RIPTA bus. Source: Wikimedia commons.

The Senate Study Commission on Sustainable Transportation Funding held its second meeting of the year today. I sit on the Commission, having been appointed to the position by Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport). Other Commission members include three senators, RIDOT Director Michael Lewis, and RIPTA CEO Charles Odimgbe.

CLF is interested in public transit because of our concern about climate change. Here in Rhode Island, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and the fastest growing sector. Thus, any serious effort to address climate change must include a focus on transportation.

I am afraid that the Study Commission members are getting bogged down in the minutiae of how RIPTA runs. There was plenty of discussion at today’s session about small matters, such as whether RIPTA made a mistake seven years ago in cancelling one run of the weekend route between Providence and Newport.

At the end of today’s session, I tried to bring Study Commission members back to what the main points are that we need to remember. There are five main points.

First, RIPTA has the highest fares of any comparable transit agency in the country.

Second, we live in a country in which every public transit service is heavily dependent on government subsidies. Every transit system in small cities gets subsidized. Every medium-sized transit system (like RIPTA) gets subsidies. Every big-city transit system (like New York and San Francisco) gets subsidies. But RIPTA gets the lowest subsidies of any peer transit system in the country.

Third, RIPTA has seen substantial ridership increases in every category of rider in every recent year. Part of the reason for this is that gas prices are going up; part of the reason is that RIPTA is getting better. The bottom line is that RIPTA is taking more passengers on more rides than ever before.

Fourth, RIPTA is heavily dependent on the proceeds of the gasoline tax. RIPTA gets about $40 million annually from this source, and this is the largest single source of RIPTA revenue. But gas tax revenue is declining – in fact, the yield per penny of the gas tax decreased by almost 13% in just four years recently.

The fifth point is the most important. The purpose of the Senate Study Commission is to devise new, additional ways to fund transportation in Rhode Island – including RIPTA – sustainably. Our purpose is not to second-guess the agency about the minutiae of internal agency decisions. The Senate leadership charged us with the task of developing new, sustainable funding sources for RIPTA.

That task is especially timely right now. Three years ago the General Assembly charged RIPTA with developing a Five-Year Strategic Plan for service expansions and improvements. RIPTA did a superb job developing that plan – the plan includes new bus rapid transit on RIPTA’s two busiest routes, the #11 (Broad Street) and the # 99 (North Main Street); increasing the number of park-and-rides; and adding new buses on busy routes.

The Senate Study Commission needs to keep in mind why it was created. We were not created to get lost in the weeds and tiny details of a complex agency. We were created to recommend to the General Assembly new, sustainable funding sources for transportation funding in Rhode Island, including RIPTA.

A package of three major new renewable energy bills has just passed both houses of the Rhode Island General Assembly unanimously.  Taken together, the bills will give Rhode Island one of the best and one of the most coherent sets of renewable energy laws in the country.  Over the past three months, CLF staff have worked extensively with the leadership of both the RI House and the RI Senate on drafting the actual language of these major bills.

One bill addresses what is called “net metering.”  Net metering occurs when an electric customer’s meter can run not only forward but also backward.  Net metering is important to individuals and companies that have small renewable projects (like solar panels on the roof of a home) because net metering often makes the difference between those projects being economically viable and being non-viable.  Until now, net metering law in Rhode Island was a shambles:  for example, some renewable energy technologies qualified for net metering but (for no apparent reason) other did not qualify; moreover, many portions of the law were so vague (or incoherent) that no one was sure what they meant, and there was even litigation challenging net metering by alleging that Rhode Island net metering law conflicts with federal law.  The newly passed statutes fix all those problems.  The new law makes clear that net metering is available to all renewable technologies, gives a generous price to renewable energy generators, and outlines exactly the boundaries between Rhode Island and federal law.

Another of these bills addresses “distributed generation.”  The DG Bill seeks to fix an unforeseen problem in an earlier renewable energy law, the Long-Term Contracting Statute (LTC Statute) that the General Assembly enacted in 2009.  Long-term contracts are especially important to renewable energy developers because such long-term contracts enable the developers to get financing for their projects.  The LTC Statute turned out to have one unexpected problem.  It worked very well for large companies, like Deepwater Wind, that wanted to develop and build utility-scale projects.  But the LTC Statute was not so good at helping smaller developers that were unable to afford an army of lawyers to negotiate individual contracts with the utility.  The  DG Bill solves this problem.  The DG bill carves out a portion of the long-term contracting obligation created in the 2009 LTC Statute and sets that portion aside just for small, local projects (like a town that wants to put up a single wind mill at its Town Hall).  In order to obviate the need for that (expensive) army of lawyers, the DG Bill creates a very simple, standard contract for developers of small, local renewable energy projects.  Basically, the law says:  If you have a small, local renewable energy project, you do not need to negotiate your own contract with Grid; instead you can automatically get a standard, short, easy-to-understand two-page contract.  The DG Bill also sets a standard price for such small renewable energy projects — the price is set by a board and is designed to be high enough so that such small projects are economically viable, but low enough so that the public is not forced to over-pay for renewable energy.  The big, utility-scale projects can still be built; but the DG bill will now make it easier for smaller projects also to be built.

The third bill in the set makes it easier for renewable energy developers to connect to the electricity grid by setting a timetable and prices for such interconnections.

CLF worked long and hard on this package of renewable energy legislation, and we are very gratified to see its success in the General Assembly.  We were also pleased to see the package of bills highlighted in the lead editorial of the Providence Journal on June 21.

It was thrilling to attend the meeting of the RI Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) last night, where the Council voted unanimously to reject the application of Champlin’s Marina to expand by several hundred feet into the Great Salt Pond of Block Island. The vote probably brings to a final conclusion a lawsuit that CLF has been fighting for the last seven years in the CRMC, in the Superior Court, and in the R.I. Supreme Court.

Champlin’s originally filed its application to expand in 2003. In February 2006, the CRMC voted (the first time) to deny the application. Champlin’s took an appeal (as they were legally allowed to do) to the Superior Court.  They won the appeal in Superior Court and were granted the permit. CLF and the Committee for the Great Salt Pond appealed to the Supreme Court, where we won – and the case was remanded (sent back) by the Supreme Court to the CRMC for a new vote.

It was that vote that was taken last night.

CRMC member Bruce Dawson made the motion to reject the Champlin’s application outright.  He cited the unique ecological value of the Great Salt Pond, and concluded by saying he could not support this expansion.

A vote was taken on the Dawson motion to deny the permit.  It was approved 7 to zero.

What about an appeal?  While Champlin’s could appeal, any such appeal would almost certainly fail. Not only is this a very old case, but legally, any new appeal would be severely limited to only what has happened since the Supreme Court remand. Such a narrow time period provides almost no basis for an appeal.

The meeting was well-attended. Despite the impending storm, the auditorium at the Narragansett Town Hall was almost full. Finally, I must say that there was an outpouring of warm feeling toward CLF and the Committee for the Great Salt Pond. After the meeting, a steady stream of well-wishers from the Island came up to thank the lawyers on our side. After a very long (and very difficult) litigation, this was enormously gratifying.