjustments have been most often under two percent, positive or negative, with the majority under 1 percent. The second, and larger, point is that decoupling adjustments go both ways, sometimes providing small refunds to customers, sometimes providing small surcharges.

Nevertheless, despite the evidence we introduced, we lost both cases. The PUC was persuaded that decoupling was just a trick whereby the utility could always ratchet rates upward.

In 2010, CLF, working with other environmental organizations supported a bill in the Rhode Island General Assembly that would require decoupling of both electricity and gas prices. On May 20, 2010, Governor Donald Carcieri signed the bill into law.

On October 18, 2010, the PUC opened a new docket in order to implement the new law that mandated decoupling. This time, the question wasn’t whether Rhode Island would decouple, but how. CLF participated as a full party in the docket in order to ensure that the decoupling mechanisms adopted would be designed to reap all the environmental benefits without unduly hurting or harming ratepayers. Nine months later, on July 26, 2011, the PUC approved an excellent set of decoupling rules for both electricity and gas.

A year ago, in May 2012, Grid filed its first-ever report under the then-new Rhode Island decoupling statute and under the PUC rules. That report showed that, on the electricity side, Grid needed to rebate to Rhode Island ratepayers just over a million dollars for the year that had ended on March 31, 2012.

This month, Grid filed its second-ever report under the now-not-so-new-anymore decoupling statute.  This year, the amount Grid is going to rebate to Rhode Island ratepayers has more than quadrupled, to $4.2 million.  Rhode Island ratepayers are getting rebates – not additional payments – in both of the first two years that electricity decoupling has been implemented in Rhode Island.

Remember the main point that CLF’s expert witnesses made in the decoupling dockets that we lost in 2008 and 2009: decoupling adjustments go both ways. Sometimes ratepayers pay a little extra; sometimes ratepayers get a rebate. Real-world results from the first two years of decoupling show that CLF’s main point was 100% correct.  And not only are Rhode Island ratepayers getting a rebate from Grid, but everyone in Rhode Island enjoys the savings and efficiency benefits that decoupling enables – and the environment enjoys lower carbon emissions.

As I suggested a year ago when the first-year figures came out, there may be two lessons that can be learned from this – one about CLF and one about the broader environmental movement.

About CLF: One of the things I love about working for CLF is the stick-to-itiveness that the organization (and my fellow and sister staff members) have. In 2008, we litigated decoupling, and we lost. So we tried again. When we lost again, we turned to a different forum, the General Assembly. When the law we supported passed, we were pleased – but we didn’t rest. We still had another litigation in the PUC to make sure that the law was properly implemented.

CLF is nothing if not persistent!

And about the broader environmental movement: So often our opponents argue that environmental protections are too costly to implement. Too often, the arguments made by environmentalists about the benefits and savings from environmental protections are just not believed by decision-makers and by ordinary citizens. With decoupling, everyone (including the PUC and so many others) just “knew” that decoupling would be an expensive rip-off. When evidence like this comes to light about the financial and pecuniary benefits of environmental laws, we should make sure that the public knows.

May 23, 2013

Dear Chairwoman Sosnowski and members of the Environment Committee:

This e-mail follows yesterday evening’s hearing on S-901, the Governor’s Energy Reform Act of 2013, with its provision for purchasing large quantities of Canadian hydropower; and S-938, Chairwoman Sosnowski’s proposal for extending and enlarging Rhode Island’s landmark Distributed Generation Standard Contracts program. For your reference, I attach a copy of the written submission that I provided at yesterday’s hearing, which you can see here.

It was significant at yesterday’s (very long) hearing that – except for the Governor’s Administration – every witness from every sector spoke against the Governor’s energy bill. In broad terms, these witnesses came from four different sectors: (1) the utility (National Grid); (2) the environmental community (including the Environment Council of Rhode Island, Conservation Law Foundation, and many others); (3) fossil-fuel generators (including Dominion, Exelon, and the New England Power Generators Association); (4) renewable energy developers (including People’s Power and Light, Heartwood Group, and many others). It is a rare issue indeed that sees these disparate sectors in such complete agreement. Last night, the Governor’s energy bill was opposed by National Grid; the Environment Council, representing every one of the 60-plus small, medium, and large environmental organizations in Rhode Island; the fossil fuel industry; and all the renewable energy developers working so hard to build real renewable projects in Rhode Island!

As I acknowledged in my testimony yesterday evening, these different sectors each have their own reasoning for opposing the Governor’s energy bill.

National Grid opposes S-901 because it would result in rate increases for ratepayers; and, as Mike Ryan of Grid put it last night, “We are the guys who send out the bills.”

On Senator Archambault’s question as to whether the bill provides an actual mandate, Mr. Ryan quite clearly said two things. First, yes, the bill provides a mandate that will have adverse consequences for ratepayers. Second, whatever you call it, the provisions of the bill act like a mandate and, thus, will have the consequences of a mandate.

The environmentalists oppose the Governor’s energy bill because it would eviscerate existing renewable energy laws.

For example, the bill changes the definition of “eligible renewable energy resources” in Rhode Island’s 2004 Renewable Energy Standard. (See ¶ 2 on the attached testimony). When the General Assembly enacted the RES, it carefully excluded large Canadian hydropower because the law was intended to help new renewable energy projects. Canada is in the middle of a 50-year plan to construct big dams. Many have already been built; the rest will be built anyway, and do not need help from the RES.

The Adminstration’s rebuttal on this point was extremely revealing. The response was that the bill does not grant Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, to Canadian hydropower. This statement was completely correct. It was also completely irrelevant. The problem with the bill is not that it gives RECs to large hydropower (and last night no one suggested that it did). The problem with the bill is mis-using the RES to send money to projects that are built anyway.

CLF and the other environmental organizations also oppose the Governor’s energy bill because it misuses the 2009 Long-Term Contracting Statute to procure Canadian hydropower. The purpose of this statute was to facilitate projects that would not and could not have been built but for the statute. The purpose of the LTC Statute was not to give a sweetheart deal to already-existing projects.

Here, again, the Administration’s response was extremely revealing. The response was that the bill does not touch or eliminate the 90 megawatts of renewables provided for in Section 3 of the Long-Term Contracting Statute. Again, this is completely correct. Again, this is completely irrelevant. No one suggested that the problem with the Governor’s energy bill is that it takes away the 90 megawatt mandate in Section 3. Those megawatts are already under contract; there has been an entire series of PUC dockets examining the reasonableness of those contracts. The problem with the Governor’s energy ill is that it mis-uses the separate, additional 150 megawatts found in Section 8 of the Long-Term Contracting Statute that were intended to assist new development, in Rhode Island, that would not or could not have been built otherwise.

Simply put, it is bad public policy to mis-direct the 150 megawatts in Section 8 of the Statute to large, existing hydropower facilities in Canada when those 150 megawatts were meant for new projects in Rhode Island. And the Administration is simply wrong to conflate the 90 megawatts in Section 3 (that are already under contract) with the separate, additional 150 megawatts in Section 8 (that do not yet exist).

But the most important point from last night is this: there is today no law and no regulation that prevents National Grid from contracting for Canadian hydropower (see ¶ 4 of the attached sheet). As I explained last night, we litigate so-called “Standard Offer Service” dockets in the PUC every year. Standard Offer Service is the electricity that nearly every residential customer in Rhode Island uses every day. There is nothing whatever in the law right now preventing Grid from contracting for Canadian hydropower.

Although there is nothing in the law preventing Grid from buying Canadian hydropower today, there are two very, very powerful reasons why Grid does not do so: (1) it is uneconomical; and (2) there is no transmission to bring the power here. And changing the law will not change those factors. You can change the law and Canadian hydropower will still be uneconomical. You can change the law, and there will still be no transmission available.

None of the environmentalists testifying last night are opposed to hydropower in principle. Indeed, hydropower done right could be an excellent component of an overall energy mix designed to lower carbon emissions. Environmental organization are opposed to eviscerating existing renewable energy laws that were designed to help new projects get up and running in order to subsidize already-existing Canadian projects.

In the end, there are many reasons to oppose the Governor’s energy bill. As National Grid said, it will have adverse impacts for ratepayers. As CLF said, it will eviscerate existing, successful renewable energy laws long supported by the General Assembly. And what is clear after last night is that there is unusual unity on the issue: National Grid; every small, medium, and large environmental organization; the fossil fuel generators; and every renewable energy developer all oppose the Governor’s energy bill.

CLF respectfully asks you to vote the Governor’s energy bill, S-901, down.

As New England’s leading environmental organization, CLF has more than 60 staff people who work every day for healthy communities, clean water, and to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change.

Sometimes we win big victories that make headlines, like when my colleague, Shanna Cleveland, won a major victory in federal court that required the permanent shuttering of the Salem Harbor coal-fired power plant. You can see more about Shanna’s victory here; and you can learn more about CLF’s coal-free New England program, here.

Other times, CLF’s work is much quieter, and behind the scenes, in obscure forums that no one has ever heard of. And CLF sometimes accomplishes good things very quietly.

I recently participated in one of these quiet victories. CLF is an active, voting participant in the New England Independent System Operator (ISO-NE), the operator of the regional electricity system. You can read more about CLF’s work with ISO-NE here. Very few environmental organizations participate in this important forum and, of the few that do, CLF is by far the most active.

One of the things that the ISO is most concerned about is the “system reliability” of New England’s electricity grid. System reliability basically means that when you or I turn a light switch, the lights actually go on. No one wants to see power outages or blackouts, and the ISO’s concern with system reliability is sensible.

One of the things the ISO has been doing of late to improve New England’s “system reliability” is to encourage the owners of gas-powered electricity-generating plants to install dual-fuel capability that would allow those plants to burn oil during periods of natural gas shortage – that is, allow those plants to be more reliable. Part of the ISO’s plan was to make sure that, when such a gas shortage arose, these power-plant owners could and would get compensated properly for burning oil, which costs much more than natural gas.

Of course, burning oil to make electricity is also much, much more polluting than burning natural gas. And the way the ISO was going to structure this new system would have provided no reason for generators to burn gas when gas was actually available – because those generators would be fully compensated regardless of which fuel they burned.

CLF reluctantly accepts that some of these generators will burn oil on those very, very rare occasions (at most a few times a year) when cleaner fuels truly are not available. (Of course, an even better idea is to reduce demand by efforts like turning down electricity use in places like factories and large stores; and CLF has long worked to promote programs that pay for and encourage such “demand response” efforts.) And such burning of oil is always limited by the air-pollution permits (under the Clean Air Act) of the generators. At the same time, CLF wanted to make sure that ISO rules would never allow compensation to an electricity generator for burning a dirtier fuel when a much cleaner fuel actually is available (which is nearly always).

None of the ISO experts realized the potential danger of the ISO’s proposed rule change at the time it was being discussed. None of the electricity generators pushed to prevent the originally proposed rule change from going through. Why would they? They were going to get fully compensated for burning a dirty fuel even when a cleaner fuel was available!

But CLF noticed the problem, and was willing to push for a change. As of this writing, I am cautiously optimistic that our proposed change will be approved by the ISO (and later by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, that oversees and must approve ISO rule changes). The change that CLF pushed for would allow electricity generators to get compensated for burning a higher-priced, dirtier fuel only on those very rare occasions when cleaner, cheaper fuel is truly not available.

Ratepayers benefit because we are assuring the use of the lower-cost fuel whenever possible. And the environment benefits because we are assuring the use of the cleaner fuel whenever possible.

As I say: this was certainly a small victory. But if we are going to be able to address the threat of climate change successfully, it will take hundreds of victories in a variety of forums. Some of those will be big wins, like Shanna’s federal court victory in the Salem Harbor case. And others will be small, incremental steps in obscure forums like the ISO.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, I testified at the Rhode Island General Assembly, at a hearing of the Environment Committee, against Bill S-728, which would remove a long-standing statutory ban on the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC) putting incineration into its long-range plan.

At the hearing, a staff person from RIRRC testified that there are two reasons why it had asked that this bill be introduced:

• To allow RIRRC “to discuss and look at” incineration; and

• So that RIRRC “has all the tools in its tool-kit.”

Neither reason stands up to scrutiny.

As for allowing RIRRC “to discuss and look at incineration,” RIRRC is already doing that. In fact, at the very same hearing on March 20, RIRRC Executive Director Mike McConnell gave a long and detailed (and excellent) PowerPoint presentation that showed that RIRRC has extensively examined and studied incinerators elsewhere in New England and, indeed, all over the country. As Director McConnell testified, RIRRC’s extensive examination of incineration all over the country revealed that incineration of municipal waste is uneconomic and polluting. The point is that existing law already allows RIRRC to think about, look at, and study incineration – as it has been doing for years. S-728 does not permit study; instead, S-728 permits RIRRC to put incineration into its plan. This makes no sense, as actual incineration is banned elsewhere in the RIRRC statute. It simply makes no sense to enact a statute permitting the RIRRC to put into its long-range plan a method of handling trash that is expressly prohibited elsewhere in the very same statute!

As for allowing RIRRC “to have all tools in its tool-kit,” this is simply incorrect. It is the job of the General Assembly to determine and announce the public policy of the state. The General Assembly has done so with regard to incineration. The General Assembly has made an express, explicit determination that incineration at the landfill is banned, in part, because of “the myriad of over four hundred (400) toxic pollutants including lead, mercury, dioxins and acid gasses known to be emitted by solid waste incinerators [and] the known and unknown threats posed by solid waste incinerators to the health and safety of Rhode Islanders, particularly children . . . .” (R. I. Gen. Laws § 23-19-3(15).) As I testified at the hearing on Wednesday, it is simply not true that the RIRRC must have all tools in its tool-kit. The General Assembly, in its role of determining public policy, has decided that certain dangerous and polluting tools will not be in the RIRRC’s tool-kit.

In my Senate testimony on Wednesday, I also referred to the fact that Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was driven into bankruptcy solely because of its “put-or-pay” contract with an incinerator operator. This is a link to an article (one of many) on that subject. The subtitle of the article sums it up nicely: “Harrisburg’s waste to energy to bankruptcy saga.”

We all know that Rhode Island’s economy is worse than that of many other states; one thing Rhode Island does not need is to court financial disaster be enabling incineration of municipal waste.

It has long been the public policy of Rhode Island that municipal waste shall not be incinerated. The main lesson from Wednesday’s hearing was that no sensible reason has been advanced for permitting RIRRC to put incineration into its long-range plan.

The short of it is that RIRRC should not put into its long-range, statutorily-mandated plan a disposal method that is expressly prohibited elsewhere in the very same statute.

In 2003, Champlin’s Marina filed its request with the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to expand its marina in Block Island’s Great Salt Pond. At 10 years (and still running), this is probably CLF’s longest-running active litigation. This post is written to apprise you of the latest developments in this continuing saga.

Background

You may recall that in January 2011, the full CRMC voted unanimously to deny Champlin’s a permit to expand its marina in the Great Salt Pond. Champlin’s appealed to the Superior Court, as it had a legal right to do. In the Superior Court, Champlin’s filed a brief raising a rather curious issue: Champlin’s claimed that it had suffered a violation of its Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights – because CRMC had granted a permit for Payne’s Dock to expand, but had denied Champlin’s application to expand. The Superior Court decided that Champlin’s civil rights claim should be heard first in the CRMC (and then be heard again in the Superior Court). As a result, the Champlin’s case is now simultaneously in two different venues: Superior Court and CRMC!

February 12 Hearing

The most recent hearing before the CRMC was earlier this week , Tuesday, February 12. As usual for these Champlin’s hearings, there were quite a few island residents present to watch the proceedings.

At the start of the meeting, CRMC Chairwoman Anne M. Livingston addressed a motion by Champlin’s that she recuse herself from the case because she had spoken about the case to a former CRMC member last December at a social gathering. Livingston acknowledged that her comments had been “indiscreet” (her word). She said that she was confident that she could act impartially in the matter; but she said she would recuse herself “in an abundance of caution.” Livingston then left the hearing for the rest of the evening.

The main witness on February 12 was Kenneth W. Anderson, chief engineer for the CRMC. Anderson testified that he has worked on every marina application that has come before the CRMC over the last two decades, including both the Champlin’s and Payne’s Dock applications.

Anderson testified that the procedure that CRMC used for handling these two applications were exactly identical. In both cases CRMC analyzed the application in light of the controlling CRMC regulation in order to determine whether the (respective) application comported with the regulation. Anderson testified that there was a very simple reason that the Champlin’s application was rejected while the Payne’s application was approved: Champlin’s application violated the applicable regulation; Payne’s application did not. That is, the reason the two applications had different legal outcomes was because the law required different outcomes – not because of disparate treatment or prejudice.

More specifically, Anderson testified about four major differences between the two different applications:

• CRMC regulations require all marinas in the state to make efficient use of existing facilities. Anderson testified that Payne’s makes efficient use of its existing space, but that Champlin’s is grossly inefficient. Thus, the regulation requires Champlin’s to make more efficient use of its present space before expansion can be allowed.

• Payne’s proposed expansion did not impinge on existing mooring fields, but Champlin’s proposed expansion did impinge on existing mooring fields.

• Payne’s proposed expansion would not have an adverse impact on safety of navigation though the Great Salt Pond, but Champlin’s proposed expansion would have an adverse impact on navigation safety.

• Finally, the size and scope of the proposed expansions were vastly different: Champlin’s proposal was, in fact, ten times the size of the proposed expansion. In a small area like the Great Salt Pond, Anderson testified, this factor is of major importance.

What’s Ahead

The CRMC had hoped to finish the hearing on February 12, but it came nowhere close to that goal. Champlin’s lawyer, Bob Goldberg, did not even finish his cross-examination of Kenneth Anderson; there are also more witnesses on both sides yet to be heard. The next hearing date was scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, at 5:15 PM. (If you plan to attend, check the CRMC website for confirmation of meeting time and for details on meeting location.) After the hearing is over, the parties will be given time (probably six to eight weeks) to brief the equal-protection issue.

I remain very confident that the CRMC will advise the Superior Court that there was no violation of equal protection in the cases of Champlin’s Marina and Payne’s Dock. Simply put, the different CRMC decisions in the two different cases was a result of different facts in the two cases, not a result of prejudice or civil rights violations. That is, the reason that Champlin’s will not be able to prove that the differing CRMC decisions were a result of a civil rights violation is that there are no facts to support that argument.

When the case returns to Superior Court, Judge Kristin Rodgers will also have to rule on Champlin’s equal-protection claim. Based on the facts in the record, I am confident that she too will rule against Champlin’s.

After Superior Court, Champlin’s may attempt to appeal (yet again!) to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Unfortunately, CLF’s longest-running active case shows no signs of ending any time soon.

Expensive Litigation

Champlin’s has shown just how lucrative it expects its proposed marina expansion into the Great Salt Pond to be. Champlin’s has no fewer than three lawyers on its side, and the case has already gone to the Rhode Island Supreme Court more than once. Litigating this case is, of course, expensive for CLF as well. We have been deeply grateful for your past financial support, because that support has enabled us to stay in this long fight. Please continue to support CLF’s Champlin’s litigation. You can do so here, on our website.

Today, nearly 70% of all Rhode Island bus riders are going to and from work or school. That’s why having good public transit is so important to growing Rhode Island’s economy.

Gas is nearly $4 a gallon and, as a result, more Rhode Islanders than ever are taking the RIPTA bus. Meanwhile, many of Rhode Island’s bridges (maintained by DOT) are unsafe, and we all know what the pot-holes in our local streets are like.

In 2011, the Rhode Island General Assembly had a chance to address both sides of the transportation issue – RIPTA and DOT – with the “Transportation Investment and Debt Reduction Act.” The General Assembly did a good job back then with the first half of the problem, the DOT part. Now it’s time for the legislature to help RIPTA. The right way to do that is to pass H-5073, also known as the O’Grady Bill, for one of its chief sponsors, Rep. Jay O’Grady.

The Transportation Investment and Debt Reduction Act, passed two years ago, provides a stable and secure source of funding for the DOT without burdening Rhode Island taxpayers with huge debt-service obligations. In the past, Rhode Island floated a bond issue of $80 million every two years to raise the local matching funds needed to bring hundreds of millions of dollars of federal highway funds into the state. This constant borrowing was unsustainable, and was saddling our children with huge debt-service costs. According to the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Voter Guide, Rhode Island tax payers are now obligated to repay $59.85 million in debt service alone (over and above principal repayment of $80 million) on just the 2010 bond. The Transportation Investment and Debt Reduction Act ensured that DOT would be able to get its matching funds without bonding and without more debt service.

That law is now saving Rhode Island tax-payers tens of millions of dollars over the life of those bonds. That’s a lot of money, especially when the economy is in tough shape.

But transportation is more than just roads and bridges. With gas at almost $4 a gallon, RIPTA ridership is at an all-time high. The O’Grady Bill provides much-needed sustainable funding to RIPTA. With those funds, RIPTA will be able to maintain existing service, put more busses on the busiest routes, increase the number of commuter Park-and-Rides, build more bus shelters at stops, and create new hubs for faster transfers and connections.

Today, nearly 70% of all Rhode Island bus riders are going to and from work or school. That’s why having good public transit is so important to growing Rhode Island’s economy – and why the business community supports the O’Grady Bill.

Other people use to bus to get to medical appointments and doctor’s visits. Having good public transit is linked to cleaner air. That’s why Rhode Island health organizations, including the American Lung Association in Rhode Island (and others), are supporting the O’Grady Bill.

The O’Grady Bill also provides additional funds for DOT’s construction projects. That’s why the unions are supporting the O’Grady Bill.

By providing additional funds for public transit, the O’Grady Bill will help reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector. That’s why environmental organizations like CLF are supporting the O’Grady Bill.

In fact, when the O’Grady Bill was heard last year in the House Finance Committee, dozens of people spoke in favor of it – from business and labor, from community groups and environmental groups. There are not many bills that have such widespread support. Not one person spoke against the bill.

The General Assembly did not pass the O’Grady Bill last year. It should pass it this year. The O’Grady Bill will help us grow the economy, and will help all Rhode Islanders. That’s why it has garnered such wide support.

On June 26, 2011, Governor Chafee signed into law the “Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act.”  The bill had passed both houses of the General Assembly unanimously. The “distributed generation” in the title of the law refers to small, local renewable energy projects.

The new law was designed to do three things: (1) increase the number of small renewable energy projects that are built in Rhode Island; by (2) making it easier, quicker, and cheaper for developers of these projects to get contracts to sell their electricity to Rhode Island’s dominant utility, National Grid; and (3) get those renewable energy projects distributed into more of Rhode Island’s cities and towns.

Not every law passed by the General Assembly works out the way it was meant to, but the Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act has been phenomenally successful in accomplishing each of its three goals.

Previous renewable energy laws in Rhode Island have worked the way they were intended: to get National Grid to buy more and more of its electricity each year from clean, renewable energy sources. But Rhode Island’s previous renewable energy laws also had a significant flaw: they worked very well for big projects, like Deepwater Wind’s proposed offshore wind farm, but they worked less well for small projects (like a town that wants to set up a single wind turbine at its town hall, as Portsmouth did). That is because under the prior laws, developers would have to hire a small army of lawyers to negotiate an excruciatingly long, detailed contract with Grid, setting forth everything from the price of the electricity to delivery schedule. (For example, the contract that Deepwater filed with the Public Utilities Commission on December 10, 2009 ran 62 pages in length!)  Hiring lawyers to negotiate a 62-page contract was just too time-consuming and expensive for a developer who had a small project.

The new law fixed that problem. As the name of the law suggests, it provided for a “standard contract” for developers of small projects. The standard contract was short, written in plain English, and easy to understand. In addition, the law provided for a standard price to be paid, and established a mechanism for setting a fair price for each different type of project – wind, solar, and so forth. These prices were designed to be high enough to get projects actually built, but low enough to protect electricity rate-payers.

And that is exactly how the new law has worked. In the 15 months since the bill was signed into law, National Grid has held three separate sign-up periods. To date, 18 separate projects have been signed up.  Each of these 18 separate projects will be built right here in Rhode Island. Thus, Rhode Islanders will directly enjoy the environmental and economic-development benefits of these projects. The main purpose of the new law, to get more local renewable energy projects built, has been accomplished – in spades.

The developer of each of these 18 projects got a simple, standard contract to sign, and will receive a set price for the electricity produced.  Thus, another one of the law’s purposes has been accomplished.

The projects themselves are located in Providence, East Providence, Portsmouth, Lincoln, Westerly, Bristol, West Greenwich, East Greenwich, Hopkinton, Middletown, Cumberland, North Kingstown, North Smithfield, and West Warwick.  This geographical distribution of new renewable energy projects was a third purpose of the law.

Rhode Island’s new Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act has been so successful that it is becoming a model for the rest of the country. Renewable energy advocates in New York and Iowa are hoping to replicate the Rhode Island law in their states. The California Public Utilities Commission has circulated the Rhode Island law to its in-house legal staff. A group of Oregon legislators is poised to introduce a bill in the coming legislative session modeled after the successful Rhode Island law.

The Distributed Generation Standard Contracts Act is a classic win-win. It addresses the problem of climate change by reducing the carbon emissions that cause climate change. And it helps the Rhode Island economy by facilitating local development of renewable energy projects.

This is a law that Rhode Islanders can be proud of. Its enactment reflects well on our legislators (who passed it unanimously) and on Governor Chafee (who signed it into law). The law has been administered carefully and diligently by our Office of Energy Resources. And National Grid, which receives an economic incentive when projects start producing power, has worked conscientiously with developers to help developers succeed.

Champlin’s Marina may be CLF’s oldest active case. Originally filed in 2003, the case has been to the Supreme Court (more than once), Superior Court (more than once), and the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) (more than once).

The most recent hearing before CRMC was Tuesday evening, July 31, 2012. Here is how this came about.

In January 2011, the full CRMC voted unanimously to deny Champlin’s a permit to expand its marina in Block Island’s Great Salt Pond. Champlin’s appealed to the Superior Court, as it had a legal right to do. In the Superior Court, Champlin’s filed a brief raising a curious issue: Champlin’s claimed that it had suffered a violation of its equal protection rights because CRMC had granted a permit for Payne’s Dock to expand, but had denied Champlin’s application to expand.

In the Superior Court, CLF argued that, for two different reasons, Champlin’s should not be permitted to make this argument:

• As a strictly procedural matter, Champlin’s had not included this argument in its Complaint; and court rules usually prohibit arguing issues not presented in the Complaint.

• As a substantive matter Champlin’s had already presented its equal protection argument in court and had had the argument dismissed; raising the same losing argument again was frivolous and abusive.

You can see CLF’s Superior Court brief on this subject here.

The Superior Court Judge ruled that Champlin’s could at least try to present its equal-protection argument, but that Champlin’s had to do so first in the CRMC. So the Judge sent the case back to the CRMC. That is how we got to the CRMC on July 31.

The hearing was long and contentious. Champlin’s lawyer tried repeatedly to put improper matters into the record. Objections to Champlin’s improper actions were made by lawyers on our side, and those objections were sustained by the CRMC. Evidently deeply frustrated, Champlin’s lawyer lost his temper and became insulting toward members of the CRMC.

At the close of the hearing, it was clear that Champlin’s would not be successful in its efforts to have the CRMC rule that Champlin’s had suffered unequal treatment at the hands of the CRMC.  This is true for at least two different reasons:

• As a matter of fact and of law, Champlin’s did not suffer any equal protection violation.  While it is true that CRMC approved Payne’s permit to expand its marina and denied Champlin’s application, the two situations were entirely different.  Payne’s marina is at a different location than Champlin’s; Payne’s is a different size; Payne’s presents different environmental impacts and different navigational challenges than Champlin’s; and Payne’s expansion does not impinge on other mooring fields as Champlin’s did. That is, the CRMC treated the Payne’s application differently than it treated the Champlin’s application because it was different – not because of improper bias.

• As a practical matter, Champlin’s lawyer only alienated and offended CRMC members with his rudeness. Shouting at CRMC members and interrupting them when they speak is not conduct likely to persuade skeptics of your position.

The next step in the process is that the parties will file written briefs. Champlin’s will try to persuade the CRMC that it (Champlin’s) was a victim of bias. This will be difficult for Champlin’s to do, because there is not a shred or scintilla of evidence of bias in the record. Objectors will argue that there is no evidence of bias. Briefing will take until mid-autumn. After the CRMC opines on whether or not Champlin’s was a victim of bias, the case will return to Superior Court, probably early in 2013.

CLF is pushing the ISO-NE to fully and properly account for all of the valuable energy-efficiency programs that the six New England states are already operating.

Energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest way for New England to meet its energy needs. We can save money and create jobs while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. To learn more about what CLF is doing to promote energy efficiency, click here.

“ISO-NE” stands for Independent System Operator-New England; this is the organization of engineers and technical experts that runs New England’s electricity grid. To learn more about CLF’s work with ISO-NE, click here.

Together, the six New England states are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on energy efficiency programs. In 2011, the ISO created an “Energy Efficiency Forecast Working Group” to forecast how much energy efficiency was actually going to get bought for all that money. CLF has been participating in this ISO-NE Working Group since its inception.

The first report of this Working Group, published in April 2012, was very exciting, because it predicted that more than 100% of projected electricity load increases for New England over the next three years could and would be achieved  through energy efficiency, not from new generating plants. This is good news for the environment because it means lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, CLF thought that there were some mistakes in the forecast, mainly from under-counting the energy efficiency expenditures of those states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) that had made the most enthusiastic commitments to energy efficiency.

On July 11, 2012, CLF sent a letter to the ISO-NE’s Energy Efficiency Forecast Working Group, urging it not to repeat those same under-counting mistakes in its work on the 2013 energy efficiency forecast. You can see the full text of CLF’s letter, here.

Ultimately, energy efficiency is paid for by electricity customers. In order for ratepayers to get all they efficiency they are paying for, the ISO-NE needs to count all the money that is being spent.

If CLF’s recommendations are adopted by the Working Group, it will benefit ratepayers by reducing electricity bills; and it will benefit the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a classic win-win!