text:
I am wondering what people think about House bill on the East Bay Energy Consortium Act?
The House Bill, H7592 was introduced by Representatives Gallison, Malik, Morrison, Edwards, and Handy on February 16, 2012.
I believe the companion Senate bill is co-sponsored by Senators Paiva-Weed, Ottiano, and De Palma.
Here's my take on this:
Basically the bill creates an entity that can issue bonds to develop renewable energy - which is then sold to Narragansett Electric via net metering laws.
They will issue bonds to build windmills (which only lasts 20 years) and strap the taxpayers with the bill over x years. They will then sell the energy to the taxpayers at rates higher than natural gas energy – thus increasing the taxpayer's energy bill.
This consortium can also employ people as it sees fit – which would come out of the net metering revenues. A premium would be added to everybody's electric bill so that they can employ these people. Who says the government can't create jobs?
And, of course the bill calls for providing pensions for these employees! "To pay pensions and establish pension plans, pension trusts, profit sharing plans andother incentive and benefit plans for any or all of its agents and employees". Garry Plunkett from Tiverton commented on his concerns relating to the establishment of retirement benefits as written in the draft. He touched on the current public opinions concerning pension packages, and that the provisions may not be welcomed by the community. Tom Moses responded to these concerns and explained that "such language involving retirement provisions is common to documents outlining powers of incorporation of any organization, and especially those independent quasi public agencies as EBEC." Moses advised that "any powers not considered and included at this stage, were powers that would be strictly unavailable to EBEC in the future."
Another point to consider is how much the consortium must pay the towns in lieu of property taxes. If the town is a member of the consortium and they can't agree on a price then the actual value of the property tax is used. If the town is not a member of the consortium and they can't agree on a price, the consortium gets to decide. But what is not addressed is who pays for the removal of the dead windmill in no more than 20 years, and who pays for the toxic leaks that may contaminate the surrounding soil if it goes bad, or who pays for other unforeseen expenses?
Anchor Rising comment: "Apparently the legislature thinks things are going too smoothly between East Bay residents and the Bristol County Water Authority, so they want to throw another regional body with revenue collecting powers into the works."
But the scariest of all..... "The purpose of the Board would be to explore and promote the use of alternative, renewable energy sources in the communities of the East Bay. The Board would also have certain powers to accomplish this purpose, including but not limited to the authority to issue bonds and THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN."
When the group expressed concern over the Eminent Doman clauses and Tom Moses reaffirmed the necessity of the Imminent Domain clause in relation to tax-exempt financing, Phil Hervey of Barrington suggested that as a remedy "EBEC employ Development Agreements with language that limits the use of the Imminent Domain clause in those projects."
While the concept may be good, this trend to burden the taxpayer both with the FINANCING, and the RISK on these types of ventures is getting out of control. Find someone in the private sector to take it on, invest in it, and leave the taxpayers out of it. If there are no takers... it's because it's another Deepwater Wind... This is an empire in the making.... at taxpayer expense! We need LESS Government/Quasi-Government entities, not MORE! Call your legislator NOW!
The minutes for the meetings of the East Bay Energy Consortium can be found on the state website.
You can also read the bill in its entirety online.
4:55 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
Thank you Marina for bringing this to our community's attention...I have been posting & talking about it since Anchor Rising brought it up...thank you thank you thank you !!!
marina peterson
5:53 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
No need to thank me Gina! This is downright scary and we all have to put it on the front burner, or at least an adjacent burner to Pension issues. The thought of the creation of yet another quasi-governmental agency that is unelected, answers to no-one, has no business plan, and has eminent domain power is inconceivable!
And anyone who believes that after they are through paying for their salaries, pensions, healthcare, profit sharing plans, and more, that there will be anything left for the towns... is crazy.
The problem is that it is so easy to make foolish decisions, and take unnecessary risks when you are using tax-payer money!
Gerry Jones
10:48 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Marina, the only thing that is scary here is your ignorance. It's so easy to point the finger at others when you don't and obviously cannot do anything for the public. This is something the every TC that has looked at it has approved. I guess you and the rest of the true believers don't get that we the voters actually want this to come to fruition. Your boogy man type conspiracy theories will not stop us from making this happen. What is is like to live in a world where everything is a conspiracy against you, Marina?
Bryan Palumbo
4:11 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Gerry, the tax payer wants another unelected agency spending our money on useless items while the state is operating at a 100% deficit? Really?
No wonder why our state is such a horrible financial situation.
Rug Doctor
6:59 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
This is a major power grab that takes away private property rights!!! It needs to be stopped or it will be too late for RI.
Gary Morse
8:03 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
To anyone who doesn't understand what may happen here with private property rights, I suggest that they read the 2005 US Supreme Court case of Kelo vs City of New London.
In that case, the court upheld that any private developer can make a proposal to take land, and the authority can act on behalf of the private developer to take the land (eminent domain) even when there is no guarantee that the project will actually be completed.
Kelo ultimately had their home taken and torn down, and the proposed development was never even started. It remains a wasteland to this day. This is about developers and insiders and their quest for future prime space in RI.
Shame on all who support this.
Joe Sousa.
7:02 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
I have to say my first impression of this group was they were looking for private developers who were interested in sites that are viable for wind farms. I realize this letter points out worst case scenarios. In this state Gov. has a way of growing.
Tiv. had a volunteer sewer committee. Then we had a paid employee. Now he wants to unionize the position. and we provide a vehicle.
The foot gets in the door and it keeps pushing. I'm looking a little closer at this and the bonds I really don't want to be obligated for.
marina peterson
7:13 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
You are correct Joe! And once it's created, there is no going back! The organizational set-up creates a dynasty that just keeps on giving... to some.... and taking from the rest of us.
Gerry Jones
10:39 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
What's the matter, Marina? Your guy didn't win? The way I see it, you and the rest of the tea baggers were mad when Felice wasn't the choice of the Tiverton TC to put in the wind turbines. Yeah, we, the residents of Tiverton, don't want the only guy who has NEVER built anything taking control of OUR park. I guess that doesn't work for you and the rest of the tea bag group.
Why don't you petition my rep, the utterly useless gordon, to put in something for your group to fight this issue? Or would that be a complete waste of energy, Marina? You supported him, so you own him. Remember that in November, Marina, when you are pushing the next dan-i-lie-about-everything-gordon.
Robert E
8:23 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
How do I apply for a job sounds like a sweetheart deal.
Bristol County Anonymous
9:40 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
Does anyone think these guys are acting in the public interest?
As if.
I see Mr. Malik is listed as one of the sponsors...
did he explain why he missed all those votes?
Excerpt from recent Patch article:
Peter Costa Jr. has set his sights on representing voters in Barrington and Warren for his first elective office. One of his primary reasons for seeking the seat held by Malik since 1997 is "accountability," Costa said.
"Look at the incumbent's (Mr. Malik's) record," he said. He missed 355 votes last year – the second highest number in the House.
Costa cites the legislative website, RhodeIslandVotes.org, as his source for that number, which shows 826 roll calls and Malik missing about 42 percent of the votes
Robert Crane
6:41 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Bristol County Anonymous - I am not sure that i understand your point. I agree that Rep, Malik needs to account for his lack of attendance - I will wait to see his reason before casting poorly on him. More so, are you saying that a Member who misses votes should not be allowed to co-sponsor legislation???
marina peterson
9:07 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Some bullet points:
Controlled by a Board of Directors and a Chairman, directors appointed by towns. (sound familiar)
Bonds issued by Consortium on its own authority.
Bonds used to construct facility with 8-10 2.5 megawatt wind turbines.
Proposed site in Tiverton, near natural gas electrical generation facility.
Consortium to negotiate long-term contract with National Grid to sell them electricity.
Elec. rates for customers INCREASED by Nat. Grid to cover cost of renewable energy above market rates..
When operational EBEC promises to pay towns payments of UNSPECIFIED amounts, but NOT guaranteed.
EBEC would have POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN to seize private property in member communities.
The project itself represents a substantial engineering challenge and is very risky.
Many who have looked at this plan believe that the towns would be held liable for any default on bonds.
The EBEC will be hiring personnel, paying pensions and benefits, and purchasing land without any direct supervision.
To sum up, towns who join would be increasing the cost of electricity for their residents in exchange for uncertain revenue and exposing their property owners to potential land seizures under EBEC's power of eminent domain.
Jack Baillargeron
4:16 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Having just read the enabling legislation on this, I am embarrassed my town of Bristol has fallen for this, or that my local representative even helped write this bill.
This so called Energy Consortium is nothing of the sort. I strongly suggest everyone download and read the enabling law, it is only 21 pages, but read it a few times, it has a lot of smoke in it. It is currently in review phase, pay close attention to the Eminent domain powers, given exclusively to the is group., and also the section on no taxes at all, and their bond issuing powers that all cities or towns, that join this are liable for even if you later pull out, to the tune of 10 of millions of dollars.
This along is one of the many reasons, these things must be done by private enterprise, period.
You must also look at this, from a view of how these Quasi-Government Companies are run in this State. The BCWA (Bristol County Water Authority) is a perfect example of this going wildly bad. If you care to see its problem since the Tri-town area purchased it.
Private Companies are who take these risks; it should not be the taxpayers.
Robert Crane
6:44 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I too, have read the text of the bill. It seems to be essentially "enabling legislation" that happens all the time. If corrections need to be made, they can be made during the hearing process - which I would encourage every single person who posts against this bill to attend. Complaining here does not do much good if we don't show up at the hearing and stop either tho whole bill - or the parts that need to be fixed.
Paul Raducha
7:31 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
You have some great points on this and I agree this needs proceed with caution. I am always concern when a new "qausi-governmental agency is formed that requires staffing and funding, some of which may be redundant or not needed. I do need point out some corrections / clarifications in your article. Under Net metering laws in this project the energy cannot be sold to private people or entities. Net metering in that case has to generated onsite. In this case the energy will be sold to the respective municipalities, which is allowed under net metering Aka Virtual net metering. The off set of "natural gas" Energy is correct, as it is the marginal fuel in New England for electrical energy generation after the base load of nuclear and coal. You have some great points on this and I agree this needs proceed with caution. I am always concern when a new "qausi-governmental agency is formed that requires staffing and funding, some of which may be redundant or not needed. I do need point out some corrections / clarifications in your article. Under Net metering laws in this project the energy cannot be sold to private people or entities. Net metering in that case has to generated onsite. In this case the energy will be sold to the respective municipalities, which is allowed under net metering Aka Virtual net metering. continued..
Paul Raducha
7:33 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The off set of "natural gas" Energy is correct, as it is the marginal fuel in New England for electrical energy generation after the base load of nuclear and coal. Natural gas is at an all time low due supply from fracking but this is expected start moving up. Wells are being capped by drilling firms in effort to reduce supply and drive prices up and alternative sources are being employed (vehicle fuel etc) in addition for a push to export. If the traders get their way that gas will be traded on a global market we will compete against others for our own gas. Bottom line is gas prices will go up and thus electricity. (5 yrs ago Nat gas was $15mmbtu now it trades at $2.25 but it can not live there) Remember New England is restrained gas area, the gas wells can produce as much gas as it can but we can only fit so much in the pipes getting to our region with out significant investment in infrastructure. So for New England to produce electricity from gas require long-term contracts that come at a premium. Additional capacity from pipe requires infrastructure investment which will be borne by the ratepayer. In addition the electrical grid in many areas in the nation were stretched to capacity and if it was not for the economic downturn more plants needed to come online. As we slowly recover this issue will comeback bring additional cost to ratepayers, all cost trickle to the rate payers in one way or another. continued
Paul Raducha
7:33 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
When you speak of energy you need to remember in general energy is only 50 – 60% of your bill the remaining is distribution and transmission. Currently, energy is going down but transmission is going up as we upgrade the grid. The project in question and others like this are distributed generation and the positive of that is less reliance on the grid for transmission and provides stability if done correctly. The other by -product is locally infusion of capital expenditures and related jobs for construction and operation and maintenance. This project will produce revenue from the sale of energy but will also offset distribution transmission cost and in some cases off-set capacity and other cost. So comparing to "energy" needs to be defined better and not just broadly referred to as "low cost energy" continued..
Paul Raducha
7:38 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
In general a project like this is noble and can hedge the future energy prices if done correctly. The uphill climb here is being a day late and a dollar short. Most incentives for renewable energy have sun-setted and others are close to. Rhode Island ranked almost dead last in renewable energy project out of the 50 states not only in absolute dollars but per capita and per GDP. In short Rhode Islanders paid federal taxes that we used to fund other states renewable energy projects while we sat idle by. Credit is owed to few in the community and legislation and administration that moved the current net metering and distributed generation laws into reality. The ITC credit is schedule to sunset in 2016 with the production tax credit (mainly used for wind projects) expiring this year. A private developer could have leveraged those incentives for this project and reduced the projects overall cost.
Paul Raducha
7:39 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Not that it can-not be done now but it is going to take some creative people to get it done. Do I think the resources will be incubated in a government agency maybe but highly unlikely. I feel that the creative solution will be found in a well run diverse "team" compensated but not a "bureaucracy" that does not feel it has the solution but is looking to developers from a nationwide search and competitive bid that will introduce a unique solution to this above and beyond just a wind farm. If you want a wind farm you will get a wind farm you need to look for an "East bay Energy hedging solution" you will get more. In short saying that was repeated but an old boss and mentor of mine which makes sense to me after every project I have endeavored " To every complex problem there is a simple solution…and that tends to be wrong" continued
Paul Raducha
7:42 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
This comment starts 5 comments above i was limited to size of my reply and needed to break it up into 6 sections
In full disclosure I am an energy developer working with a group that just completed a 35 megawatt renewable energy project utilizing landfill gas and 27 acres of solar panels that provides enough energy to run one the largest waste water treatment plants in New Jersey and send the remaining energy onto the local grid. This project resides on past unusable landfill that is now an benefit to the local community economically and other attributes. I live in Bristol in a house that utilizes solar thermal and solar PV systems for 100 % of my hot water all installed by local labors and the systems were mostly manufactured in the US. The house is heated by natural gas but has a pellet stove that can produce 100% of my heating needs by Rhode Island sourced pellets. I am pro-environment but I am more pro-local economy. If my neighbors make money we all do.
Gary Morse
8:09 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Your argument assumes responsible leadership devoid of crony politics. I grew up in RI and until the cronyism is flushed out, you are living in a dream world. One only has to look at the BCWA and their own crony land deals serving insiders.
Do some research.
marina peterson
11:53 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
I don't disagree that the concept has merit. It needs to be done by a private developer... not with taxpayer dollars and the creation of an all-powerful, untouchable, quasi-governmental agency with powers of eminent domain!
Gerry Jones
10:53 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Like who, Marina, Jerry Felice? Let me guess, he bought you as well as the TCC? Anytime I hear someone touting a private enterprise for the wind farm in Tiverton, Marina, it turns out to be Jerry Felice. Why is that?
Robert Crane
6:49 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
In some cases that is true Marina. And if that is your belief that the private sector needs to be the driving force on projects like this - then you need to also be against spending by agencies such as the Department of Defense, DARPA, and other government agencies (and the their staffs) that have created many devices and processes that make our lives easier - and better.
4:55 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Marina is so on point with this. One thing to bear in mind with this legislation - it has very bad language regarding the eminent domain issue. This is not restricted to the East Bay - its state wide and it attempts to circumvent home rule charters. I doubt the bill, if enacted with in this form would survive a constitutionality test. The part of being non-repealable due to bonded debt is also flawed language. The General Assembly is the originator of any bill and it can strike that language out. Another part that is very troubling is that they have exclusive control over rates and can apply a surcharge to an electric customer. That could be challenged as there is already a charge for renewable energy certificates.
As the bulk of the sponsors and co-sponsors are from the East Bay area, specifically Warren - Bristol area, the residents should write down these names and remember to vote them out in November as they were attempting to take away your homes. Bad legislators produce bad legislation - this is the proof.
And lets not forget to give exposure to the lawyer for this group who worked on this - T. Moses and the Marine Affairs Institute. Also, the Office of Energy Resources Renewable Energy Fund has kicked money into this group along with RI Economic Development Corporation and the RI Foundation.
4:55 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Let's hear from these parties and see if they can justify their actions with this legislation. One key piece of this that is missing is there is no business plan - no project description - no oversight. All bad and pressure needs to be mounted to force this bill to remain on the table!
Jerry Squatrito
6:52 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The fact that there is an absence of a business plan, project description or oversight provisions could be that this was done by design. I is difficult to believe that these basic elements were not thought of by those folks who drafted this plan. Could be that this is a way of warding off future blame.
We need to be careful that the intent and actions of the legislators 20 or 30 years down the road will most probably be quite different from the intent and actions of today. I have become very mistrusting of government. PRIVATIZE!
marina peterson
9:07 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
"As the bulk of the sponsors and co-sponsors are from the East Bay area, specifically Warren - Bristol area, the residents should write down these names and remember to vote them out in November as they were attempting to take away your homes. Bad legislators produce bad legislation - this is the proof."
Deserves to be restated.. over and over again! I understand that Senator DiPalma did not show up at the Senate hearing last night. Rumor has it that it will not get out of the Senate Finance Committee... and has little to no support in the House. BUT... we cannot let up! Contact everyone you know and give them the facts on this bill. Especially the part about the bill having no limiting language on the eminent domain issue!
marina peterson
9:33 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
I predict that this bill could single-handedly curtail the career of any politician who supports it or votes for it...... It is that egregious!
John Smythe
2:08 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
It's hard to treat your opinion seriously when you think that windmills have "toxic leaks."
Although I am all for small government, private businesses have no responsibility to the taxpayer. They do not have to answer to us.
Robert E
3:48 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
John if you think that windturbines can not have "toxic leaks" then you know nothing about windturbines. Windturbines have banks of batteries that create the feild in the generator and these lead acid batteries can leak toxic substances.
marina peterson
5:36 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
If I am wrong, mea culpa. I thought a key material in constructing wind turbines, carbon fiber composite, could not be recycled and was fast filling landfills or else is being burned creating toxic emissions. A friend of mine lives in Palm Springs CA and they have had a "farm" for years... and are now running into this problem.
8:57 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Just saw this Marina...East Povidence
Gary Morse
7:51 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Reps Malik and Morrison (Gallison was a no show) also voted in favor of House Bill 7232 which would have made rate payers responsible for 100% of deadbeat accounts for National Grid. Yes, rate payers would have had to pay 100% of the bill for any deadbeat who skipped town. Currently, those costs are rolled back into Nat Grids cost of doing business.
Now it appears we have to add on top of that this "crony" House Bill. What is going on here?
RI continues to make self inflicted wounds in it's race to being the biggest business pariah in the US.
Jean Marie Veegh
10:37 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Marina's mention of "...while the concept may be good, this trend to burden the taxpayer both with FINANCING and RISK on these ventures is getting out of control" ... reminded me of an article I read where the view of crony capitalism nailed it. People risking their own money is the best test for whether a business venture is a good idea or not.
Peter Ferrara wrote - "Businesses should not be living at the expense of taxpayers any more than anyone else. Businesses must earn their way by competing in the marketplace not only for customers but also for capital investment. America has the most advanced and developed capital markets in the world. If no one in those capital markets wants to risk their own money on a business idea or enterprise, that means it does not have sufficient prospects for success, and should not be funded.
Politicians and bureaucrats have no market-tested expertise as to who should get funded and who should not. They will make the choice instead based on political considerations, such as who has raised the most money for the politicians in power, or who has the most support from politically relevant voting blocs. But making the choice on that basis rather than exclusively business prospects will mean more losses, with the taxpayers footing the bill. That is just another form of stealing, or another sophisticated form of organized crime." http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/02/the-immorality-of-obamanomics
Jeannie Veegh
East Shore Properties
marina peterson
11:57 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
This item is on the Warren Agenda for their meeting on Tuesday, May 8th. Please try and attend and voice your opinion!
marina peterson
12:35 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
I have just spoken to Jan Malik and he has withdrawn his support for this bill. Eminent domain power is unacceptable. He told me that he has spoken to the Warren Town Administrator and the Town Council about how bad this bill is.
Gary Morse
1:27 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Thank you Rep Malik for taking the time to dig deeper into the details behind the legislation.
8:39 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
The bigger question I have is why did Malik put his name on the bill? Didn't he read it first? Obviously he didn't. Many legislators do this and is why we end up with so many bad bills. Hold these people accountable.
5:29 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Wind power is not competitive without huge tax subsidies.
97.7% of the electricity generated in Rhode Island is from natural gas.
The only time wind power is even close to competitive is when it is generated right where it will be used. That takes into account not just the cost of electricity but also the cost of distribution.
Deepwater was jammed down our throats by a corrupt cadre of politicians. We already have one of the highest electricity rates in the nation this will only make it worse.
9:36 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Your current electric rate is 12.47 cents/kwh. Deep Water wind has a contracted rate of 24.5 cents/kwh. Then Gov. DC stated that wind energy would "eventually" be a source of cheap power. These renewal energy cerificates are issued and these various projects are tacked onto them. Your last rate increase was due to those certificates. It seems we are substituting one expensive energy source to another. Where is the savings here people?
9:44 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
That Deepwater rate does not include the cost of the power transmission cables to bring the power to the mainland either.
Deepwater's original proposed rate to National Grid, which was rejected, included the cost and came in at 32.5 cents/kwh.
Then the State gave National Grid a 3% kicker on renewable power buys and National Grid allowed Deepwater to propose a rate w/o the power cables included.
By law since deregulation National Grid is not supposed to make any profit from sale of gas or electricity.
Somehow that cost will be passed into ratepayers by National Grid.
This is the biggest rip off in RI history.
marina peterson
5:44 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Interesting agenda for the East Bay Energy Coalition at
Gary Morse
6:07 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
"EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:30 a.m. Pursuant to provisions of R.I.G.L., Sections 42-46-2., 42.46-5. (a) (5) lease or land acquisition, (7) investment of public funds.
Sounds like they have some buying in mind.
When land is taken by eminent domain, RI law states it must be bought at 150% of fair market value. Sounds like a great deal, but not for taxpayers.
Gary Morse
6:26 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Rhode Island
S2728A requires that property owners receive at least 150% of fair market value in compensation when government bodies with eminent domain powers seize private property. The bill provides a roadmap for economic development takings, requiring that there be a development plan, 14 days notice for a public hearing, 30 days for public comment, advanced notice for property owners before seizure, and a city/town council vote on eminent domain action.
Sponsored by: State Senators James Sheehan, John Tassoni, Jr., Michael McCaffrey, J. Michael Lenihan, and Christopher Maselli
Status: Signed into law July 2, 2008.
6:37 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
Fair market value should be at least what they appraise a home for taxation. But guess what?
11:48 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Yeah, interesting because you didnt attend the other half decade of meetings this group has been having....
Jack Baillargeron
12:07 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
Senate Bill S2870 to coincide with house Bill H7592 , are the newest ones on this energy consortium which gives them these enormous almost totalitarian powers, also has no provision in it that says anything about complying with the 150% value of State law, it only states fair market value. It is my understanding that this power vested in them, would mean they do not have to go by the RI law, as this power is granted exclusively to the consortium.
This bill and the house one, are virtually the same, and are some of the most, smoke and mirrors to come out of the state house in decades that not only ignores the citizens but takes rights away from the people like fascist States of the 1930s and 40s, sad our legislatures do not learn from history.
They also do not specify whether the people on this consortium will be elected or appointed, it says they can be either. Talk about cronyism. No appointed official should have this far reaching power over the people, nor should an elected one in my opinion. This is a very dangerous bill to be sure. There is also a serious question as to the viability of this Wind power if run by a government agency, especially on the small scale they are talking about, (20 windmills at a cost of $50 to $60 million). More on this later ;-}
I agree voting out these officials, time to quit giving them a break when they pull out of a bill like this. This has happened to many times. Being there in first place, should vote them out now.
6:32 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
Jack, the individual 9 councils elects/appoints their representative. No definition of what that time period is. This people determine their pay, pension benefit, healthcare and so on. This could be called "the high council of nine" by the way this thing is written. Extremely dangerous legislation that needs to be layed on the table and slaughtered. Those who signed onto this bill should be tossed out on the next election cycle. The gall of these people.
8:50 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Yearly payments for a $60 million dollar bond on a piece of mechanical equipment that may need significant maintenance before it's 20 year end of life expectancy.
Just what Bristol and Warren need as we deal with a $9 million dollar loss in State aid for the school system.
There is no practical reason for this project. If there was then there would be a detailed business plan rather than what they have now which is more of a power grab.
12:29 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
Senator DiPalma was a no show at the Senate Hearings - this bill is way too over-reaching and will not make it. BUT, pressure needs to be kept on these legislators that this type of legislation is bad for RI. Wind turbines are not the panacea everyone wants to make them out to be. They only have a life of 20 years! The bigger question one has to ask is "why did the farmers abandon them for their farms?" Unreliable!
12:30 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
This bill would also create another state agency - just what we don't need. Have we not learned anything from the Bristol Water Authority fiasco?
Jack Baillargeron
8:08 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
Have to agree this is all to much like the conspiracy theories I use to tell people they were nuts about and could no happen in this society. Shamefully these legislators are starting to believe that they and they alone know what is best for the people.
They have either forgotten that it is the people who know best and do the deciding, not them, or they have delusions of Godhood. I never thought I would see this day. Sadly that is not even a harsh or joking statement or opinion, but a fact that we now live in this type of destruction of the fabric of the Country. How fast these legislators have forgotten or decided to ignore histories of the very government's that have failed in the past, due to those, beliefs.
Reagan was right that the scariest thing to hear is "we are from the government and are here to help", love or hate the guy, how prophetic he was.
11:50 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Pressure?? I don't see Govstench actively creating millions of dollars of potential revenue to the nine cities of the East Bay!! This windmill debate brings up a great comparison. When the Pilgrims came to New England, they refused to eat the Lobster because it was against their culture! They Starved!
4:38 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The only thing they will create is bills because it will cost more than it takes in.
12:31 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
When Carcieri was Governor there was some talk of a wind turbine deal with Chevron where they would build and maintain the turbine at no cost to the State except the State would put up the land. One was going in Narragansett at a DEM site. The details of the pricing were in projo.com but nothing comes back for that since they changed to providencejournal.com. Regardless it was a win win for the State. You can see from the feasibility study though that only Narragansett and Little Compton are good sites for wind projects on land.
Jack Baillargeron
11:42 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
We have a major problem with our local politicians and every state politician. Why they are coming up with these bills, or signing onto them and then either pulling their name or suddenly saying they will be voting against it after public complaint.
Politicians are not elected get it right by trial and error. That is a waste of time and money of the tax payers.
If you are that ignorant, you cannot read a bill and see the same problems with it the public sees, or do not contact people and have time to do a town hall, for input from the people, why the heck are you writing or signing onto them. We are not fooled by any of this. We Te People know full well the scratch my back deals in the back rooms of the State house. That is not what you are there for. You are supposed to do the work of the people not another legislator's work for a favor.
The old that's how it is, or has always been done, is nothing more than a cowards excuse for ineptitude and being incapable of making your own decision based on who you represent, "The People". Do the people expect perfection? No we expect honest representation by those we elect period, not R.I. Politics as usual.
Robert E
12:00 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Jack the problem is these politicians don't bother to read the bills before they sign on one of their buddies comes up to them and says sign on to this is a great idea and they sign on without reading.
Jack Baillargeron
12:43 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Hense the reason to just dump all these guys and gals, they have all been proving without a doubt so far this year enormously, that they do not deserve to be elected again. Absolutly none of them.
8:53 am on Saturday, May 12, 2012
The voters need to look over what their legislators have been doing at the state house. What bills have they filed to benefit the people they are supposed to represent. I will guess that 99% of the voters have not done that, which explains why so many of these legislators continue to return to the statehouse. The only group that will challenge these people are the public unions, i.e. bills favoring binding arbitration, perpetual contracts, etc. You can bet those legislator who voted for pension reform are sweating. Quite a few have decided not to run this year. These people need to be challenged and people need to turn off the TVs, get off the sofa, and get out there and challenge these people. Call or write them - "hey, what have you done for me lately." Otherwise, the status-quo will continue.
Jack Baillargeron
11:43 am on Sunday, May 6, 2012
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Gary Morse
12:05 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Anatomy of a quasi government land deal:
Without mentioning any names (the public record supports all of the following), there was once a quasi government operation in the East Bay where an insider proposed to a certain private land owner that they put in a request to the town for a subdivision essentially increasing the land value. The subdivision got a rubber stamped "no planning board approval needed" (it's in the record).
On the day the subdivision was filed with the town, the record then shows that one minute later (I kid you not), the insider bought the land from the private party.
Less than 30 days later, the board of directors of the quasi filed to take the land via eminent domain from the insider paying a huge mark-up.
6 months later, a bill for the land was submitted by the quasi to a state agency for payment of the land at the marked up amount. There is no record of any questions at the state agency, it was just approved for payment in the full amount and then submitted to the State Budget Office. The State Budget Office then wrote out a check back to the quasi for the approved amount.
It's all in public records.
This is how these things work in RI.
marina peterson
3:43 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Yes, I have copies of all of the documentation for this. There is no end to the games these quasi-governmental, answer-to-no-one entities can play!
Gary Morse
8:34 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Yes Marina, the quasi scheme was all in public records, it just took a little digging.
What is interesting is how the quasi agency tried to bury the evidence by not listing purchase and sale amounts in the town records and by splitting the payment requests to the state agency over several months, not in one submission. But the state agency had to list all the amounts and that is where this scam was revealed.
Crony politics are RI's biggest problem and this bill appears to be heading for crony central at taxpayer expense.
Gary Morse
8:59 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
One other point people should know about quasi's: because they are government agencies, they are not required to list purchase and sale amounts on local records (i.e. no tax stamps required). And because land purchase and sales can be held private in "executive session" you have to dig hard to get the facts of what really goes on.
Too much secrecy for me to have confidence in any RI quasi operation.
marina peterson
2:03 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
I quote from the Ocean State Tea Party in Action Newsletter:
However, there was one bill heard in the Senate Environment and
" Agriculture committee that was so egregious to our freedom, so
against the concept of private property ownership, that the OSTPA
diverted from its Legislative Agenda to oppose it. At first glance, a seemingly innocuous bill, S 2870 (similar to H 7592), would create a consortium of East Bay communities to provide for alternative power. However, this bill goes much farther. It provides for eminent domain. A group of unelected officials would have the power to take private property if it simply deemed it necessary. This alone is enough to demand the bill be tabled. Indeed, Representative Malik informed
OSTPA that he no longer supports this legislation and others are reconsidering their support as well. All RI residents should look at this bill to get a taste of what power plays are being made in the name of green energy. All residents of the
participating towns would do well to read this bill to see the rights and freedoms they will cede to a consortium over which they will have no control. Residents might also consider asking their town councils if there are any anticipated side agreements with individual participating communities."
2:12 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
I'd love to see what they think of Historic District zoning which foists a higher standard of maintenance on certain homeowners just for the financial well being of the town with no compensation or tax breaks by the town just higher homeowner costs. These are not elected officials either
marina peterson
2:05 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
coninued.... "However, there was one bill heard in the Senate Environment and
Agriculture committee that was so egregious to our freedom, so against the concept of private property ownership, that the OSTPA diverted from its Legislative Agenda to oppose it. At first glance, a seemingly innocuous bill, S 2870 (similar to H 7592), would create a consortium of East Bay communities to provide for alternative power. However, this bill goes much farther. It provides for eminent domain. A group of unelected officials would have the power to take private
property if it simply deemed it necessary. This alone is enough to demand the bill be tabled. Indeed, Representative Malik informed OSTPA that he no longer supports this legislation and others are reconsidering their support as well.
All RI residents should look at this bill to get a taste of what power plays are being made in the name of green energy. All residents of the participating towns would do well to read this bill to see the rights and freedoms they will cede to a consortium over which they will have no control. Residents might also consider asking their town councils if there are any anticipated side agreements with individual participating communities."
marina peterson
2:07 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Continued......"Representative Gallison had acknowledged the problems with the House bill. In the spirit of efficiency, one would have thought that those same
problems would have been addressed in the Senate bill before a hearing was conducted. It was not and quite a bit of time was invested on what, we believe, was a bill that no one would support or vote out of committee.
This is another example of the convoluted and inefficient system that our General Assembly uses to crank out the laws and regulations we are expected to abide by. Will the next bill eliminate just enough power so as to make the opposition think they have dodged a bullet, but still leave enough power in the bill that would have, at first been considered egregious, but not so much as compared to what it might otherwise have been?
The final question to ask is, why would any municipality want to accept such risk when there appears to be plenty of private enterprises willing to do the heavy lifting with none of these powers or authority?"
7:44 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
You do not want a government agency entering into the utility business. You have that with the Bristol Water Authority. How well as that worked out for everyone? We all know that government agencies are lousy stewards of the public's money. This EBEC would establish a council of nine kings that would rule the kingdom of nine municipalities, set their own wages, healthcare and pension benefits, establish their own rates on the electricity and seize property to build these wind turbines, with no government oversight. Sounds like a classic kingdom to me.
11:55 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Are you really that dumb Govstench??? Because paying your family Mafia is better?
Bristol County Anonymous
8:50 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
June Speakman supports this absurdity…
with the usual lack of due diligence,
and questionable objectives.
Mrs. Speakman re-appointed crony BCWA directors year-after-year…
and now she wants another entity just like the old BCWA.
Recently, she said she wants to be a State Senator.
Can you imagine what she would do as a State Senator?
Look at the mess she made in Barrington.
We don't' need her at the State level.
9:21 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Once this gets established there will be no stopping it. So the time is now to cut it off at the legs and kill it.
Look at Portsmouth's turbine. It already needed major repairs and aside from that the manufacturer went bankrupt before the install was even finished. Then on top of everything else they were over charging for the power and that's been cut back now.
Gerald V Felise
9:39 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
I am pleased to see the lively debate, conversation and airing of the EBEC Act. Fifteen years ago a back door deal was cut in the General Assembly/Town Council creating a Tax Treatise for the Gas Generation Plant and the citizens of Tiverton were cheated out of a Million dollars a year in taxes. The healthy debate that is going on now was non-existent back then as facts were kept from the citizens and the entire process was manipulated and suppressed by the then town council/administration and state representatives who cut the back door deals. There wasn't media conduits such as Patch, eCo RI, Internet Blogs etc. available for Fair and Balanced reporting of these activities. I would highly recommend to all those who read these blog posts to give credence to the posters, on both sides of the issue, who present facts that can be supported, those bloggers who have done their homework. Conversely, I would caution the public to be wary of those, on both sides of the issue, who spend their time bashing the messengers, conduct character assassination on individuals and malign individuals with juxtaposed views. They are not independent thinkers and all they do is regurgitate the talking points all to often void of facts, of those who have been in power all these years not representing the citizens of Tiverton or Rhode Island but their own self interests. Weigh and consider bloggers on both sides of the issue that present factual positions on this very important issue.
11:53 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
The next time i consider a blog anything more than gossip, I am going to elect Gerald Felise for govnah!!! Talk about speaking with a bag over his head.
Gary Morse
10:14 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Link to the Portsmouth turbine troubles. As some bloggers have pointed out, what are the true and total loaded costs to produce each KW of output.
10:33 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Gary I saw it a week or two ago and the blades were trying to move but they were loosely locked so the blade was banging against whatever was holding it. I know its not set up to move when the wind isn't strong enough but what I saw would be consistent with something being damaged because if it was 'locked' due to insufficient wind speed it wouldn't move at all.
One or more bloggers from Portsmouth defend that albatross regardless of facts which they care little about. No doubt any 'facts' they spew are carefully massaged to air a aura of profitability. Of course the use of 'free' taxpayer funds is kept quiet.
Rather than use the turbine to generate local power which would be looked at versus the entire cost of electricity including distribution costs Portsmouth chose to sell all the power to National Grid. so while they may be getting 6 cents/kwh they pay twice that for power the town uses. Real smart move there.
Any electromechanical device that needs major repair within the first year and a half of use is likely to need further repairs along the way to decommissioning.
Jack Baillargeron
11:21 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
For me a perfect example of why the Government should not be in charge of any utility the BCWA is a great one, the Portsmouth windmill is another and shows the difference every day. I drive back and forth to the Island quite often at times.
That Portsmouth Windmill, Is constantly not turning. It is not from wind as the privately owned one at Portsmouth Abby is spinning away almost every time, matter of fact, I cannot recall a time when that one was not spinning. There are very few days of no wind here and they will spin at very low mph winds.
The Portsmouth one last year had a breaker switch become faulty and was down for weeks, and the person responsible for that had to constantly go to it and reset it. Then it was down for quite a while, well they looked for a company in Europe to get the part. This was all in the papers.
There is an obviously scam going on in the State House, bowing yet again to special interest. There is a reason for this bill, it is nothing more than allowing a work around, town councils who do not want to give up land, and home owners also. Hence the Eminent Domain clause. Protection of the contractors also by the power of taxpayer Bonding, making the taxpayer responsible. More on all of this later, ( still reading information on people behind this lol). As usual, follow the money and the reason will appear in this State.
Bristol County Anonymous
11:29 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
"Wind Turbines are a fallacy."
"The massive subsidies provided to Wind Power is a wasteful use of our tax dollars."
"Wind turbines don't make economic sense for anyone but wind developers".
"Industrial wind factories are destructive to communities and local environments. Fragile ecosystems are destroyed. Birds and bats are killed. Animal habitats are disrupted and wildlife is driven from the area. Noise and vibrations cause human health problems, including sleep problems, headaches and nervous disorders. Home values and real estate prices are reduced, with some properties becoming impossible to sell."
This is a small sample from the vast amount of info on the internet revealing the fallacy of wind turbines.
Why do RI politicians want to waste our tax dollars on such a fallacy?
And why would anyone want to create another BCWA type entity?
What is really going on here?
Ray Andrews
1:19 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Bristol County Anonymous, just because you read something on the internet, that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. The internet is a huge place, you can find volumes, both pro and con on any subject you can imagine
2:29 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Fact: Wind turbines would never be built without enormous tax subsidies and schemes.
This is based on an actual local project that I have all the facts on. Deepwater.
Deepwater's cost to us will be 32.5 cents/kwh plus distribution currently another 6 cents/kwh. Meanwhile the cost of energy we pay right now still one of the most expensive in the country is less than one third Deepwater's initial rate which by contract will go up 3% per year. The cost of the turbine will not go up only the end user costs. That cost is after the carbon credits and other tax subsidies.
I followed the Deepwater scheme to defraud from National Grid's initial rejection of the 32.5 cent/kwh rate right through to the GA forcing the PUC to approve after bribing National Grid to approve.
There had to be lots of payoffs for that White Elephant to float. I'm sure there are lots of BS facts on the web about how great wind power is but there is no need to search any further than our own back yard for real hard facts.
That Portsmouth turbine that supposedly is making Portsmouth money? That started with over $3 million in tax payer subsidies, so yeah that pulled a boatload of cash out of our pockets so that Portsmouth can maybe eek out a small profit and frankly I doubt even that.
Paul Raducha
10:31 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Clearly you do not know your facts if you would like I can walk you thru the details of tax Benefits the oil and gas companies have received. All energy is subsidies in some form or another. Case in point Mass just built a new bridge in Fall River with braw bridge the sole purpose of the bridge was to allow coal and oil barge to move thru what is not that cost internalized to the cost of energy at that plant. There is no reason for that bridge of that design as there are no other navigation needs beyond the coal plant. I do recognize issue of renewables and it's limitations and it will not solve all our problems. The coal plant in somerset is the dirtiest in country and that will go away but I feel we will have nuclear plant there next . Feel free to Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com
Robert E
11:38 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Paul Mass built a new bridge to replace the existing draw bridge that was structurally deficient they needed to keep the new bridge a draw bridge because there are a couple of marinas up river and the sailboats can not get back and forth if the bridge didn't open to let them pass. As far as coal and oil barges they no longer pass through there as the power plant has been shutdown for over two years. Clearly you are the one who doesn't know your facts.
12:03 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Where do you people come from??? The eastern seaboard's has almost no natural resources besides its humans!! There is no coal, there is no agriculture, there is no mineral mining that would sustain its energy demand independence. Wind and the ever evolving technologies designed to harness it are slowly advancing on what sailors have known about New England for centuries. That the afternoon breeze can generate a great deal of un-tapped energy.
9:23 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
@Paul Raducha - there is no chance of any nuclear power plant being built in the northeast. After what took place in Japan and the fiascos at Plymouth, Ma, the political fallout would be too great. The Somerset plant was decommissioned because it no longer met the power needs of the grid. Was too small and inefficient. Old technology.
Jack Baillargeron
2:28 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
On the other hand Ray, when you ra the actual Bills, whether te Senat or Houe version, his is a tragedy for taxpayers, not to mention a violation of the most basic rights of a citizen.
It also is a fact that the CWA is a perfect exmple o one of the any failures of Quasi-Governmet entities and that happens with appointer officials, given powers that are nothing less than toltarian in nature, with no acountability at all except to special interest.
Only Private Enterprise should be involved in all this so called geen energy, and if we really are serious about "Energy Independence", then take the shackes off all of them. There can be no switch with out an "all of the above" as they say, and that is just the plain fact of the matter.
The government has never in our history been successful at any business venturel, that the private sector has been sucessful with. Also a fact ;-}
Jack Baillargeron
2:29 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
wow sorry for so many missing letters, operator error lol.
John ("Anything But Sue")
3:29 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
All you windmill lovers will be happy to hear....The Hodges Badges Windmill started running TODAY.
3:50 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
$375,000 in taxpayer money up front plus ongoing tax credits all coming out of our pockets.
BTW real high precision manufacturing on this turbine since it didn't line up in 2011 and had to be shipped out and modified just to be pieced together.
John ("Anything But Sue")
7:41 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Let the birds and bats Beatdown begin. BTW: this was NOT taxpayer money.....this was cash from... The ONE: O'Bamas Stash...just sayin...
I LIKE "Wind Turbines".......The BIG Ones..
6:57 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
When the Government money runs out the wind power lie will come to an end.
"The project, which began four years ago, is partially funded through a state grant of $225,000 through the Rhode Island Renewable Energy Fund and a $150,o00 grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)."
Jack Baillargeron
9:23 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Part 1
The more I look into the rush to pass this law, the more you find what appears to be a big scam against the taxpayers, in my opinion.
It starts in Tiverton, with this link;
To summarize; TIVERTON — Gerald V. Felise offered Monday to buy the town's Industrial Park for cash, and build a $150 million energy development on land near it along Route 24.
#After emerging from a 45-minute closed session that began Monday's meeting, several council members, Mr. Felise, and Town Solicitor Andrew Teitz — almost by chance and at different times — confirmed that Mr. Felise had made an offer behind closed doors to buy the town-owned 177-acre Industrial Park. No details were provided at the meeting.
#It was not until 1 a.m., long after everyone but council members had left, that the council voted to unseal the minutes of the executive session and to release the details of Mr. Felise's offer.
#Council President Jay Lambert said Tuesday that Mr. Felise offered to buy the site for $3 million in cash, provide space for municipal buildings on the site for $1, provide space for the library for $1, assume the town's responsibility to pay for the library, and pay for the town's $3 million in bonds floated to build the library.
Jack Baillargeron
9:24 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Part 2
#Mr. Felise's company, Natural Energy Generation (NEG), of which he is president and CEO, is located at 896 Fish Road.
Does not look like a fair deal at all for the taxpayers to me anyway.
What is on the table for this Tiverton location is a multi-faceted energy systems development comprised of approximately twelve 2-megawatt turbines, 24 megawatt's worth of photovoltaic solar panels, and 96-megawatts of energy storage capability. Spread out over the entire 650-acre footprint, these elements will only occupy about 10 percent of the total land area. According to data gathered by RIREC, these combined energy systems will generate 83,522 megawatts of electricity when fully operational.
All total, revenue over the life of the project is slated to be around $23 million. If it also participates as part of the Consortium, Tiverton stands to gain an additional $669,000 in revenue annually for at least twenty years through net metering. If such dollar signs didn't make the deal sweet enough, RIREC delivered the equivalent of icing on the green economy cake with the promise of sourcing jobs to Tiverton residents and businesses first. What could not be filled in Tiverton would then be sourced out to participating Consortium members.
Wow the favoritism is alive and well huh?
John ("Anything But Sue")
10:22 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
"All total, revenue over the life of the project is slated to be around $23 million."
Simple math. A single 2.0 MW turbine costs about 4 to 5 million dollars. Multiply that times 12 turbines = $60 million. SO: We spend $60 million..and get back $23 million. That looks like a $37 million dollar LOSS. Maybe my math is off...?
Jack Baillargeron
9:24 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Part 3
Then there is this from the next meeting, The Town Meeting after that;
Where the Tiverton council decides to reject giving this 667 acres of land. Oh well, lets have the State pass a bill that will allow a bunch of appointed officials to take this land by "Eminent Domain", that way we will not have to worry about councils or voters. Who cares if it is land for industrial park, Rhode Island does not want any industry in the State, it would create jobs that pay more than minimum wage tourism jobs. Can't have that. State has spent so much time, destroying every industry in this State over the last 50 years, why would anyone think they will change now.
Bottom line, is this now smells to high heaven, and is nothing more than fleecing the taxpayers, the cost and money being talked about, along with companies that even the Tiverton town council thought were misleading them obviously. Read these links and see if you come to the same conclusion of why this bill and why now.
8:13 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Eminent Domain doesn't work like that; because the goal of this thing isn't to take over the world… get real! The nine cities some years ago voted to invest in the Wind Assets, say again? Wind Assets of our state and has nothing to do with taking over peoples' backyard. It is attempting to use Rhode Island's wind pattern (an untapped natural resource) to produce energy for the East Bay and this group is simply carrying out the will of the people when voted and envisioned last decade. This group aims to bring energy production to Rhode Island, so residents here don't have to buy it from other states… This is more of the East Bay freeing itself from the fiefdom over us from energy producers outside our state wouldn't you agree?
9:05 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Educate yourself about eminent domain:
There is plenty of energy produced in Rhode Island.
We were offered wind energy from Maine for 12 cents/kwh but instead we were forced into buying energy from DeepWater starting at 32.5 cents/kwh. It looks like it's only 24.5 cents/kwh but that's because the cost of the power cables to the mainland were purposely cut out. I shamed the projo reporter who followed this story into revealing that on a couple of occasions but clearly that slight of hand wasn't supposed to be revealed. Someone will pay for the $100 million in cables but it won't be National Grid or Deepwater. That leaves the customers.
Gary Morse
9:25 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Eminent Domain actually does work like that. Read what happened after the City of New London bulldozed Kelo's house in an eminent domain land taking brought on by Pfizer Corporation. The US Supreme Court sided with the city even in view of a poorly conceived business plan that never materialized.
Don't get me wrong, wind energy has a place in our future. But not a future being driven by typical RI crony politics.
The MO in these initiatives is always the same: market the goodness to taxpayers, float a pile of long term debt to mask the immediate taxpayer impact, distribute the proceeds to insiders, then begin a second marketing campaign to explain why the project isn't returning exactly what was promised.
These quasi's see their ability to raise long term taxpayer debt as the real "untapped" resource.
Robert E
9:56 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
If you want to see the abuses of eminent domain you need to look no farther then Fall River. You had a thriving buisness on the water front James Karem a Fall River developer wanted the land to build condos the owner did not want to sell because he had a thriving buiness. Karem went to the city council and convinced them that it would be in the best intrest of the city to take the land and sell it to him. Fall River took the land by eminent domain. One of Karems other condos were not selling like he thought they would so he backed out of the deal the city was stuch with the land a thriving buisness was forced to close and 30 years later that land sits empty and has turned into a dumping ground for city residents. That is what you can expect here a private entity taking prime land around the east bay and then doing nothing with it whe thw subsidies run out.
Jack Baillargeron
10:51 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
No xatian, with a standard misleading statement that also has lack of truth in it and no answers to the real questions.
"group is simply carrying out the will of the people when voted and envisioned last decade."
It is a pipe dream that cannot work as an alternative, because only a massive wind farm by a private company can accomplish it, "20 windmills is far from (Massive), other wise it is nothing more than a scam on the taxpayers.
Really!!!! Sorry dont remember voting for this, dont remember voting for anyone to this group. Valuable you say, where is the private investment?
Why do they need Eminent domain powers?
Why do they need not pay taxes?
Why do the need work arounds the citizens and councils?
Where are minority rights of the citizens being considered?
Why is deep wind project now a joke?
Why is the Cape project now a joke?
why is tax money involved at all, if it is so profitable?
Why do you not know that any land this group takes is either private owned or taxpayer owned and they have to take land, since they own no land?
You do you not know we get our electric from an International Company that has no intention, of price drop?
Why should we allow this group to raise or bills on electricity and taxes to pay for this.
Why should we payout interest on bonds to private investors, because a private company will not take all the risk of the project.
If its so good, invest your own money and leave mine out of it.
8:13 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The nine East Bay cities have expressed a community investment to wind energy generation. The wind is a natural resource, an untapped Natural resource on Narragansett Bay, and Rhode Island residents can tap into it as a western state would tap into coal mining. It is a wise investment of the nine cities that must account for the energy needs of the mega city that makes up the East Bay and Aquidneck Island.
Jack Baillargeron
11:03 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
You did not read the links huh?
Tiverton if it is where it is built, get some benefits, the rest of the East Bay, pounds sand and gets their electric Bill raised.
Tap Coal Mining? Where have you been? Better research hat a lot more, as you are so wrong on that. The coal industry is being put out of business by these dreamers, that think these alterative energy can replace it instantly and want to throw trillions at it. Not going to happen as the technology is not viable at this time, and has many many problems that your thinking will not admit. The batteries are a big problem by the way, not even solved yet for cars. The lifespan of the machines and maintenance cost.
How about a one time Hurricane, we are way over due, theory is nice until mother nature proves you wrong. Tell me, what is the repair time to get the system back on line after a hurricane? More or less than the current infrastructure, obviously recent experience has shown in Portsmouth, parts from foreign country's are not on hand. That thing is broke down more than Obama's policies.
Also evidently no spare parts are on hand for that matter. How about the workers that are educated in this technology? Where are all of these people?
3:52 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
I try not to follow the advice of crazy people like Jack Baillar...whatever posting links for his own grandstanding.
John ("Anything But Sue")
7:41 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
92 comments so far on this thread:: And THEN: They just went POOF. What's up with that..??
John ("Anything But Sue")
7:44 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
My last post was # 93. PATCH is loosing Credibility, don't you think........................
8:09 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
I was just about to write a nasty note to the new editor when I thought I would try a couple other blog posts...it's not just this one, many comments are gone. Might be something to do with the change over to the editor ??
Sara Bagwell
8:15 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Gina and John, thank you for pointing out the case of the missing comments. We're currently looking into why they seemed to have disappeared from the post. I assure you that your comments have not been intentionally removed and we are working to get them all restored. We appreciate your feedback and patience while we work to correct the issue!
marina peterson
9:50 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Just got home from the Warren Town Council meeting. The good news is that they did "renew their vows" to support the EBEC legislation. The bad news is that they also did NOT withdraw their support. After much discussion on both sides of the coin the council decided to meet with their legislators, either as a group, or individually, before they made any decision.
The subject of eminent domain was discussed, and discussed, and discussed. We all know it is unacceptable, but the council had a hard time coming to that decision. If you reside in Warren, call your town council and let them know that the creation of this all-powerful entity is out of the question!
Joe Depasquale and company talked about the bright side of the picture and all of the money that could "potentially" come to the town of Warren. Again, there is no business plan. Everything is "hopefully", "projected", "possibility of" and "best case scenario".
It was explained by the Warren Town Council that once this entity was in place there would be no controlling agency and no way to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do. They would answer to no-one.
marina peterson
12:09 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Correction: The good news is that they did NOT "renew their vows" to support the EBEC legislation
Jack Baillargeron
12:34 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Using our long range psychic abilities inherited from this EBEC, who obviously have that power, also granted by our illustrious all seeing all knowing legislators; to know that we all seek them too know what is best for humankind and us lowly serfs. I think most of us new what you meant ;-}.
10:10 pm on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Marina, I'm not positive that giving power of eminent domain to a private group would be constitutional.
The big difference between this and the Connecticut case is that the city condemned the property prior to seizing the land. In this case a private group would be granted that power directly. That is a question that the GA should pose to it's lawyers before this goes to a vote.
Certainly when and if this passes at that point a legal challenge can be mounted.
The only two spots in RI were land based turbines make even a bit of sense is on Narragansett's shoreline and the beach areas in Little Compton.
On the 1st page of this pdf you can see the dark blue section of Little Compton where the wind blows the highest on average. Only one other spot exists on land in RI and that is on the Narragansett shore. The NIMBYS won't stand for that and frankly you couldn't pay me to lie on a beach tanning while 200 foot turbine blades
spun around just behind me. They have fallen away and done damage elsewhere.
Raise your hand if you think Little Compton wants 60 turbines lined up on their beach!
Jack Baillargeron
12:00 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The problem Downtown is that it will be a quasi-Government entity no different than the BCWA is. The State has the right to use eminent domain and the Bill gives them the power like the enabling legislation gave the BCWA, as long as they follow the States laws in the Bill.
As far as giving them this kind of power, sadly the State has a right to do that also as long as guidelines are set up in line with the States powers, same as with the BCWA issuing bonds for the pipeline and acquiring property, which the BCWA could have done by eminent domain for the pipeline if it had needed to if there was a problem with leasing or purchasing the land it had to.
The only difference here is that this group would have powers that are not centered in just where the infrastructure of the pipeline goes. It is far reaching in acquiring acres and acres of private and public land for these energy farms at the expense of the taxpayers.
That for me is the scary part that these councils and legislatures are not seeing the Pandora's Box on this. It is bigger than wind mills; it is the start of government emasculating the rights of property owners. It denies citizens the right to redress from the government, under the guise of the public good. If this Bill passes we may as well bestow tyrants on all who vote for it in the legislature, as they would be no different then the Stalinist of the past USSR in my opinion.
That is the reality of what is going on here.
12:15 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Jack, I don't believe that anything outside of the State or a municipality with elected officials can legally enact eminent domain seizures.
I don't believe that legally the State or a municipality here have the right to bestow powers to other entities to perform land seizures. As I said the big difference between this and the New London case is New London performed the seizure not the Mall itself.
When I-895 was shot down in the 1970's part of that opposition was based on eminent domain seizures which would have taken land away from homeowners in Barrington, Warren, Bristol, Warwick etc
If a highway, completely paid for by Federal funds , which would have brought dramatic improvements to the area infrastructure can be shot down by area residents before there was an internet etc then certainly this can be dealt a death blow also.
The only thing I can see is that entity recommending to the municipality that a piece desired land be seized for them but not any type of direct seizure.
Whats to stop 9 communities from forcing Little Compton to accept 60 wind turbines all there?? Similar to Bristol out voting Warren on the school issue.
Jack Baillargeron
1:34 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
I both versions Downtown, senate and house, and they both refer to the use of Rhode Island laws in the eminent domain parts of the law and bond issues.
As I said the BCWA had to aquire land and rights to land where the line came ashore, also there was maintence issues etc, that required certain amounts of land, plus water shed I think?
Well I see your point, the law is clearly giving the power to this group of officials, whether they are elected or appointed is left open in the law. Which sounds exactly like the BCWA board. When you read the law, there are a lot of things they must do to use the eminent domain, however it is also obvious, it has been made very simple for them to do it legally, under the laws of the State as far as I can tell.
I could be wrong? This is to me very like New London, it was the local officials, who threw the people under the bus there, along with the courts. The simple answer is the Bill needs to be flushed and never heard from again.
Having dealt in the past on getting help from "Property Rights America" over the Historic stuff, it would be almost impossible to fight this Bill if it becomes law. You can be sure they thought this through for their cronyies and special interest. It is very obvious by everything in the Bill. What they did not count on was so many people questioning it, like yourself and so many others here and across the State.
Nothing make a politician scurry faster than the light of day ;-}
(Roaches) lol
Jack Baillargeron
1:37 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
To the
"Whats to stop 9 communities from forcing Little Compton to accept 60 wind turbines all there?? Similar to Bristol out voting Warren on the school issue.
As clearly Stated in the law, absolutly nothing, even if you pull out, you are still responsible for what ever liabilities to you had well you were in, until you get out.
So basicly once you are in, you can never get out clause.
1:40 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Jack the water company may have legitimate need for 'right of way' where they have to lay a pipe through someone's yard etc in order to deliver their product or to build a pipeline etc Water fills a necessary requirement for life. They are a utility.
Have they ever used eminent domain?
Where does a wind turbine relate to that. Hey if we don't build a turbine on your property people will die?
Jack Baillargeron
1:46 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
I am not positive but I think they did in some parts of the infastructure for the pipeline, I think it was in Providence they had to use it for a small patch of land or maybe E prov. Can't recall off hand.
Robert E
10:14 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Downtown if you look on the internet and do a search you will find there are plenty of private comanies not quisi-public agencys but private companies that have been granted the powars of eminent domain by the states in wich they reside and it is not a violation of the constitution. Pipeline companies, energy companies and others have deen granted eminent domain rights. there is nothing stopping the state from granting those rights here except for us.
Gary Morse
11:40 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
In Feb 1995, BCWA (a quasi) took by eminent domain a piece of land of no real value to any right of way or watershed. The public record shows that it was taken under the Bristol County Water Supply Act. There has never been a pipeline plan going through this particular piece of land.
If you have a lawyer on payroll paid for by rate payers or taxpayers, any matter will happily be contested.
2:01 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Robert E, do you know if those arrangements have ever been challenged successfully?
2:05 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Gary, what would be the public benefit to the BCWA seizing that property?
No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The makeup of SCOTUS has changed somewhat from the New London case. That outcome is ripe to be overturned.
J. Lane McMahon
2:38 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
While I would never doubt you expert opinion on the constitutionality of such endeavors, I would like to point out that the EBEC is quasi-public, not private. And as such is the exact same as the PWFD.
Do you have any idea how many quasi-public entities have this power in RI? So, I have a question. How many properties have been siezed in RI (Not Ct or Ma) using this power in the last 50 years?
2:54 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
I'm definitely no expert - good sarcasm there!
I just have a gut feeling that an arrangement such as this is wrong regardless of how common it may be.
Again I would ask whether anyone is aware of any legal challenges mounted against these arrangements? Just because something is common doesn't mean its proper.
I have a problem with Rhode Island even creating these 'corporations' and giving them abilities to sell bonds, take property etc. Quonset is one example. The EDC oversees them and some bonds have been issued that the State has been making nearly all the payments on.
RIBTA - 60 employees and a board of directors to manage 2 bridges?
Fiefdoms created to create nepotism and crony jobs plus to milk the public.
Robert E
6:35 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Downtown I don't know how this is going to turn out but here is a canadian company taking land in texas by eminent domain for a project that has not received state of federal approval. http://www.pri.org/stories/science/energy/transcanada-crosses-private-land-in-texas-claims-eminent-domain-8689.html
7:00 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Robert E, the strange thing in my mind is that the SCOTUS ruling in New London was voted in by liberals! The conservatives were outvoted.
This wreaks on Communism.
That pipeline has to stretch all the way down from Canada. Lots of people will lose their homes and how do they deal with highways and roads? What a nightmare.
1:40 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Man Patch does not hold cookies I have to log in every time I post. Kind of a pita.
Jack Baillargeron
1:44 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Thats funny, happened to me for the last month and tonight it is not doing it lol.
Jack Baillargeron
11:29 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Well it appears I am back to the o cookies holer problem Downtown, I blama you lol.
Joe Sousa.
5:54 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Since there is no rush to pass the legislation, why can't it be drafted without "THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ?" Also, with out the ability to create paid positions. I would hope our legislators are looking and listening .
Jack Baillargeron
11:19 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Joe even without it, this Bill gives way to much power an unanswerable appointed group. It circumvents the who process of the people, leaving no redress for anything this group does other than spending your own money to sue them. That is not redress that is penalizing the taxpayer who are by law the ultimate and absolute final control over taxpayer monies.
This group if they really want it, should be nothing more than volenteer advisory, with no powers other than to make recommendations and nothing else period.
6:48 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This legislation is in trouble anyway - little support for it in either chamber. It is a poorly drafted bill that will show how legislators will co-sponsor without reading it. If Warren is going along with it, you have to ask the bigger question as to what is going on with that town? Their not in great shape with their finances; are they looking at this project as some financial "white knight?" People need to wake up and read the document. Wind turbines are not the big "golden pot at the end of the rainbow". They are only 35% efficient at best.
Gerald V Felise
10:16 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Eminent domain affects one of our most fundamental rights—the right to own property. Early in our nation's history, the U.S. Supreme Court described Eminent Domain as "the despotic power."
Quite simply, it is the power to remove residents from their longtime homes and to destroy businesses. Eminent domain is the power of a government agency to take private property for a public purpose. Federal, state, and local government agencies have the power of eminent domain.
Quasi-governmental entities such as EBEC, utilities, railroads, and special districts may also be delegated this authority. Under present Rhode Island Law EBEC can be delegated the authority of eminent domain.
The Supreme Court stated in Kelo: states are free to enact legislation that restrict the power of eminent domain. Unfortunately Rhode Island Legislators have failed to enact restrictive Legislation receiving an "F" by the Castle Coalition issuing a report card mark on each state. True eminent domain reform should start with states narrowing their laws' and definitions of public use.
Instead of extending Eminent Domain powers to more bodies such as EBEC, Rhode Island State legislatures should start protecting the citizens of this state by passing legislation restricting eminent domain use in this state. The use of eminent domain for "economic development" should be excluded as a public use.
4:01 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
"states are free to enact legislation" note the word "free."
marina peterson
1:48 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
One of the most disturbing parts of this bill is how effective it is at curtailing any private industry in this field! There would virtually be no private development of energy companies in RI if this is passed. Which is exactly the way "big government" wants it!
Jack Baillargeron
3:28 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
I agree downtown, this "Private Businesses" that the government keeps getting involved in State and Federal. Should be totally illegal. On the "Eminent Domain", the founders understood that this was necessary evil of any society.
As with our national Highway system, Dams, and many other public infrastructures, in my opinion it was never meant for use to assist private business, or for the government to get involved in private business. It is an abuse in the worst sense of the words "For The Public Good".
This was the real damage the New London CT case ruling by the Supreme Court created. I do hope it will be revisited as some Supreme Court Justices want it to be especially after seeing the results in New London, This is also why Judicial activism is so dangerous to the people.
Perhaps this would be a good case for that, but nothing can be done until it actually gets attempted to be used, then "Property Rights of America" could get involved as well as many others without cost to the taxpayers, except naturally the money the State would spend to defend. Always amazes me that we must spend our money to sue the government on an issue like this, well defending against ourselves with our own money in taxes. Now that is irony.
Again I want this Bill scraped and this EBEC to have no powers at all, other than advisory, or better yet dissolved.
Gary Morse
3:35 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The BCWA taking I speak of in 1995 was one of financial benefit to the participants paid for by taxpayers, not rate payers (taxpayers got the bill).
Since there hasn't been much oversight on taxpayer spending under the Bristol County Water Supply Act (the spending has NEVER been audited since 1993), then there was no one to object.
3:48 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
So they took property from someone who wanted to sell with no public purpose correct?
Gary Morse
4:08 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
If anyone questioned this taking, I'm sure BCWA's attorney could issue a public statement why the taking was in the best interest of taxpayers (paid of course for writing the public statement).
I know you aren't surprised by any of this.
4:18 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
If Rhode Island had more honest Attorney Generals people could complain and get action but alas the last one of those I can remember was Arlene Violet.
I'd love to fire up some pro se Court petitions for legal rulings on this issue though maybe to the 1st District though rather than State court.
Gerald V Felise
5:52 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Part 1 - The Rhode Island Senate passed Eminent Domain Legislation S-2728A in 2008. I was promulgated into RIGL under §42-64.12 Eminent Domain. When you read it will become clear why it was given an "F" mark by the Castle Coalition. Most states creating restrictive Eminent Domain laws "Exclude" Eminent Domain of any property for Economic Development. Rhode Island clearly allows governing or delegated bodies the use of taking Private Property for Public Use or Economic Development if it is explicitly been given the authority to do so as the EBEC Act will give to the EBEC Consortium.
It would appear that EBEC does not consider what it is doing is Economic Development for under RIGL §42-64.12-7 Eminent Domain confiscation for Economic Development requires the entity to have a Plan, which shall be approved by the governing body (EBEC) but they would need to have hearings, give notices, and "the acquisition of the property by eminent domain has been approved by the city or town council.
Gerald V Felise
5:54 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Part 2 - EBEC has none of these requirements/restrictions in the EBEC Act. Even the RI State Government under RIGL §42-64.12-7 Eminent Domain can only take property after an separate Act of the General Assembly has approved that taking. Further, RIGL §42-64.12-8 provides for Compensation for eminent domain takings for economic development purposes requires "a minimum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the fair market value of the real property plus other expenses none of which is included in the EBEC Act. In essence, under the EBEC Act all the nine unelected board members have to do is decide they want a particular parcel of private property, file in Superior Court a statement of what they estimate the just compensation to be, deposit that money in the Superior Court and that is it. Should the party whose land was just confiscated not agree with the EBEC's compensation estimate, they must file a Petition to the Superior Court all at the expense of the landowner without any redress of those legal expenses even if they prevail.
J. Lane McMahon
11:30 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This is blatantly not true. The EBEC would still have to follow all relevant RI GL's. I don't know if you don't understand the rule of law or if you just like screaming that the sky is falling.
Gerald V Felise
5:56 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Part 3 - Rhode Island is surprisingly aggressive about authorizing condemnations for private parties. In Rhode Island between 1998 and 2002 there have been 77 filed/threatened known condemnations benefiting Private Parties and 4 known development projects for the benefit of private parties. Over the Governor's veto, the state legislature authorized an economic development zone with, of course, the power of eminent domain. Smithfield has been condemning property for the benefit of two enormous businesses, Dow Chemical and Fidelity Investments. Some other cities have approved projects that might involve condemning property for private parties, but, according to news reports, no other cities actually went through with a private condemnation from 1998 through 2002. One city, Warwick, actually refused to condemn property for a private developer. Between 2002 and 2011 a number of additional condemnations for private parties have occurred and/or been attempted.
J. Lane McMahon
9:01 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
According to your statement, "1998 and 2002 there have been 77 filed/threatened known condemnations benefiting Private Parties and 4 known development projects for the benefit of private parties". If this is the case, then the important word is "threatened" as this would mean that eminent domain actions were tried and failed. Yet later in your post you imply that the EBEC's board could do it with no way to stop them. Now I don't want to say that you are being duplicitous, but which is it?
I would also like to point out that the Dow and Fidelity projects both produced a huge enconomic gain for both the municipality and the state.
You would also be wrong about who detemines the value of the property in an ED case. The standard in RI is for the authority and the owner to each get appraisals, which the Superior Ct judge then averages out. Final amount is 150% of that amount. Look it up, I know because my lawyer did today for me. (Westlaw).
Gerald V Felise
5:56 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Part - 4 The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation has been the architect on numerous condemnations over the years. Suggest you research all these facts and assuredly you will come up with the same cast of characters.
Judicial activism can be offset by citizens requiring their duly elected officials to represent their best interests in these matters. Advise your representatives to stop the Abusive use of Eminent Domain and flagrant violations of our 5th Amendment Rights and put forward Eminent Domain legislation having these tenets:
1. Require that Eminent Domain be for Public Use and define Public Use
2. Prohibit Eminent Domain For Private Use defining one exception the threat of public health and safety (Blight Exception) which needs to be clearly defined as it is the single most abused act.
3. Prohibit Eminent Domain for Private Business
4. Prohibit Eminent Domain for Economic Development
There is plenty of model language out there for State Statues Limiting Eminent Domain Abuse for our legislatures to get it right.
Gary Morse
6:23 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Good summary!
For those out there who are "fact junkies", you can also read the post Kelo case in the RI Supreme Court dealing with eminent domain:
Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation vs The Parking Company.
7:04 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This is the section Gerald pointed to:
7:04 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
(c) Except for taking of temporary easements and partial takings subject to the provisions of § 42-64.12-10, no local government entity shall implement any eminent domain proceeding for economic development purposes unless the acquisition of the property by eminent domain has been approved by the city or town council, and no state government entity shall implement any eminent domain proceeding for economic development purposes unless the acquisition of the property by eminent domain has been approved by an act of the general assembly.
Gerald V Felise
7:20 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Part 5 - to summarize my previous comments, I would not blame Rhode Island's Eminent Domain problems and the attempted expansion through this EBEC Act on Judicial Activism. Clearly Rhode Island elected officials have been willing accomplices, along with those having self-interests, with this Act and all the condemnations for private gain that are taking place in Rhode Island.
The light that is shining on this EBEC Act through these Blogs/Comments reveals the true inner workings of this State. Although it is encouraging, what it reflects is the symptomatic and chronic illness Rhode Island is suffering from. Depending on who does the survey Rhode Island annually falls in the top ten worst states for business the country couldn't one then maybe conclude that the same architects that had a hand in creating the EBEC Act legislation are the same architects that have the dubious honor of steering Rhode Island's Economic Development, or lack thereof, to its present sad state of affairs.
Make your voice heard to your town council and legislators on this EBEC Act legislation, if they don't listen make your vote count in November.
Jack Baillargeron
8:47 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Gerald my Comment on Judicial Activism was for the New London case, where the Supreme Court basically said that Eminent Domain used to allow Private Businesses to help a local economy is ok.
That to me is activism in allowing a business venture to usurp the rights of property owners, (whether taxpayer public land or private land), for a perceived benefit to the people that is unknown. No case proved it than that on.
Also no Offence, but I am confused on your standing on all this, I am assuming you are the same person in my post above, who wants to build the wind farm and complex in Tiverton?
If would seem that if you are, then you would really benefit from this Bill, as it would allow the EBEC to go after the Industrial Park land in Tiverton that refused to give you a letter of support for, that I read in the paper.
Well it is your personal business and I do not want to make this story about that one project or you. However it is relevant due to the Wind farm the EBEC is pushing and say they need this law for. This is the personification of typical R.I. politics that I think most taxpayers in this State are fed up with.
Not saying you have to address that issue, it is you business and not mine ;-}
Respectfully Jack
Jack Baillargeron
9:25 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
To J Lane McMahon; That is incorrect on the 150% as is the averaging. This law has none of that in it, what it has is "just compensation", and in this down turn that is expected to last another 10 to15 years in R.I., many property owners can and will get hosed, no matter the appraisal.
Your lawyer may have looked at current law, I do not know, but this Bill give the EBEC the power of "just compensation", a very dubious and obviously easy to abuse power of what is paid out, especially to friends of the EBEC, as this is R.I. and we all know favoritism will rise, it is inevitable in this State.
Excerpt from the Senate version S2870, same as what is in the house version.
26 (f) Forthwith, thereafter, the consortium shall cause to be filed in the superior court in and
27 for the county within which the real property lies a statement of the sum of money estimated to be
28 just compensation for the property taken, and shall deposit in the superior court for the use of the
29 persons entitled to the money the sum set forth in the statement. The consortium shall satisfy the
30 court that the amount deposited with the court is sufficient to satisfy the just claims of all persons
31 having an estate or interest in the real property. Whenever the consortium satisfies the court that
32 the claims of all persons interested in the real property taken have been satisfied, the unexpended
33 balance shall be ordered repaid forthwith to the consortium.
J. Lane McMahon
11:15 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
RIGL states that all eminent domain condemnations must subscribe to the following:
Owners of property taken for economic development purposes shall be compensated for:
■A minimum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the fair market value of the real property.
■Expenses incidental to transfer of ownership to the acquiring entity, including, but not limited to, recording fees and transfer taxes, evidence of title and surveys and legal descriptions, penalty costs and other charges for prepaying mortgages entered into in good faith, a pro rata share of any prepaid property taxes or assessments for public utilities.
■Relocation expenses, including, but not limited to, actual, reasonable and necessary moving and reestablishment expenses[iii].
Residents who are tenants of property taken for economic development purposes shall be compensated for:
■A minimum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of one month's rent of such dwelling.
■Relocation expenses, including, but not limited to, actual, reasonable and necessary moving and reestablishment expenses[iv].
In simple words, the EBEC would have to play by the same rules as every other authority that can use eminent domain.
J. Lane McMahon
11:33 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This bill does not give the EBEC superpowers of eminent domain conversion. They would still have to follow all applicable rules and laws of the state of RI. Don't believe me? Call your Rep or Senator and ask them.
Jack Baillargeron
1:56 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
You said; "In simple words, the EBEC would have to play by the same rules as every other authority that can use eminent domain"
Not true. I pasted, directly from this Bill; it says nothing of anything you are saying at all. I have never seen a bill where they do not state in it the existing laws that must be followed. However this one. "Eminent Domain" section has no such references at all.
Perhaps you are not aware, that if it is not in the new law, which is what this enabling Legislation is, in creating this EBEC, then that is what the EBEC goes by.
Funny how they quote other RI. General Laws in other sections, but not a one in the "Eminent Domain" section. No offence, if you believe something you are told and do not see it in writing, especially when dealing with politicians and lawyers, you are being foolish. I know of your backround and that you are far from foolish.
I have read both of these Bills, House/Senate, and they are ambiguous at best and tyranny at worst. Your insinuations in some post that people are being hysterical is misplaced and untrue.
Most post on this, seem to be thoughtful people who believe that unelected officials should never have these far reaching powers over anyone. When the rights of one citizen is violated we are all diminished as a society.
I commend you for your public service on the PEDC, the whole State is in need of Economic development. This Bill however is not it, and does nothing to even help it in my opinion.
Gary Morse
7:14 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
J Lane,
I see the issue from a different prospective which is that government in RI has a track record of crony politics incapable of execution of any sound business venture. One only has to look at the reality that more than 50% of RI's population lives in municipalities that are on the verge of financial ruin, and by most measures of fiscal soundness, RI sits near the bottom when compared to the rest of the US.
The BCWA stands as one example of such cronyism. The problems there are still being covered up. When the three towns decided to do an audit, they let BCWA's own lawyer write the language of the RFP which became so watered down it was a joke.
We had council members make public statements after the fact that they were happy no corruption was found at BCWA in the audit (e.g. Cindy Coyne, Kate Weymouth of Barrington). No corruption was found since BCWA's attorney took steps to remove any language from the RFP that would have explored the finances and any corruption.
The taxpayer spending under the Bristol County Water Supply Act has NEVER had an audit since 1993. In April of 2011, the RI Water Resources Board voted to do a legal audit, but ended the initiative shortly after.
Politics in RI needs to be fixed before bills like this can be trusted.
marina peterson
11:34 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Who will the EBEC answer to? What will the governing body be? How are they held accountable? Hmmmmm.
10:23 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
The East Bay Energy Consortium has a website with a blog at http://eastbayenergy.org where those interested can read about the organization and about the proposed legislation.
Gary Morse
11:09 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
I visited the EBEC website. Here are your stated goals:
1) reduce the energy load in the respective communities, thereby saving taxpayer money now and in the future;
2) develop local assets and technologies (wind) in an effort to offset reliance on foreign resources;
3) take advantage of the economies of scale by doing the project collaboratively and collectively to benefit the entire region.
If goal number 1 is factual, where is the cost benefit analysis that a working system will actually save taxpayers money? I didn't see that on the website.
It appears that to have a working system, you rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies. So goal number 1 appears to be little more than marketing fluff at this point.
Until you provide a FULLY LOADED cost benefit analysis (you know, the kind business lives by), this is little more than a poorly conceived taxpayer subsidized boondoggle.
Gary Morse
3:06 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Could you reference even one study that examines the fully loaded "present value" cost analysis on Portsmouth to back up your statement. If you can, I will personally write a pro wind editorial on this issue.
I've looked for such analysis before I started blogging on this subject, and all I could find was marketing fluff that did not include fully loaded costs.
marina peterson
11:22 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
If this egregious act tells us anything... it tells us that our town councils and our legislators have absolutely no qualms about supporting a bill that would create an entity that puts the property of their constituents at risk! Many of them did not even read it, and some are now backing away. Remember that on election day!
marina peterson
12:05 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
From the Feb 6th EBEC meeting "Mendelsohn reminded the group that
EBEC has identified twenty locations suitable to wind energy
production." Do we know where they are?
Jack Baillargeron
1:22 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
1. Fact; Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
2. Fact; The EBEC is nothing but a group of people wanting to become a taxpayer utility, that's a fact.
3. Fact; It is a fallacy that any government or quasi government entity is fiscally responsible, of efficient and not involved in fraud, waste, abuse, favoritism and cronyism; another fact.
4. Fact; Renewal energy is not at the point of viability in any form right now or in the near future to provide the needs of this State or any State to do the Stated goals of the EBEC or even the rhetoric from the Federal Government.
5. Fact; All over this Country, it has already proved itself to be nothing more than a very small player in the energy field, especially when the subsidies are counted in the mix.
6. Fact; Like all major projects of this kind, only advancing technology, and private enterprise can run and build something like this. That is a proven business formula that works.
7. Fact; no Government created agency has ever gone away once formed, unless it was due to illegality. Also none has ever done anything but grow in size, scope of work, powers, cost, and corruption.
8. Fact; The majority of people, support renewable energy, but are smart enough to know that it is a dream right now and cannot be a reality unless new technology is invented to make it cost friendly. One of the main problems batteries for storage.
J. Lane McMahon
4:44 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Just over 12 years ago, I sat in an conference room in Tampa, where an exec from Chrysler explained that hybrid vehicles were a joke and would never be a viable alternative in the marketplace. After he spoke, a Toyota exec got up and made a very short presentation. Basically saying, "We have to start somewhere". I think it important because ALL hybrid vehicle technology was researched using public funds and tax breaks. Would you call that a failure or abuse of power?
The bottom line is, we need to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. We all know it. It's not even debatable. So the question becomes, Do we want this done on a strictly private basis? After all, corporations have such a wonderful track record of doing the right thing, don't they?
If not now, when? If RI doesn't do this then we will be paying for some other states renewable energy project and not getting any benefit at all.
Drop all the political mumbo-jumbo. These Tea Party-esque posts only show that you are more concerned about politics and less concerned about our future. BTW: What you post as fact, I would call BS.
Jack Baillargeron
1:24 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
There many more facts on this. The industry knows full well all these facts are true, as well as the government. Private business wants government taxpayer risk, rather than investors, many of whom know these same facts and will not risk on ventures such as these, without guarantees of their investment by taxpayers.
People are tired and "mad as hell" about these government subsidies that drain our hard earned money, and constantly require the raising of our taxes. No where in the Constitution does it say this is neither legal nor allowed.
People understand some projects are necessary, done by the government, with taxpayer funds, i.e. Federal Highway system, FDA, CDC, etc. We also know that the Federal Government is not capable of doing what private business does best.
This recent push for clean energy, well noble and it will have to be the end game eventually, right now has turned into nothing more than a scam. There is a reason Car manufacturing took off when "Henry Ford" invented the assembly line, and that is volume, bring the cost down and paying wages so his worker could afford to buy the product.
This energy will only become a viable alternative when, it is done in a massive manner, with technology that it will produce more than the amount that is currently produced by the major power plants in use today, at a cost comparable to them. Without that it is a scam, no different then unaffordable electric cars. Capitalism is not a dirty word.
J. Lane McMahon
4:52 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
You seem to have a funny understanding of the Constitution. First, "No where in the Constitution does it say this is neither legal nor allowed." Ok...but them in the next paragraph, "People understand some projects are necessary, done by the government, with taxpayer funds, i.e. Federal Highway system, FDA, CDC, etc. We also know that the Federal Government is not capable of doing what private business does best". So, which is it?
As far as renewable energy being a "scam"....I don't get it. Why? Because it costs more? That's a failed arguement.
What's your answer? Wait 20 years? 50? We need to start now.
And unrestrained Capitalism is a very dirty word. Corporations exist to make a profit, not be good neighbors or altruistic.
Gary Morse
3:31 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
I understand that Newport was to vote on this last night but the council deferred to a later meeting, supposedly two weeks from now, because there is new legislation being written which allegedly removes the eminent domain powers from the bill.
More to come
11:41 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
I am really grateful that this message board does not actively dictate the will of the people, for it is full of opinion chock full of misinformation, neglect to fact, and outright subjugation to false hood. This group comes together to affordably finance energy mandated by the people of the state of Rhode Island, and all the crazies come out speaking to conspiracy and dark stories of takeover. You all need to calm down, and do your homework!
Jack Baillargeron
4:51 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
I doubt you will find one Gary, the problem with "present value" cost analysis" on public projects is they rarely take into account long term cost, including the maintenance and parts. This is why every time we see a public project it comes in double or more the cost, and the benefit cost never live up to the original projections.
Anyone who touts Portsmouth's wind mill is talking nonsense. It is however the perfect proof between private entity and public entity.
The Portsmouth Abby has done well with theirs, and little to no problems I have heard with it. The why I suspect is that they went top shelf, well Portsmouth went low bidder as Public endeavors usually are. It seems to be broken down more than it is working. They call that responsible fiscal management by the government. The problem is the government does not use due diligence in its bidding process.
Had Portsmouth done so, I am pretty sure they would have found out the Company they were dealing with was in financial straights and ready to go under. "This is why the eminent Domain" section is not the only problem with this Bill. Well it is the most egregious part of the Bill, the other powers of Bonding in the hands of appointees is no less as important, when dealing with taxpayer funds and liabilities in my opinion. Anyone who thinks this EBEC will not become a cash cow for appointed officials with large salary and benefits knows nothing of R.I.
J. Lane McMahon
5:09 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
April '09 through March '10 The town of Portsmouth received $257,075 NET profit from it's turbine.
Gary Morse
6:39 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
What did it take to achieve those returns in total investment and would it have been better to simply put the money in the bank at 2% interest?
You can't answer that question without looking at all loaded costs and based on it's present value calculation (business management 101).
J. Lane McMahon
2:02 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Actually garymm, it would be Business Accounting 101.
Your 2% in a bank statement is worthless as this would not even stave off inflation.
All of Portsmouths turbines numbers are available at the Portsmouth website.
Gary Morse
4:28 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I checked for the numbers and could not find anything other than some pro forma numbers. Could you point me to a link that contains ALL the numbers from start?
We could debate if this is a management or accounting issue (accountants are generally not doing present value calculations in business case analysis), but I get your point.
Jack Baillargeron
11:27 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
The reason your argument is a failure, as with so many of BS arguments, see I know the letters also. You fail to understand that doing small scale wind farms or even single windmills with taxpayers money are never going to solve anything in the short or long run.
The only way to make this type of energy truly be viable is to build farms, that can produce outputs comparable to what they can replace of current usage, i.e. coal plants, nuclear etc, or what even you want to get rid of. You are never going to do it with these finger in the dike plans. They are a waste of time.
A better plan would be for instance, to take all the Tank Farm land from the Navy, where they imploded the tanks, and get a private company to build a wind farm capable of supplying the entire Island. With the Montauk cable being a back up only after it is replaced.
That is a realistic idea. Not these, lets get on the band wagon with something, at any cost, after all it is just taxpayers money. To your "Teaparty" accusation like it is a bad word. That is typical of one who is losing the argument in a debate, resort to name calling and disrespect. You will be unhappy to know I belong to no party or political Organization at all. I am a free thinker and support issues on my own, if they happen to coincide with others, that is fine with me. If you want to be a party right or wrong guy, have at it. I prefer to think for myself lol.
Calm down you might actually change you mind, nah lol
J. Lane McMahon
2:12 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Party guy? See, that's the problem...I'm a Rhode Island guy. I care about the future of the state, not what the Tea Party flavor of the week is. Or Dem, or Rep.
Private companies do not take risks. That's it in a nutshell. They do not innovate and with out subsideies or governmental help they will keep that status quo, which as it stands right now is "Drill Baby Drill".
RI has a law in place that REQUIRES National Grid to buy a set percentage of their electricity from sustainable sources. So, the question becomes, do we flet them buy it out of state? Or from a producer right here?
Tank farm 1 and 2 are great places for a large scale windfarm. No doubt about it. Which is exactly why the Navy may not release it to the town of Portsmouth, as they are conducting their own study on it feasability.
What I most certainly disagree with is you lack of faith in quasi-government entities. BCWA was created and allowed to function as a nightmare by the same people complaining about it here. PWFD doesn't have one one-hundreth the problems of BCWA, so don't paint with such broad strokes.
Jack Baillargeron
11:28 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Nothing funny about the Constitution or my Post. The necessary projects stated above have long been considered by the Supreme Court to be necessary for the government to do, because private enterprise cannot do them and they were necessary to the security or health of the people. Yet for the Republic to expand and have safety, there are perfectly reasonable, national projects that can be done, as long as the whole Republic benefits, since the Republic is who pays for them.
In case you are unaware, the Interstate systems main purpose was to have an expeditious way for the military to move around the country, when Ike first decided to push it.
Yes SCAM; Merriam/Webster 1scam
noun \ˈskam\ Definition of SCAM
: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation <an insurance scam>
It fits these projects locally and federally, as they are piece meal and can in no way replace current technology. But all you hear is how they will and people like yourself never give the true cost to the end user. It is easy to say, yes it will be more, but we are saving the planet. That however is not true, unless you have the technology to do it as I stated in my other post. That technology does not exist. Why are you afraid of Corporations? You sound like one of those tax the 1% to death and have the government take over the oil company guys. That my friend is Fascism not Freedom.
Remember this is about the Bill and the rights of the people, not the wind farm exclusively.
Jack Baillargeron
11:58 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Forgot to add that the projects you are talking about in any case are in direct compitition with private enterprise, with the taxpayers money and taxpayers stuck with the liabilty. Other countries may do this, but in this country it is still a free enterprise market, we are not Venezuela and will never go down the road of nationalizing business I hope.
6:10 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
I own you all a debt of gratitude. About day four into reading this thread, I was delighted to feel the sparks of reawakening in my long dormant passion for spotting fallacious argument in print. My college philosophy classes were good for something after all. This discussion is fertile ground indeed. Thanks for keeping the logic center of my brain active, much appreciated.
marina peterson
12:42 am on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Bristol will revisit this issue on
Wednesday, May 16th. All who are concerned should come to the meeting.Bristol Town Hall 7:00 pm.
marina peterson
4:00 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Bill on police powers for PUC passed recently. Could that be plan "B" for the ebec?
4:13 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Police powers are really less prolematic than powers of eminent domain.
Bristol County Anonymous
5:01 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Wind Turbines will bring problems.
There are many similar situations across the USA, based on a quick google search.
Regardless of entity / eminent domain issues, wind turbines are not economically worth it, especially in consideration of the problems inflicted on residents.
As usual with these RI politicians, there is no due diligence.
Where are the financial / business plans, and the evaluation of impact on the public, etc.? All there seems to be is self-interest, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get their way.
The EBEC should be shut down, and no more taxpayer funding.
The only real beneficiaries of this wind turbine frolic seem to be the highly paid lawyers, lobbyists, wind turbine companies / developers, and the cronies lining up for cushy jobs with big pension, etc. if / when EBEC becomes a newly minted RI "Quasi Corporation".
11:35 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
I love how many of you showed your juvenile understanding of Eminent Domain. Yes. New London was a significant decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, that decision does not include the context of what the nine cities of the East Bay conglomerate are working towards. These cities are coming together, to share their wind resources to capture it in New Technology. Simply put. Don't waste gold thrown at our feet merely because the old boys club says it doesn't shine. America Doesn't work that way…. America Innovates!
Robert E
11:47 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
They are not throwing gold at our feet they are trying to pick it out of our pockets. the EBEC has already said it will cost more then what we are paying now for electricty. Over the life of the wind turbine they won't break even.
11:50 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Innovation is not spending our tax money on a 2nd rate technology..
Solar is now very close to being just as competitive as coal and natural gas without a dime of taxpayer subsidy. It doesn't require 'sunny days' to operate either. Wind ONLY exists through huge upfront tax subsidies and mandated ratepayer financed incentives for power companies that require them to buy and resell it.
You are showing your juvenile understanding of energy production and your naivete of Government created entities in this State.
J. Lane McMahon
1:14 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
That is blatantly not true. Solar (PV) is still several orders of magnitude in direct cost over wind. And it will never be competitive with coal and NG.
As far as "without a dime of taxpayer subsidies", you might want to take a good look at the budget for the US DOE over the last 30 years. EVERY solar project in the US, residential, comercial, and large scale solar far gets tax breaks...those are also called subsidies.
Gary Morse
11:39 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
You obviously did not take seriously my above postings concerning our own history in the East Bay on use of eminent domain. It was used to line the pockets of some well connected politicians. Even when the board members of this quasi knew what was happening, they went right along with the get rich scam at taxpayers expense.
The documents show the Secretary of this quasi signing off in spite of the board having full knowledge. This prior Secretary still serves on the board and even if the councils were shown every last document, they would likely say "that is in the past".
It is this cronyism and lack of stewardship that concerns me on any public venture involving $ millions in borrowed money guaranteed by taxpayers.
6:09 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Blatantly not true? Solar has had Government subsidies but is on its way & very close to grid parity.
Wind isn't even close. Deepwater pricing of 33.5 cents/kwh + distribution cost of another 6 cents/kwh tells the truth on that.
Show me something, anything that shows wind power is even close to parity.
Jack Baillargeron
11:56 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Actually your argument fail on every level.
You also have no clue of what innovates. Private individuals and private Companies create inovation, not government or any government entity, no matter how you try to spin your suppension of reality.
11:46 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
This windmill debate brings up a great comparison. When the Pilgrims came to New England, they refused to eat the Lobster because it was against their culture! They Starved!
Robert E
12:18 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
It wasn't against their culture it was against their religion and they would rather choose death over being damned to hell.
Jack Baillargeron
3:51 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Never heard of Thanksgiving, when the Natives prevented them from Starving huh? Also there is a lot more to the reason their crops failed, but that like your comparision are have nothing to do with this bill or windmills except in a delusion. Not that you do not have the right to be delusional lol.
John Tattrie
8:32 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
After reading the 180+ comments It would seem that no matter whats happens, one thing is certain. Eminent Domain may sound good to some, but the reality is until your on the receiving end of it, it turns out to be a horrible thing. With little or no recourse for the person losing their property. 2nd is, Government needs to stay out of the energy business. If a company wants to start up in little Rhodey, there is plenty of vacant property that could be re-used for such a purpose. No need to give some idiots a loaded gun to take away someones belongings that they have worked life long on aquiring. If RI wants to do something constructive w/alternative energy they should give better incentives to utilize Wind, Solar & other options....then the Alternative Energy businesses would find their own way, without Government meddling into it. I have made changes to my home to conserve and will continue to look into improving my energy options without the help of and Boards or Commisions that would possibly line their pockets by pushing these idea's in our face. I would like to have cheaper utility bills, but not at the expense of someone I know losing their property to make it happen. There are a great many better ways to make things happen than "Eminent Domain" being part of the equation.
Jack Baillargeron
1:32 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
"Robert Crane Said
6:49 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
In some cases that is true Marina. And if that is your belief that the private sector needs to be the driving force on projects like this - then you need to also be against spending by agencies such as the Department of Defense, DARPA, and other government agencies (and the their staffs) that have created many devices and processes that make our lives easier - and better.
Perhaps you are not aware that The Constitution, gives The Federal Government the power for DOD, to protect this country. As for Darpa and Nasa ect, they all work in conjunction with the DOD and are also considered part of national security, perhaps you forgot Darpa was in response to sputnik, not because Russia was first, but because Kenedy and others new the potential for the technology to be used to attack the U.S. in the future.
To even attempt to use those as comparable example is laughable, no offence, but it is.
It also still does not justify giving a broad range of powers over taxpayer monies and "Eminent Domain" power to a group that should be advisory only, to elected official who 'We The Taxpayer" have control over with our vote.
Do I trust a group like this? Not on your life, past dealings in this State prove it will be an aberration in no time. The taxpayer will have boondoggle after boondoggle. Well meaning people, get bamboozled all the time.
No this Bill needs to be removed from the face of the Earth
Jack Baillargeron
1:39 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Robert Crane
I find amusing you think Enabling Legislation that is voted on can be changed, easy as pie. Are you not aware of the BCWA, Bridge/Turnpike Authority, and Big River etc. they all worked right? Fiscal responsibility and efficiency, right?
The theory of "we have to vote on it to see what's in it", come to mind yet again. Why is it that, we read it, and obviously some representatives who are now pulling out did not, it seems. That sound like a Bill to trust to you?
The "Eminent Domain" power in the hands appointee's must stop. Appointee's now have the power in some cases. That is "THE PROBLEM", when something is wrong you do not keep doing it, which is the "definition" of insanity. Something rampant in our legislature.
When and where are these hearings? Not one representative has anything. No info on that anywhere. If they are having hearings, why are these "Town Councils" having votes to support it before the vote? Because it is a done deal. Most people have no idea the scam going on here with this bill. But the rush is on to pass it. We all know once passed this thing will be in stone.
We have a "One Party State" and as usual we suffer for it, as minority rights don't mean a thing in the legislature period, and have not for over 75 years.
You may trust the single party, I however do not.
The government should stay out of business that should be in the private sector only, where the risk is not to the taxpayer.
J. Lane McMahon
2:21 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
You probably should have gone to one of these town council meetings. The vote was simply a measure of support for this to go forward. Not an agreement. None of the 9 communities has not put itself on the hook for anything.
Jack Baillargeron
3:29 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
That is the point J Lane McMahon.
There should be no support for the Bill, it is an affront to taxpayers and a dangerous precedent to give unelected officials this kind of power. I have no problem with an advisory group, with no powers at all other than writing an opinion to the towns elected officials.
You seem to keep missing the point. It is not about what projects they may approve or disapprove. They do not deserve the right to have power over any taxpayer. Only the taxpayer determines where the money is spent, that is why we vote. Ever see Bond issues on Ballots? Why is that?
Because the taxpayers, determine the risk. Not some group of people who will always be suspect in appointments, due to politics, affiliations, politicians and special interest. From what I have seen on here, the many pro-Bill all seem to have ties to special interest, well the con-Bill seems to be merely concerned about taxpayer funds and liabilities.
I make many of the meetings. Before throw out the old, "well you should run for office, or show up, or volunteer BS". Remember it is a free country and last vestige for a citizen to protect itself from your kind of banning the rights of citizens through quasi-Government entities is the vote.
If you do like the way the system works, guess what? Put it on a ballot, let the people decide. You're scared of that I suspect. You believe you know what best for the people. You do not, nor do you have that right under the Constitution.
Jack Baillargeron
3:48 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
J Lane McMahon
None of the towns will be on the hook? If that is the case then why even have a Bill to give to a group, who will have no control over anything in any town?
What kind of double talk is that? The towns naturally will be on the hook, if they join the group, if the towns do not, than why is the group even around and in need of these powers? Sorry but you are now making nothing but smoke and mirror excuses for all of this, in my opinion. Which by the way, much of this Bill is also, ambiguous at best, out and out lies as usual by our so called representatives at worst.
A few weeks ago we had a Bill that wanted mob rule and now this. Sorry but Stalinism went out with Stalin, I assure you I know Stalinism when I see it, it was explained to me long ago when the children of my Grandparents were fled to Canada, well my grandparents died under Stalin.
I can tell you nothing is more important then the ability to vote for my mother, (Happy Mothers Day Mom) you on the other hand want to take that away with this Bill. This State for too long has been eroding that right, it needs to stop. This is not a small issue as some would like us to believe. It is a slippery slope, and the eroding of basic rights of the people and a direct violation of why this Republic was formed and not a "Pure Democracy", which is nothing but mob rule, and the banning of minority rights.
Remember this, when the rights of one citizen are removed, we are all diminished as citizens.
John Tattrie
3:53 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I remember many years ago, when I was much, much younger...the attempt at running the highway to the Mt Hope Bridge. I will never forget the reaction of my grandparents, the projected course of this project would have possibly taken their home ( The one wich I now live in) and or come dangerously close by it. The Eminent Domain subject came up rather frequently back then. As long as I live I will never forget the look of fear upon their faces when they thought that the project might actually happen. The money discussed back then would not have compaired to the blood & sweat they had put into their homestead. I would never go along with any project that would have the potential to take away property from someone, unless the owners themselves would whole-heartedly agreeing to it. The re-use of older "availible" types of property are many in R.I. . Eminent Domain clauses should be a thing of the past. Except perhaps in War Time. that would be the only logical reason for such an action.
Jack Baillargeron
4:44 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Come on John, How many years, Inquiring minds want to know lol.
6:14 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
That was in the 70's and maybe early 80's when the Feds gave the DOT $185 million to improve highway access for the East Bay (I-895). Residents went ballistic so it was stopped and the DOT used that money for the new Jamestown bridge.
When you're stuck in local traffic this summer remember that. Better yet tell the people in Jamestown to stuff it when they complain that the Mt Hope should have tolls.
6:31 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
This, below, is from the Phoenix. A wind farm in Tiverton will not be able to provide electricity to any town except Tiverton unless they plan to string wire. Even providing power to Tiverton will be based on location.
They will only get 6 cents/kwh for energy sold to National Grid.
Where is the business plan that shows this as profitable for the 9 towns and the taxpayers who will pay for the bonds they float?
"The organization's main push is to establish a wind farm in Tiverton. Proponents say that power not used by local municipalities would be sold back to National Grid, and any profits would be returned to the member towns."
Robert E
7:49 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
The town of Portsmouth sell the electricty they produce to National Grid at wholesale and then they buy it back at retail loosing money on every kilowatt they produce.
4:08 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
That would be again incorrect assumption as EBEC doesn't exist yet and National Grid has not had the opportunity to begin contract talks to buy RI power from a RI producer as EBEC at an equitable rate to nine cities.
4:31 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
'xatian', the ONLY rate that they can get is the wholesale rate which is currently 6 cents/kwh. Next year that will be 5 cents/kwh.
Portsmouth signed an agreement to sell to National Grid for more than that and it was struck down by the courts.
How's that Portsmouth turbine doing anyway 'xatian' please enlighten us on why it's not moving.
Jack Baillargeron
7:25 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Then there is this Downtown, that was in the first proposal I saw on this wind farm.
All total, revenue over the life of the project is slated to be around $23 million. If it also participates as part of the Consortium, Tiverton stands to gain an additional $669,000 in revenue annually for at least twenty years through net metering. If such dollar signs didn't make the deal sweet enough, RIREC delivered the equivalent of icing on the green economy cake with the promise of sourcing jobs to Tiverton residents and businesses first. What could not be filled in Tiverton would then be sourced out to participating Consortium members.
Wow the favoritism is alive and well huh?
On another note, you're correct on feeding these other communities, I wonder where the study is for the added load on a system that is already overloaded. The Montauk cable is a joke that feeds Aquidneck Island and everyone knows it. Has been breaking down for years and years.
Just feeding back to the grid, also means nothing. One wonders if the power availability is increased and returned to the grid, then why do the prices not drop? Does the theory of supply and demand, not apply to electricity? I mean really someone explain that.
Jack Baillargeron
7:33 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
oops for got the link. More info on it also on this.
Robert E
7:43 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
The Portsmouth wind turbine has not turned in several days despite the fact that we have had good winds. This thing is nothing but a white elephant good thing the town bought the extended warranty before the manufacturer went bankrupt.
Jack Baillargeron
7:55 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Yea I noticed that friday, but the abby and hodges badge were spinning away. This is what happens when government get into it and goes low bidder or does not do any due diligence on the company. Obviously companies do not go bankrupt overnight, and yet people are advocating for appointee's to handle this type of projects?
There really is something wrong, that some people do not see this obvious scam on the taxpayers.
Jack Baillargeron
8:04 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Also Robert they got no warrenty and had to hire another company to full fill maintenence.
Credit: By Bruce Burdett, www.eastbayri.com 16 September 2010 ~~
PORTSMOUTH — With its wind turbine supplier bankrupt, Portsmouth is looking for a new company to provide the service it had believed was covered under the equipment's original warranty.
Bankruptcy proceedings for Canadian firm AAER were completed in July. Pioneer Power Solutions bought some of AAER's assets "but appears unwilling to provide warranty coverage or operations and maintenance support," Finance Director David Faucher wrote in a Sept. 8 memo to the town council.
Mr. Faucher and Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby, who has overseen much of the town's wind turbine effort, said they have met with representatives of Templeton Power and Light which has commissioned an AAER wind turbine generator similar to Portsmouth's in hopes of partnering with the Massachusetts utility for a long term maintenance services contract.
Robert E
10:28 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Jack I know they have no warrenty I was trying to use some sarcasm the sad part is they paid for a warrenty from the manufacturer before they went out of buisness. Maybe if the town did not buy from a company that had built no turbines before this one they would not have all these problems. Now I hear that the transmission may be blown. Transmissions on wind turbines are the week link and often fail before the ten year mark even though proponants claim the life of the turbine is twenty years this is why they seldem turn a profit.
Jack Baillargeron
11:27 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Soory my bad on the sarcasm lol. You are correct though alot of up front and legacy cost are the problem in these types of projects, not to mention reliable research into companies, obviously.
Gerald V Felise
8:13 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
All to often when it comes to the debate over renewables vs. fossil fuel vs. Nuclear disinformation is distributed by all sides. Having spent the first 20 years of my career in the Chemical/Petroleum Industry I know all too well the workings of their public relationship information machine, spending the following 2 years as a consultant for General Public Utilities the folks who gave us three mile island they also had very talented and effective Madison Avenue Public Relation firms all of whom including the Renewable Energy Industry have skewed the American psyche with myriads of misinformation. I would encourage all those making comments on this blog to do their own research.
Here is a synopsis of myth vs. fact information I recently put together for consideration available at the following url.
Gary Morse
8:35 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
From the article at:
"EBEC's Joseph Depasquale said residents need not worry, assuring the council that there will be checks and balances to make sure that the power of eminent domain, if ever used, would be used responsibly."
Mr Depasquale knows all too well that council oversight has not worked well with another quasi, BCWA. Mr Depasquale was one of BCWA's biggest critics when he sat on the Warren Town Council because he knew BCWA could not be trusted. He also knows what eminent domain in BCWA's hands led to in spite of "checks and balances" at the local and state level.
What I think he now wants is blind faith from residents, something which is undeserved with any quasi agency in RI.
Bill Carson
8:47 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
The Portsmouth Wind Turbine stopped spinning again for several days ?
9:58 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Word is the Portsmouth wind turbine destroyed its transmission and it'll run over $400K to fix it ---their revenue will go down and they are now concerned it'll be difficult to meet the bond payment. It appears this lemon will be down for awhile. I'm sure the promoters of the EBEC will be thrilled to hear this one.
Robert E
10:33 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I think it might be time for the town to cut it's losses how much money are they going to sink into this thing. It's a money pit and will just continue to break down no matter how much they keep fixing it. They bought a substandard product from an unproven company that went out of business shortly after instalation.
Robert E
11:24 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
From renewableenergyworld.com
"Recently, Sandy Butterfield, a former chief wind turbine engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado, was quoted as stating that the wind industry expects today's gearboxes to last 7–11 years. This markedly contrasts with the 20-year design lifetime of the wind turbines. And the implications for the industry are huge, since changing a gearbox is typically a lengthy and extremely costly exercise."
Robert E
11:43 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
It actually shouldn't be surprising that gearboxes have so many failures, especially if you think about it in terms of something we all know – car transmissions. A car transmission is functionally similar to a wind turbine's gearbox. Expecting a wind turbine's gearbox to last for 20 years of continuous operation would be like expecting a car's transmission to last for 4 million miles. Most would agree that is an unreasonable expectation.
There's one other, counter-intuitive problem with increased wind generation. At the moment, more wind power means more gas-fired power. Because wind power is variable, it has to be backed up by natural gas-fired generators, kept idling to be switched in if the wind dips. The reserve generators also have to be paid for, and they boost carbon emissions that wind power is supposed to prevent.
7:28 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
There was a push in the late 90's for more gas fired power plants. Manchester St. Providence converted to gas from oil, Florida Light & Power built a 550 MW plant in Johnston, RI and you have the Ocean State Plant in Burrillville. (500 MW). These plants can be recycled up and down within a hour of a call. These plants are a perfect backup for these wind turbines. However, they are also much cheaper to run than buying power from these wind turbines. Coal plants cannot compete because they have different performance dynamics due to the fuel - they run best when base loaded and left alone. However, gas has even surpassed the coal price, hence, Brayton Pt. has only been running the gas generator. We have not learned from the farmers about these things - they don't last!
marina peterson
12:11 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Please see companion blog on Bristol revisiting EBEC Wednesday May 16th at
Jack Baillargeron
11:41 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Very interesting that this Council and State follow the prediction of, one of the Founder's fears, Just as they did with the recent "pure Democracy" Bill, and I quote;
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788.
It would appear it is time to replace any one who votes for approval of this. If they still vote to approve, then they are slapping voters in the face and obviously have a 'Holier than Thou Attitude".
Why they think they are more intelligent then the Founders is beyond belief. To Mr. Marshall, whose favorite phrase of words the past few years has been "We need to make sure due diligence needs to be done".
He should re-read the definition of the word "diligence" as he seems to not have a clue of what it really means. Would not hurt to have him study the federalist papers, Constitution and the founders, to see what a Republic is either. Maybe this will help also.
re•pub•lic noun \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Definition of REPUBLIC
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
How is that for the truth, backed by, lets see, oh FACTS!!!!!!!!
marina peterson
12:46 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
the following letter was delivered to the Bristol Town Clerk on April 2nd from Mr. Nicholas Ratti, Jr. regarding the EBEC resolution. He was very concerned about this bill and wanted his concerns to appear on the april 4th agenda.
Re: Agenda Item K6, April 4, 2012
Honorable Members of the Council:
I implore you to refrain from approving or signing the resolution upcoming item K6 regarding the East Bay Energy Consortium, at least until the matter has received full, transparent, due process, at the the state level and everywhere.
The proposed action literally SUBERTS the Rhode Island state government, in ways that could have catastrophic effects. IT IS A MUCH FURTHER OVERREACH THAN YOU EVER INTENDED IT TO BE. AT LEAST ONE OF THE 'WHEREASES' OF THE RESOLUTION IS TOTALLY FALSE.
(to be continued)
marina peterson
12:47 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Here are just a few examples of charges that have already been made in opposition to it:
It would violate Federal Law as set forth in FERC regulations, specifically ------
It would violate the \Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
It would essentially create a new tax designed to transfer funds from citizens --- with no public benefit.
It would BYPASS THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION!!!
Your approval of this now would be buying a pig in a poke.
Acting rashly on this would be the most irresponsible thing you could do. Don't do it!
I'm rushing to get this reply to you on the same day I heard about it.
Sincerely, Nicholas Ratti, Jr.
(to be continued)
marina peterson
12:48 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Now, Go to the Bristol Town Council meeting of April 4th at http://www.bristolri.us/videos/brtc04-04-12.wmv
and start watching at 2:03 (two hours, three minutes) and see how this sincere request for special attention was received.
Bear in mind, the viewers or the people in attendance do not SEE the letter. They do not know about the "elephant in the Room"... the eminent domain clause. At this point it is up to our Town Council members to glean this information from letter and bring it to the forefront. What happens? David Barboza asks Dian Williamson if the letter has any validity. She says "I don't know". The Town Solicitor responds that he does not think there is anything to worry about with the Constitution... and that yes, it is correct in stating that there would be no PUC control. NO-ONE mentions the eminent domain issue!
If Mr. Ratti had not contacted me and given me a copy of the letter, I would not know what it contained.
This is disingenuous at the very least, and covert at the worst! Bristol will be revisiting this on Wednesday, May 16th and I hope many of you will attend.
Jack Baillargeron
3:47 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Having read other opinions on this from Mr. Ratti, he seems to have eye on the ball, a heck of a lot more than our politicians do, State or Local.
marina peterson
12:50 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
To Robert Crane - Department of Defense?????? Really? You think that is equivalent to Government controlling our energy??????
Jack Baillargeron
3:50 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Hmm letter of smoke and mirrors from the EBEC.
Part 1
Formed in 2009, and now you decide to tell us how you need this bill?
Eminent domain is a serious and complex process, and there is no current plan to use it, but EBEC requires one indicia of governmental authority to issue bonds. So you won't you it but, you will deficit spend my tax money and make me liable for those bond?
Any EBEC project and the exercise of eminent domain will require a majority vote of the board, 2) Use of eminent domain will require the affirmative vote of the host municipality's appointed representative and 3) EBEC projects will include a host community payment. Appointee's will decide what my tax money goes to and I do not get to vote for approval of the bond. Ever hear of the people decide how their tax money is spent?
Why do we get to vote on Bonds our towns put forth, but not yours?
Towns are not liable for Bonds issued; it would be nice to know just who is liable? How's that work?
Jack Baillargeron
3:50 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Part 2
Competition with private developers: The legislation will enable EBEC to compete for site control contracts, to apply to National Grid for interconnection studies, and puts EBEC on an equal footing with private developers because EBEC's becoming a quasi-public agency enables it to participate in negotiations, submit applications, and finance projects. Issuing tax-exempt bonds makes EBEC competitive with private developers who utilize tax credits and accelerated depreciations to make the economics viable.
So this really is all about, your group going toe to toe with, private businesses, backed by my tax money, with out even a proxy vote, as I am an unwilling "Stock Holder" in your company right?
Each city and town joined through council resolution and a cash contribution or in-kind payment; is that taxpayers funds or magic tree money?
Entity: Rhode Island state law provides for an entity called a quasi-public agency. There are currently 21 in the state with various powers. So because we have 21, we need more waste, fraud and abuse that are rampant in these agencies by creating yours?
Presentation from the meeting was sent to all municipalities along with any requested supplemental information. Well gee; you think you could have spent the magic money on getting that all to the people?
Jack Baillargeron
3:51 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Part 3
The quasi-public agency EBEC will have a board of directors, one from each municipality. These representatives will be appointed by the cities and towns for a term specified in their respective ordinances; councils will decide who will serve. More unelected bureaucrat not answerable to the people?
Eminent Domain: Creation of a quasi-public agency requires a specific power as an "indicia of governmental authority".
You do know we elect government, so the people have a check on power, not appoint it right?
Without the legislation, financing is not possible and EBEC projects are not viable. The difference to our municipalities is that should a project be financially viable, and EBEC develops the project, the municipalities make the money, not a developer.
So let me get this straight, I am preventing a business from making money, by hiring a business to do the project, by selling a product to a business, who has no intention of lowering my electric bill, but will give a small amount back to the towns, who will not lower my tax Bill. Well paying interest to investors; well being liable for those payments to investors.
How is that benefiting me as a taxpayer?
Jack Baillargeron
3:51 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Part 4
EBEC will know if there is adequate wind, if interconnection is feasible, if National Grid will purchase the electricity at a reasonable price, if there is appetite in the sophisticated capital market for the bonds, if permits are obtainable, if the project conforms to local ordinances, and if the host community wants the project, before anyone picks up a shovel or issues a bond.
So all this dependent on if's and then the proverbial, all these were unplanned expenses; when the environmental groups start law suits, animal rights groups ( Birds you know) and the NIMBY's suits, the federal government gets involved, the negotiations crumble or the return is not what was expected, however it was the best you could get, the defaults, bankruptcy of contractors, foreign parts problems, the maintenance cost rise, subsidies dry up, and pages more of liabilities.
I have seen one recent plan for the Tiverton site. The give back to Tiverton seems very lucrative for Tiverton, but not for the rest of us. Why is that? By floating Bonds, am I not paying the same price as Tiverton for this project? Is Tiverton giving the land for free? I am sure their taxpayers would love to do that. Nothing like decreasing your tax base to make a home owner feel tingly all over, or is that tinkled on all over?
"Don't we want NGrid to buy a Rhode Island product and keep the money in state for our taxpayers?"
Jack Baillargeron
3:52 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Part 5
No we want our taxes lowered, our electric bills lowered, and government not involved in private business ventures that put taxpayers on the hook for all liabilities and take away rights of land ownership and homes.
The Tiverton project is a major engineering project, but nothing that hasn't been done many times before.
Just what projects similar to this have been done in Rhode Island? Seriously inquiring minds would like to know.
It will employ steelworkers, electricians, concrete experts, arborists, heavy machinery operators and other trades and professions.
You do know that at the least, the companies already have employee's, to do the work, at the most you are talking a 6 , months of work, so you may see a hiring of temps.
How many jobs will be created that are permanent for this, and again on the first plan I read Tiverton Citizens get the jobs first. Why is that?
Revenue estimates: Until the scope of the project is well defined, EBEC makes profit assumptions based on similar projects, just like in the private sector.
You mean this project is not well defined after all these years? "Just like in the private sector?"
Seems the private sector should take the risk not me the taxpayer, unless you can name a single project that the State has ever done, that came in fiscally responsible, not to mention efficiently run and has never been involved in fraud waste or abuse.
Jack Baillargeron
3:53 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Part 6
Many people to my knowledge have always thought this endeavor of having this group was a good thing. However I and I am sure many others, never expected it to be more than an advisory group to the elected officials, who would be charged with placing any initiatives on the ballot for people to vote on.
Had I known that this group was bent on forming yet another quasi- government entity, that the people would suffer for yet again, without checks and balances; I would have screamed about this when it was originally formed.
As usual in this State everyone wants a piece of the taxpayers pie, and you EBEC have turned in to that same greedy, "we know what is best for the people and will do it no matter what they say".
You have become nothing more than a group that supports dictatorship over the lands and the people of this State. Your goals in the beginning, though noble, have now tuned into tyranny that this Country threw out long ago. There no reason to give broad powers to your group period.
This is a vision in the minds of people who want create yet more bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers and the rights of citizens, by taking away their right to vote on something that involves tens of millions of dollars.
I have voted on Bonds less than $500,000, and yet you would circumvent that process at the expense of the most basic tenets this Country was founded on, Government for the People by the People".
marina peterson
11:56 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
This same project, by the private sector would involve budgets, cash investment, and the need to be run efficiently, in order to survive and make a profit. As a quasi-governmental agency (similar to the BCWA) they do not need to adhere to any budgets,just keep borrowing more money as needed, pay whatever they want in salaries and benefits, just borrow more money if you run out, and sell their finished product to National Grid for whatever price the EBEC decides is acceptable. National Grid will then pass on this increase in cost to the consumer. Sounds like a great plan to me!! How does say 25 to 35 cents a kilowatt sound??
12:19 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
They're only going to be able to get the wholesale rate for power as the Portsmouth disaster found out. Currently 6 cents/kwh while we pay 12 cents/kwh.
Deepwater had a special State approved deal which involved kick backs to National Grid who after divestiture isn't supposed to make a penny from power sales.
They are in the process of passing along the $50 to $100 million dollar cost of the ocean to land power cables right now since that wasn't included in the 24 cents/kwh numbers. The original number for that with the power cables was 34.5 cents/kwh.
TransCanada offered the State power for 12 cents/kwh generated from the side of a mountain in Maine. Politicians in RI are being paid off big time for forcing this down our throats.
If there was profit in this it would be taken up by the private sector. This just puts more power and money into the hands of politicians.
7:56 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The current rate for electricity is 12.47 cents/kWh. Were half way there.
8:03 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I had my attorney review this legislation - he writes energy contracts. Wind turbines are a scam and will never compete with the big leagues. This legislation is smoke and mirrors and will only hurt consumers in the end. He considered the legislation being considered scandalous. Strongly recommended that candidates should be found to run against these supporters - they are not representing the people who put them there!
Gary Morse
10:52 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
For two decades, the board members of BCWA were reappointed like clockwork in spite of never having conducted a single audit on spending under the Bristol County Water Supply Act; never having conducted an audit or investigation on the $5 million dollar cost overrun of the East Bay Pipeline, never conducting an audit to see why the Shad replacement pipeline was 18 years on hold, never having conducted an audit to see where pay and benefit packages lined up with other water authorities; paying their attorney $475 per hour for doing mundane legal work, paying to keep an archaic computer system running that prevented accountability in rate setting, (the list goes on). The outcome was the highest water rates in RI short of the two islands and a response by the councils to reappoint sitting board members based on their "institutional knowledge".
Lacking a demand for regular audits in this legislation, you can bet residents will have their hands full watching over this new initiative.
marina peterson
11:52 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Curt Schilling's 38 Studios going broke? "EDC needs to report to Rhode Island taxpayers and government officials whether 38 Studios met the milestones required as a condition of the loan," Mazze said. "This should be reported immediately since it has not been done since the loan was made. How many new people were hired? How many of them were Rhode Islanders? What is the average salary for each new hire?"
Lisa Blais, who heads up the Ocean State Tea Party in Action, criticized a deal she claims has been "shrouded in secrecy."
Secrecy? sort of like our own EBEC???
Mazze said the EDC has a responsibility to monitor the loan and that if it goes into default, the state would be on the hook for the outstanding amount. He suggested allowing 38 Studios to fail now would send another negative message to companies looking to do business in Rhode Island.
"This was a risky loan to begin with," he said. "The economic data supporting the loan was self-serving with little opportunity for outside review. If this loan fails, Rhode Island's reputation for supporting businesses comes into question again."
Yet another reason for the government to STAY OUT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS!!
3:46 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
It is quite obvious in the amount of posts that you've left all across the web, that you really don't like this project do you Ms. Peterson? I agree that private business is something that should be supported, but I am not foolish enough to think that the state cannot also instigate projects like the Hoover Dam for example. And like the Hoover Dam the Ms. Persons & Govstenchs of the day were shouting at the preverbal wind about how dangerous the Dam would be… If only we could generate the region's power needs from the amount of hot air and bandwidth you guys waste going on like a crazy fanatic.
4:19 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
One big difference 'xatian' is that hydroelectric power is the cheapest power source on earth whereas wind is among the most expensive and not competitive without huge subsidies.
Don't let actual facts get in your way though.
marina peterson
12:10 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Article in Warren Times on EBEC. Leave comments!
Jack Baillargeron
1:14 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Here is the kind of trust you can have in the EBEC, whether appointed or elected. Must recent debacle of a of the EBC, (economic development corporation), not to be confused with the thing with the extra E, but just as bad as this EBEC will be, if the bill giving them powers, they neither deserve or have earned by voter approval.
Excepts from ProJo May 15th, 2012
Gov. Lincoln Chafee himself spent the weekend working with company executives on "keeping 38 Studios solvent," according to the Providence Journal.
This company was given $75 million loan guarantee, from a fund set up of $125 million to help small business in this State, 38 Studios had received nearly $50 million in cash from the loan as of mid-March, however you will be happy to knw that Shilling has allready been paid back his investment of $4 million. Not bad huh.
Will the voters never learn that the problem with all this is, GOVERMENTS should not be involved in private business. Private business succeeds or fails on its own. There is no such thing as to big to fail and no taxpayer should allow appointee's to have any control over funds. No offence however, Get out of Stupid mode and stop this insanity.
marina peterson
2:32 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Just heard that Portsmouth Abbey Turbine is offline... Turbine blades are falling apart due to UV radiation. Blades are not safe to use.
Robert E
2:52 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Portsmouth high turbine is still off line the town is playing it down but at the town council meeting last night they were talking about buying a new gearbox.
Gary Morse
2:53 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Now there is a real question of whether the consortium will absorb the operation of the Portsmouth turbine as a favor to Portsmouth taxpayers. I agree that the land cannot be taken, but the business operation might be folded in.
This question should be asked.
Robert E
3:00 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
This is all unproven technology it hasn't been around long enough to be able to tell the actual life span of a wind turbine. We are starting to see that wind power is not as reliable as it was initially claimed to be.
Jack Baillargeron
3:05 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Gary; I would not be surprised, to see the State put all wind Mills on State land under the control of he EBEC. The excuse would be they are consolidating for efficienty, streamlining services, and well saving taxpayers monies. All BS o of course, but that would not be surprising at all.
John ("Anything But Sue")
3:56 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Abbey Wind Turbine: I read the post by Marina above and took a swing by the turbine at 3:45 PM Tuesday. The Turbine was ON Line and running "Full Tilt" in a fine breeze.
marina peterson
5:37 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I received my information from a resident of Portsmouth. I will double check the issue of the blades falling apart and repost. Thank you so much for checking this out!!
John ("Anything But Sue")
3:57 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
BTW: The Hodges Turbine is also running at "Full Tilt" this afternoon.
Jack Baillargeron
5:13 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
J LANE McMahon
If you care about the State, then what make you think the government can solve all the ills of the economy and energy problems, with my money?
Private Companies do not take risk? What world do you live in, they raise capital, with investors also risking money, they take loans out, at the risk of losing their company any all collateral.
I am not for "Drill baby drill" a common pundit term, that people losing an argument use on both sides of this issue. I am a do it all period. You do know that coal produces 42% of the electric power in the US? Just how do you plan to replace that, in a short time. You do know that if you covered the entire land mass of the US, you could not produce enough energy to take over 50% of our power needs.
All numbers on the National Grid buy back point to a loss for the taxpayers, that is a fact backed up by every study ever done on these buy backs, even Obama admitted it along with Gore. Faith in quasigovernment entities you have? Are you kidding me, name one in this State that is fiscally sound and efficient. To the BCWA I have been in the fore front dumping of that for over 20 years complaining and going to meetings, writing letters to politicians, newspapers, blogs and anyone who would listen, and was happy when others joined onto it.
Broad strokes are easy in R.I., like I said name one success story. You want this so bad, use your own money, friends and family monies and leave mine alone.
Jack Baillargeron
8:36 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Deeper I get into this, the more come to the conclusion these projects must be privatized and of a massive scope, in order to be viable. By massive scope I mean real wind farms with dozens of wind mills.
When you look at the life span of just the Blades being 20-25 years and that is only with an extensive maintenance program, this is way out of the league of these towns, wanting the taxpayers to fund this.
When you are talking replacing entire farms after 20 years, even with staggering the years of individual turbines, you must have need to be making massive amounts of money to keep the business viable, that is something no government agency can do.
The turbine and electronics are completely another matter of money concerns and longtivity also, not to mention the Battery problems that still exist with, life spans, serious chemical hazards and toxicity concerns.
Good site to give you on the maintenance of these things is here.
I am amazed at the recycling problem with these blades, that has now come to light. See link below, it also explains exactly how they are made, with materials and more information then you need to know lol.
marina peterson
4:45 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
xatianAquidneck - Do you understand that this entity, once established, answers to NO-ONE!!! No one is elected! They need no permits from towns, or permissions. They pay their employees whatever they want to, and just keep floating bonds to support it? The issue is not the concept! It is the very idea that we want LESS government in business, not MORE!
marina peterson
12:17 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Just got home from the Bristol Town Meeting... it doesn't get much sadder than this. Ken Marshall spoke for about ten minutes and what a wonderful idea the ebec was and how it was actually his idea. He mentioned that there have been some concerns with the legislation but it was only an "idea" that the BTC supported, not at actual bill. It was meant to be tweaked.... yada yada yada. When residents spoke of their concerns the town council members couldn't really remember what they voted on. Most thought they voted to have it discussed. Mary Parella was the only one who realized that they had actually voted to support a bill. This is a little scary.....Several town residents requested that they withdraw their support for the bill. They made a motion to have the solicitor send a letter that they did not support it in "it's current form". The solicitor advised them that even if the bill passed they could always get it amended. I believe the Warren solicitor told his council that once it's passed they own it. It would be like the BCWA and it could not be changed. I don't know which is correct.. but there are two different opinions out there. Mary Parella, upon learning that five towns are re-looking at this bill and considering withdrawing their support, and that Newport had not voted for it at all....... suggested that they withdraw support at least for now and readdress it next year when it is more solidified. Now there's a great concept!
Gary Morse
7:39 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Thank you Mary Parella for at least admitting that you voted in favor of this bill.
Taxpayers in RI are fed up with government spend, spend, spend initiatives that are making RI a pariah in the business community.
If RI was sitting on solid fiscal ground, a little political play money might be tolerated by the public, politicians being what they are. But this bill is a money loser from the start and reckless use of limited taxpayer money.
marina peterson
12:19 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
continued..... a joke was made about it being like Nancy Pelosi... have to pass it to know what's in it.
They seemed very confused.
Jack Baillargeron
6:26 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Marina, the other thing on that amendment thing, I am not sure, however was not the BCWA legislation in stone and not able to be amended, and if it was, it had to be on the agreement of 100% of the towns involved in agreement, along with a majority in the Legislature, making it virtialy impossible to do.
This is the problem when you create these quasi_government entities, you can never holf them accountable of desolve them, no matter how corrupt they get, how much they cost, or even if there is criminal activity. They stay at the taxpayers expence.
Jack Baillargeron
12:27 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
xatianAquidneck, you make me ROTFLMAO, never seen such an uninformed poster on a subject as you are on this, and so many other subjects. Don't know what candy store you bought your degree of intelligence on this subject at, but get your money back, because you sure are out there lol.
The Federal Government built Hoover Dam not the States.
Here's the link to the fictional EBEC that was formed in 2009 by the town of Bristol, who to this day does most of the work on it. The original Idea was from Bristol Councilman Marshall. So you see, it does exist.
"states are free to enact legislation" note the word "free
Actually that is incorrect, they can only enact legislation at the behest and with permission of the people. They call that "Representative Government".
"That would be again incorrect assumption as EBEC doesn't exist yet and National Grid has not had the opportunity to begin contract talks to buy RI power from a RI producer as EBEC at an equitable rate to nine cities."
Incorrect, they are actually bidding to build and run the Tiverton wind farm plan, along with EBEC and APEX.
12:51 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Jack anything directed towards that person is wasted.
They are under the delusion that National Grid will pay a fortune for any power this entity will generate.
All any sane person has to do is look at the Portsmouth debacle.
Jack Baillargeron
12:43 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
It was amusing at times, but very disturbing also. You are correct that there was absolutely confusion on, what the heck they did a few weeks ago; I found that sad as well.
I was also disturbed by the Solicitor statement that revenue bonds make no-one liable to pay them back!!! I am still trying to figure out how the EBE borrows money, pays interest, payments and yet is not liable it goes bust.
I hope this all goes bust now, I do not think they have a grasp n this at all. It seems the only reason for this, is a rush to get them enabled before the session ends up state and people really find out what it is and what it cost.
Noble idea, but as usual in R.I. there is a very dark and corrupt side to this; hopefully the justice department has people on the inside all ready. We after all need t get back up to number 1 in the country for corruption. It is also the only thing we excel at. lol
Gary Morse
7:00 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Bristol Council President Marshall again cheer leading for anything that represents a quasi government agency with unchecked powers to float bond money with taxpayers on the hook.
He remains as one of the few council members who thinks to this day that BCWA was just fine and residents (and B&E Consulting) were all wrong.
1:01 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Wait till Bristol wants to redevelop the old US Rubber/Kaiser site.
Jack Baillargeron
11:59 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
I hear you downtown lol. I just could not pass up some the most asinine statements he made yet lol.
It was interesting town meeting, last tonight, lot of information especially from the Company rep. from APEX Energy who is bidding to build the wind farm in Tiverton with no public money at all. Marina was able to make some great points, and correct them on errors that they had no clue on, including whether they voted to support the bill, they said no, and then it was proven that duh, they already did. Classic confusion, but I think they got the message on all this loud and clear.
However it still seems a few want to go full bore on this. With the legislature possible adjourning around June 1st, we have to suspect this could turn into a midnight passage at the last minute.
But I think we need to get a new town solicitor, he seems to be of the view, that you can borrow money an are not liable to pay it back, never heard of that one, but that's what he says. There is no taxpayer liability in the bill. I guess he did not read the part where it says, even if a town pulls out of the consortium, they will only be liable for liabilities up to the point they pulled out. Guess liable has a new definition, though hell if I can find it. lol
Can't wait for the video so I can hear that again. As well as quite a few other things that just plain shocked me. The lack of knowledge and what they think has been a due diligence job by the EBEC is astonishing.
2:46 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
You really love twisting things, are you a spammer/representative of APEX or Jerry Falise??? For a do-gooder citizen, the depth of propaganda you have going really calls one to question your deeper motives...
marina peterson
3:08 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Yes, Jack, you are correct. I also question the attorney's advice to the town council that AFTER the bill passes it could still be amended. A critical part of the EBEC legislation reads as follows:
"39-29-22 Pledge not to alter rights of consortium - The state does hereby pledge and agree with the holders of the bonds, notes, and other evidences of iindebtedness issued for the benefit of the consortium that the state will not limit or alter rights hereby vested in the consortium until the bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness, together with interest thereon.... are fully met and discharged"
As soon as the bill passes, the new entity floats bonds... and is UNTOUCHABLE.
Jack Baillargeron
12:00 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Part 2
The EBEC Rep. our own Diane Williamson, seemed more concerned with the frustration, that the EBEC will fail if this Bill is not passed, she Stated that this is the evolution that the EBEC had to go to, in order to get into the "utility business", {paraphrasing there}, she also stated the it was the local legislators, who told them they would not go forward with the Bill, unless they had support from the council before hand. Have to wait for the video to go through all that was said by her especially as I am doing it from memory.
However I got the feeling that this is like a, "but we volunteered all our time and trouble for this EBEC, in getting it together and now we have to become this power group to finish what we started". Which seemed to me, to be the goal all along, not what the original intent was said to be. I distinctly remember that its inception was to look at options that the surrounding communities could get into, by combining to find a way to take advantage of the renewable energy.
There was never talk of the EBEC become a quasi-government agency, nor was that what Marshall, who thought this up ever said. This thing has become a dangerous precedent for any group formed by towns to become yet more quasi-government entities in my opinion. The Apex rep. and his presentation and question to him, for me proved private enterprise is the answer period.
Jack Baillargeron
12:01 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Part 3
The company does not allow towns to own or operate the equipment or they will not build them. They are in the business of building farms all across the country that they run, and lease land from private owners or public.
They fund it with their own investors and on this project need nor want public funds. Which by the way he stated is closer to $60 million not $50 million he said. The company seems to be very upset that they are going to have to compete with the EBEC if the law passes, as eminent domain clauses would leave them unable to compete in bidding process, a well founded complaint. He also stated that, should this law pass as it is now, the Company will leave R.I., which he said will be about a $150 million loss to the State. The company informed the legislatures of this also.
They are an enormous American Company, also buying up all the Smaller outfits, nation wide, and so far have a good record, far as I can tell anyway. Here is the link.
Jack Baillargeron
2:12 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Read this letter today from October 28, 2009 on "American Thinker" on the UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You. Scary as heck, and the similarities surrounding this Current Bill and the EBEC are striking to say the least.
A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level.
Adds a whole new perspective on this debate, when you consider this guy explaining exactly what will happen in the future seems to be what is going on here now.
2:56 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Jack Baillargeron, you really have an active imagination. It's a good thing we don't depend on you and your friends to be anything more than crazies shouting at the wind. I've read some conspiracy theories in my day, but to link the UN Agenda 21 to EBEC is not only ridiculous but proof positive that you're authentically without a doubt a wacko masquerading as some sort of good citizen. Yes the sky is falling Mr. Baillargeron, you keep yourself busy with that one…
marina peterson
3:11 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Anyone, in this day and age, who doesn't realize that EBEC-type quasi-government entities are, for better or worse, an integral part of Agenda 21... is out to lunch! This is not an indictment; it is merely a fact.
Jack Baillargeron
3:28 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Postng things twice, only makes you twice as wrong. Gee didn't see you at the meeting? Perhaps you should get an education on the Constitution and how freedom works, because obviously you are under the impression you live in Euope lol
Guess you didn't read the letter at the link and the accompaning links in the letter the guy put to verify his letter. But do not let facts get in the way.
Though the patch may be owned by Huffington Post and AOL, the people posting here, unlike Huffington Post actually have opinions and do not play follow the leader in a delusional stupor lol.
I guess you also do not believe in free speech and can't stand it when I link to an oppisite view to add to the debate, that is typical of your plan to only confuse an issue and berate those who are not following your delusion lol.
Good luck with that. Take some lithium you need it lol.
J. Lane McMahon
3:08 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Apex is American based, not an American company. It is a subsidiary of BP Wind North America, Inc......Remember BP? Yeah, we can trust them....
Jack Baillargeron
3:55 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Why yes we can, they are not using my money. You against green companies now?
Apex Wind Energy, Inc. is a leading U.S.- based developer of commercial-scale wind energy facilities in North America. With a team of some of the most experienced wind energy professionals in the industry, we have built a strong reputation for responsible development and quality projects constructed to the highest industry standards.
As a team, we have collectively developed, financed, constructed and managed more than $10 billion in operating wind farms totaling over 5,000 megawatts of capacity. Our people have a proven track record working with communities and landowners to develop state-of-the-art facilities that produce jobs, income to landowners, revenue for local government, and a clean source of domestic energy.
Our Background
Apex was formed in 2009 by a management team with extensive wind energy experience. In 2000 the team created Greenlight Energy, Inc. Six years later they had developed $750 million of facilities that are now in commercial operations, with a combined generating capacity of 450 MW. Following BP Alternative Energy's acquisition of the company in 2006, the team formed Greenlight Energy Resources to reinvest in the clean energy industry.
Today, thanks to a dynamic team of over 50 talented and experienced professionals, Apex is uniquely positioned to deliver clean, domestically-produced energy to homes and businesses across the U.S.
Jack Baillargeron
4:08 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Part 1
J. Lane Mcmahon
They are in Virginia, American companies are based all over the world along with investors and interconnected, Do you know Chrysler is own by Fiat in Italy. Mr. Shipiro of APEX is a former member of the EBEC who also helped Start the EBEC. But throw him under the bus if you want.
He proved last night, why private business is the answer, not quasi-Government.
Where were you last night? Don't you have distain for people who do not attend meetings and not be able to post on blogs, you accused me not going to meetings not knowing my meeting attendances. It was your chance to tout the EBEC having all these powers to the Town Council that started the EBEC in the first place. The EBEC had not one person get up and defend it, refute anything those against the Bill that spoke or even defend the EBEC itself. This is an organization you support, that does not even have the guts to defend themselves on this bill.
As I said above the one member there of the EBEC, Diane Williamson admitted, she was frustrated about all this, and that the EBEC needed to move on this Bill as the next step in their evolution and that is why they had to have the powers. She also stated that the legislators would not even support the bill unless the town gave them support beforehand. The old approve it so we can then read it. Funny I thought the EBEC was about bring renewable energy projects to the area, not forming their own company. Who new.
Jack Baillargeron
4:09 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Part 2
Guess what, not one speaker in support of the bill, and the Council decided to sent a letter to the State house, telling them they will not support anything more until they see the final product of the Bill. So again where were you and your supporters?
Yes I can trust them, because it is not my money they will have. You do not like them, then don't invest in the company. No you would rather have an entity that a taxpayer has no control over the money, they call that communism.
com•mu•nism noun \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Definition of COMMUNISM
1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.
9:51 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
It is on very good authority that these bills are well within their check and balance and have the support of some very capable neighbors in our communities. Now if those individuals who are looking to grand stand by first supporting and then withdrawing their support as they feel they need to, that is well within their democratic right. However, Jack Baillargeron & marina peterson's credibility and rhetoric should also be severely questioned not only for the hypocrisy latent in their wild accusations, but most certainly for the extreme conspiracies and possible falsehoods that their propaganda when taken rationally screams of adults with too much time on their hands. Further this whole insane talk about "free speech" and "the Huffington Post" clearly are within the m.o's of very creative, knowledgeable, and albeit deceptive viewpoints. Yes EBEC and their wind energy goals are quite clear for everyone to inspect, unfortunately that can't be said for Jack Baillargeron & marina peterson's credibility.
Gary Morse
10:05 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
The bill as written would grant the EBEC powers to float their own debt. The bill as written places the East Bay communities as the guarantor of that debt, not the state of RI (thus avoiding the RI Constitutional problem of Article 6, Section 16 - Borrowing power of general assembly).
If it is impossible to make a profit without taxpayer subsidies on top of the loans, what is the reason anyone would want to support such a bill in the current economic climate?
That is the central question for the East Bay Town Councils to resolve.
Forget about what you claim as rhetoric, could you address that one issue?
Gary Morse
10:23 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Some of the promoters of this debacle are telling the town councils that the towns are not responsible for bond debt, the state is. That is not true. They need to read the bill:
39-29.10. Powers and duties of consortium. -- The consortium shall have the following
powers and duties:
(6) To contract and incur liabilities in its own name for any lawful purpose which would effectuate the provisions of this chapter; to execute all instruments necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter; and to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out the powers expressly granted by this chapter; provided, however, that the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the state shall never be pledged, nor shall any bond, note, or other evidence of indebtedness of the consortium constitute an obligation of the state;
marina peterson
12:28 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Wild accusations? Examples please. Are you afraid to write under your own name? I guess if I were making the ridiculous statements that you are making.. I would consider using an alias as well.
Jack Baillargeron
12:29 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Credibility lol. Who is your authority, mine is the actual bills, the actual people who names I have listed, the actualy minutes and video's of the meetings. You expect people to believe you when you say on good authority, a poster who has no name to verify, that they are even a taxpayer or a citizen of this state.
A person who states good authority, with out names. Give me a break!!!!
The EBEC goals are clear? They did not even bother to defend a single thing last night, they did however show they did not have a clue about many things, and were unaware of many yhings as well.
It is time for you to put up verifiable facts with links and names of the people who tell you this nonsense you spout about. If you cannot do that, then you are merely here to attempt to agitate people, though it is not working, just shows your ignorance obviously.
10:24 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
The bill as written, the 9 East Bay communities would only be the guarantor of that debt if they explicitly volunteered to do so, and none of them have, because the legislation was submitted to them before it was sent to the GA, its all in the record. But that isn't even a point in this discussion, because the vetting that you mention at Article 6, Section 16 is currently happening in the General Assembly, and their working with it. This isn't about profit, this is about energy resource, the nine cities and towns have learned a great deal about energy resources and Rhode Island wind patterns as a result of community investment in EBEC to date.
Again, the assumption that taxpayer subsidies have any involvement in the language and structure of what the state is aiming to create, is unfortunate fiction and would be incorrect.
Jack Baillargeron
11:59 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Where were you last night to defend this debacle? Why no guts to use your own name, if you are such a supporter of this? Where did you go to law school that says taxpayer entities are not liable for debt?
Why have you obviously not even read the house or senate versions of this Bill?
We are on the hook for anything this EBEC does period. Read it.
33 (12) To invest any funds of the consortium, including funds held in reserve or sinking
34 funds, or any moneys not required for immediate use or disbursement at the discretion of the
LC02328 - Page 5
1 consortium, in:
2 (i) Obligations of the state or the United States;
3 (ii) Obligations of the principal and interest of which are guaranteed by the state or the
4 United States;
LC02328 - Page 9
9 (g) Any participating community may, in the manner provided in chapter 45-12 or
10 another general or special act as though such guarantee were a bond of the participating
11 community, guarantee all or a part of repayment of principal of or payment of interest on any
12 bond of the consortium.
4 (21) To borrow money through the Rhode Island economic development corporation for
5 any of its corporate purposes, including the creation and maintenance of working capital, and to
6 issue negotiable bonds, notes, or other obligations and to fund or refund the same.
How come all this says the taxpayers are liable.
1:13 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Jack it wouldn't matter what you say to this pompous blowhard. I haven't seen them post any evidence for any claims, it's all from a 'reliable source' like their cat or dog.
The bottom line is that if this was really a profit maker there would be no massive Government subsidies and no need for public taxpayer bond guarantees.
These wind power companies were started hastily by other companies, many of them oil companies, in the energy business for the sole purpose of using Government subsidies to make a profit for themselves.
When the Government subsidies go away so will the wind business.
Jack Baillargeron
12:19 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
As proven last night and finally admitted to, the Bristol Council had to vote to support the bill, before the legislators would support it, that by the way was stated by Diane Williamson Director of Community Development in Bristol and founding member of the EBEC. But you go ahead and ignore that also.
They wrote the Bill and if Marina and others had not got involved in this, we would not have known how dangerous it is.
How you think bonding by a quasi-government entity is not subsidizing is insane. The taxpayers are responsible for that money. not fiction just a fact.
The assembly has stated they planned to close shop by June First if possible and you think they can re-write this and have hearings in 2 weeks, again insanity. This was all just an attempt to create these powers, with out the public realizing the ramifications of it and passed in the dark of night.
You can spin and call me names all you want, but in the end, I and others who oppose this are right and you are just full lies, behind a curtain of, no credibility at all.
If it's not about profit, then how will the EBEC build or pay for anything? Magic money again? (Also Known as Taxpayer Money). Obviously they have to make money, or how do they pay back money. Oh that right, they know how to get money with out any liabilities to pay it back. Can't wait to find out how that works, we will all be rich in your strange fuzzy logic.
Jack Baillargeron
12:40 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Well I guess Downtown you were correct the other day, to give up posting to this "xatianAquidneck", he has to be a hack who only signed up to the patch to post on this single issue, as we have seen in the past, with these special interest things.
Probable paid for it at a penny a post lol. Not doing to well ;-}
I doubt he will answer any of the question put forth by Gary, Marina, or myself. So I guess you are correct, we should just ignore him, not worth it.
1:23 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Jack, you and I both know that this EBEC will hire some local cronies and supporters. That's why these people are fanatical. They have a stake in it just like teachers have a stake in getting the towns to pay more and more regardless of the economic climate the private sector faces.
The more important issue is whether the State will force National Grid to pay an outrageous rate for the power as they did with DeepWater.
I don't know anyone in their right mind who wants to pay 400% more than they do now for electricity.
I suggest that the power from this project be an opt in for customers who want to pay for green power. I'll stick with natural gas at 5 cents/kwh.
Jack Baillargeron
2:23 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Yea your right downtown I just have a bad habit of expecting a reasonabe debate on issue, but always seem to attract the wacks as they say.
I still agree with you that none of this is viable yet, unless it is done with private industry and no subsidies. When you see that, then you know there is money to be made. Were not there for a long time yet . with out a break through in power storage, technology does not exist to make it competative. Doing small projects to good is foolish, and the taxpayers have no business being involved in a private for profit industry at all.
We all know that if it is not making a profit, then the taxpayer is funding it, end of story.
Frankly, though may be in the minority on this here, I am a big supporter of Nuclear Power still. It seems that people forget how we have advanced in that since the 70's and the fact is, the new plant they are currently building, the first in 30 years, can't even be comapred to anything built before it.
I also still think Coal is viable and one day we will discover a way to do it clean. Nothing is impossible, and with it burning to create over 42% of the power in this country, that cannot be ignored, nor replaced with oil,gas, or anything else even in a few decades. The gas has been replacing coal for decades, but still is only a little less than 30% if I remember right, renewable are under 10% and nuclear 17%, oil the rest.
Without do it all, nothing will change. It is long term not short.
12:30 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
"They wrote the Bill and if Marina and others had not got involved in this, we would not have known how dangerous it is." With this kind of thinking you'd think that DownTown, Jack Baillargeron, marina peterson, and Jerry Falise were saving us from God himself with these type of tactics… But I still am not sure what extreme liberal wing you are all from, but you seem to borrow from radical Green Peace, the Kansas fundamentalist Tea Party, and the stubborn Taliban combined.
We are all residents of the metro-plex that makes up the East Bay Cities and Aquidneck Island; but so far these four individuals have yet to provide palpable 'alternatives' to the energy production burden that would actually contribute to the energy needs of the East Bay, besides wasting bandwidth on this fundamentalist rant. We are all responsible for the energy demand of this very large suburban city. Outside of the absurdity (and chauvinism) of likening EBEC and the cities to "being a little bit pregnant" such statements are nearsighted at the least, because they still do not account for the pressing requirement of affordable energy in our state power outlets.
marina peterson
4:09 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
You sir are missing the point! The concept is great! Let private industry develop i! We neither want nor need the government running a utility business, with the taxpayers taking all of the financial risk!
4:29 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Let private industry eh? So that Apex and Jerry Falise and his stock owners can become the next Solyndra, or the next corporation that fleeces the state and runs with the income. In EBEC, the stockholders are the residents of the nine East Bay cities. The state can oversee the development more readily, as opposed to the shock regulators felt when private industry Solyndra informed them they had gone belly up. Since its been mentioned by others directly I think Apex and Jerry Falise & Company are great, but individually they are too small in magnitude to handle the scale of a strategic energy plan for the nine cities. And as Solyndra was, they too contain that same characteristic of being too small, thus tempting a similar failure. The Fed handed out the money expecting these groups to work, but instead it was found that they were too unsupported in their size to be feasible. And I am not missing your point, I just am on the next logical point above yours...
12:44 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
"Coal is viable" What coal?? The last I checked I didn't see a coal mine anywhere in Warren. And Nuclear Power??? And I remember all the East Bay against Natural Gas Terminals in the Bay. And Nevada certainly doesn't want RI's Nuclear Waste. And what railroads are we suppose to ship in WV, or WY bituminous coal from and to what power plant? And, there certainly are not any nuclear power facilities in Bristol... You all can say you are "scarred" about dangerous government, but yet you still can't provide an answer to diversify our energy problem that is more intelligent than offering to rub your hands together...
Robert E
1:29 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
xatianAquidneck The town of Portsmouth had 3 coal mines as late as 1912 there are coal seams that run all up and down the East Bay .Commercial coal mining in Rhode Island began in 1808 near Portsmouth, and terminated in 1959, in Cranston, on
the present site of the Garden City Shopping Center. The Portsmouth venture operated until 1912; over a million tons of anthracite were mined. You really need to check your facts befor you talk and make yoursefe look like a fool
Jack Baillargeron
2:33 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Just too yet again prove you are wrong and cannot research facts to save your life.
In 2005, Brayton Point was purchased by Dominion from PG&E.[1][3] Brayton Point is the largest coal-fired power plant in New England, generating 1,600 MW each year, or approximately one-fifth of Massachusetts' electricity.[4][5] There are four energy-generating units. Three generating units can burn coal or natural gas; the fourth can burn oil or natural gas.[4][6] The plant burns 40,000 tons of coal every three days, which produces ninety-five percent of the electricity produced there.[6] Every four days, the coal arrives by barge.[6]
Jack Baillargeron
2:51 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Do carbon credits stop pollution? Do companies change their fuel? No. The plants buy credits, pass it onto the customers and put out the same amount of carbon as before buying the credits. Brayton Point is the largest Plant in New England, it is cheaper to buy credits then retool plants.
It is yet another scam to make environmentalist feel good and Al Gore and his ilk rich, but in the end accomplished not one single thing.
But I am sure you know nothing of that either. It would shoot down all your theories of changing the earth's climate fix with this type of scam, can't do it like your ilk says if you are continuing to produce the same as before the credit buy as after. Now that is fuzzy math, logic and ignorance all in one. lol.
On September 25, 2008, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) held the first mandatory carbon trading auction in the United States. RGGI is a mandatory, market-based agreement among ten northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Thirty-two major power plants in the region are obligated to participate in a series of online carbon dioxide allowances auctions. Of the thirty-two power plants, Brayton Point is the largest. Dominion bought carbon allowances at the September 2008 carbon auction, where prices started at $1.86 per unit (1 unit = 1 pound of CO₂) and averaged at $3.07 per unit.
4:09 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Coal has been shipped on barges for decades to Somerset.
Natural gas is piped here from Canada and from the northeast.
The area was not against 'natural gas' terminals it was LNG and there is a huge difference. Do you know the difference?
Tell us why the East Bay needs to generate it's own power? You have babbled that several times. What economic reason is there for us to produce our own power.
Ask yourself how we get our power now? Do you know how that works? Do you know what transmission lines are?
Did you know that 97% of the power consumed in Rhode Island comes from natural gas power plants that are in state?
There is no energy problem.
1:41 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
I love it when people who insist that I agree with them, and then when I don't they call me 'the fool,' etc. when I don't buy into their group speak. What's more entertaining is that I am being debated with facts from 1913, and 1959?? So what you're saying here is that, there was coal a hundred years ago, but now there isn't any more now… How does that answer the Energy Sourcing question? Especially when these points that you provide are so out-dated? Really, is our energy understanding based on what was from 50 years ago?? Again, no one seems to be able to provide clear alternatives to the East Bay Energy Question, and the obstructionists would rather call me names like this is a elementary school play ground, than stand up to the challenge of locating realistic energy resources for the East Bay's 50 year outlook need for electricity.
Robert E
3:07 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
xatianAquidneck next time try doing a little research before statments. In 1974 the Weston Observatory group of Boston College received a National
Science Foundation grant to study the coal reserves of the Narragansett Basin, a 900 square mile region bounded by Plymouth and Hanover Massachusetts to the east and north, an4 Woonsocket-and Portsmouth R.I. to the west and south. The present estimates of the magnitude of the deposits are on the order of 900,000,000 tons. Since no mining has taken place the deposits remain the same 38 years later.
Gary Morse
2:26 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
As you rightly point out, the issue has little to do with coal, but affordable clean energy. A reasonable goal in the future. But RI has to balance the central issue that we have financial cancer at the moment. Loading on a new taxpayer burden that will increase energy costs is simply not prudent.
If not prudent, then why rush a financial weight loss program onto the dying patient.
Did you notice that as of this morning, Mass unemployment dropped to 6.3% and a few miles south, RI rose to 11.2%
The issue is not complex, the timing is just plain wrong.
2:50 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Comparing the city/state of Rhode Island to Massachusetts is ridiculous. Massachusetts has 10,555 sq mi, whilst Rhode Island has a mere 1,545 sq mi. You can compare Phoenix, Houston, any other very large urban area, and Rhode Island is smaller. And that is the crux of the problem... Rhode Island has no natural resources outside of its work force Population. And Rhode Island is not dying, even if you insist it is; it just is full of un-innovative people draining the creative blood out of the community for their own ends. And you're right, the issue is not complex, but it is made so with superfluous comments like this.
Gary Morse
3:28 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Thanks for helping me make my points that EBEC is a folly.
Your claim that RI is not dying will be welcome news to pensioners in all of RI's largest municipalities covering more than 50% of RI's population. Teachers and state workers will be just as thrilled to hear the news.
And I'm not sure how you counter a percent unemployment statistic with square miles in each state. I leave it to the reader to figure out.
3:35 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Statements like RI is dying is just that, a statement. Unless you got a time machine into the future, I doubt that thinking is sound... Secondly, I mentioned the land size to enlighten you that comparing apples to oranges would most certainly bring about the knowledge that yes, apples are different to oranges... You are right, however, sir; there are alot of misinformed people, and if they're following your line of thinking, they might well think Mars and Earth are both hospitable too considering they're both planets...
Jack Baillargeron
2:27 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Considering you obviously cannot read, seeing only what you want to see, and are blind to logical reasoning, what is the point of replying to you anymore?
You do not answer single question put forth, ( a good unnamed source is not an answer, that is called BS), you do not give reference of anything to validate your rants. You berate and insult people, but get holier than thou, when it is given back in kind. You surely did not see my post was about the whole Country and renewable energy in general and long term policy for energy in general. not just a small project like the EBEC want to control and bilk the taxpayers out of money for.
When you become reasonable and say you actually live in this state, maybe someone will believe you and have an honest debate on the issue of this bill, but it will be hard to do that, since you have never even stated you are a resident, a voter, or an adult for that matter.
Until then you are not helping the EBEC or any other thing having to do with renewable energy. You actually are detrimental to them because of your nonsensical post and utter disregard for facts and knowledge of the issue at hand in this State.
The End of dealing with your foolishness
2:33 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
"Technology has made it so much easier to complain about technology."
2:44 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Jack Baillargeron; I love your debate method, when you can't win the argument smear, hyperbole, and accuse the people you don't like that they don't even live here... But as Obama is finding out, lying about things isn't helping him out either… As Jefferson once aptly put, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. " Or in this case fanatical blogs...
Jack Baillargeron
3:01 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Still can't answer a single question huh? Still dish it out, but can't take it huh? lol
If anyone is against anything Jefferson or the founder stood for it is obviously you, with supporting the taking of land, money and rights of the people. At least we are proving you are the one lying, with facts and actually answering questions. I was only going to respond to you today for the last time until you answer the questions posters have put to you, but I think I may quit now instead of tomorrow, as you have obviously gone off the deep end in your last couple of post. lol
Thanks for the amusement. Wonder if you are (UT) lol
3:17 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Jack Baillargeron: I am not going to waste my time with crazies like you on this user's blog merely because you feel entitled to it. Because academically this conversation rates somewhere around the activity of a Justin Bieber impersonator blog... Again, the facts are out there for everyone to read and to investigate, obviously with all the wacko sites that you also shared. And that's democracy... But I think strategists with any sense surely would not be arguing the details on a blog like this… That's why they call them blogs... They are not sources of real facts, but are used to organize flash mobs and Occupy Wall street rallies.
Jack Baillargeron
3:27 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
You do know R.I. has one of the highest unemployment rates right?
You do know that R.I. is in the op for population leaving the state right?
You do know R.I. is in fiscal default almost right?
You do know R.I. is one of the worst states to do business right?
You do know that R.I. is in the top 10 for most corrupt sate right?
You do know we have the 5th highest paid teachers in the Country right?
You do know we are 36th in the Country for education right?
You do know the State has been controlled by a super duper democratically majority legislature for over 75 years right?
You do know the Speaker of the house by our Sate constitution has more power than the governor right.
You do know the Lottery was going to solve al the States property tax problems right?
You do know the State destroyed the Fishing Industry and continues to kick it to this day right?
You do know the State thinks now that Casino's will save the day for taxpayer's right?
Gary is correct; until this State is fiscally sound the last thing we should be worrying about is putting money and creating quasi-government agencies to build wind mills. Not to mention the main reason is we do not have the business support nor tax base to accomplish anything like this right now. Also take into consideration that with a population of less than 1 million, we can never collect enough money to do massive projects. But go ahead and ignore all this, it seems to be your way of thinking. lol
Jack Baillargeron
3:34 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
"Again, the facts are out there for everyone to read and to investigate"
Are you kidding me, you have not listed a single link of quote a single law with reference to verify anything you hae posted yet.
You only just came to this blog a few days ago an have only posted on this single story and still have not answered a single question put to you by many here.
One wonders if you ere so passionate about this subject you would at least have facts and references, instead of spending your time deriding every post,instead of posting an opposing view and have back and forth post on the actual subject, something you have refued to do. If you are so leary of blogs and think they are so pointless, why are you even here? That makes no sense at all.
3:36 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Jack Baillargeron: I'd like to suggest maybe some hyperactivity medication if you're not already on some... And I'd watch your blood pressure too.
Jack Baillargeron
3:40 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Well amusing as you are, I think I will go have a refreshment and enjoy the sun outside, may go down the street and look at the Brayton Point cooling towers across the river and wonder how they work if R.I. has no coal and yet the plant still feeds electricity to all of Aquidneck Island with out it.
like your magic money for the EBEC, I guess you know where the magic coal is also, boy you crack me up laughing.
3:58 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Again Rhode Island and Massachusetts have no coal. No coal resources have ever been mined in Massachusetts, and the "hard to burn with high ash content" deposits mentioned are so inadequate even when America fully entered the Industrial Age, that now it begs the question, why are earth are you even bring them up. The Power Plant in Somerset isn't even in Rhode Island, but RI is sure paying Massachusetts for its power production through National Grid.
3:47 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
RI has high unemployment because it has a work force languishing with nothing to do. And clearly the captains of Industry and Business have moved elsewhere than deal with the small minded opinions of the likes of this blog. I understand that the common posters against would rather argue just to argue. A discussion on the good that EBEC does will take place in more important climes; but when dogs bark at the wind, I just close the window. The East Bay barely has a road system that can transport all the resident vehicles, and has enough unfinished freeways, to be testament to the obstructionist view point… If our community continues to allow the obstructionist, sky-is-falling, propaganda take hold, than a failed RI future, would most certainly be on their shoulders for not doing a thing when they have the opportunity to do so.
4:36 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
You just keep writing posts but none of what you write is corroborated with links to support what you say. You just talk as if whatever comes out of your mouth is from God
The turbine in Portsmouth or the Deepwater deal really show that wind power is very expensive to the end users.
Deepwater will charge National Grid 24.5 cents/kwh since they are not physically in Rhode Island a special rate was negotiated. National Grid is adding 3% to that even though by law they are not eligible to make a profit from energy sales.
On top of that National Grid will pass on the $50 to $100 million for the power cables. The rate with that cost included is 31 cents/kwh.. National Grid rejected that and the GA gave them the 3% so they'd stick it to the ratepayers. When the PUC balked at the deal the State wrote a special law to force the PUC to accept the deal.
Any power generated in Rhode Island will only bring 6 cents/kwh and that's dropping to 5 cents/kwh next year due to the low cost of natural gas. So the EBEC will only get 5-6 cents/kwh no matter what it costs to buy and maintain the wind turbines.
Most of what I have written is included in the links below.
Jack Baillargeron
5:45 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Let me see, you believe the problem is a work force with nothing to do, guess what you are finally right, that's why people are leaving the state, there are no jobs, there are no businesses willing to move here, hell they gave $75 million to a game company, making sure the owner got back his investment the day they gave them that money.. Yea R.I. really knows how to create a job.
Bet you think all those jobs that are going to go bye bye from this company, were Rhode Islanders, instead of people from MA and other states huh? Would have been better off playing the slots.
Guess what the only obstructionist are those like yourself, who refuse to allow private business into this State, and want the government to supply and take over everything, I guess government to you means, give me everything for free on the back of taxpayer. Typical occupy view by the way.
No answers, just gimme gimme gimme. Oh and no-one is allowed great wealth, it blood sweat and tears of the people who do get wealthy, it must be spread around, it is after all only fair to give those who did no work for it, because they do not know the word self responsibility. So let's form another quasi-government agency not answerable to the taxpayer, for the public good of course, because the pubic is ignorant of what is right for themselves.
Yep great view. Would have said answer, but obviously you do not know that word lol.
4:20 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
To borrow a good phrase from a friend in East Providence, "we are creating another Honey Pot" with this EBEC bill. Now that it has been exposed that the "straw" or money pipe is coming from the RIEDC, we all know where this is heading. The RIEDC should be put out of business as quickly as possible. It is laden with fraud and should probably be investigated by the state police. Building these fifedoms with no public input is rife for fraud and misuse of taxpayer funds. People need to wise up to this stuff and call your legislators and tell them not to support this stuff. The legislators who submit this garbage should be exposed and voted out of office. This is very bad legislation. Government should not be in the utility business - plain and simple.
4:48 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
The nine cities have supported the work of EBEC for many years now, culminating in their knowledge of the Easy Bay wind patterns. EBEC's work to secure stable energy plans for future energy demands of the RI East Shore and Aquidneck Island is a good investment - an investment which the Rhode Island citizens started years ago, and are now seeing good returns on through EBEC's research. The Citizens of the East Bay are wise and lucid to these details, and many are supporting this investment, plain and simple.
marina peterson
5:26 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
I agree that they have accumulated a wealth of knowledge. Their valuable information could be wisely used as a voluntary board to assist the nine towns in making wise energy purchases. Let private industry supply the green energy. The free market will pick the winners and losers. At NO risk to the towns or ratepayers!
Jack Baillargeron
5:28 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
let me see, 2009 formed, carry the 1, ans 3 years is many years, started not by 9 cities but one little town of portsmouth on the Idea of 1 council chairman, Marshall, thought you were factual. lol
I believe wind patterns were done by many companies in the bid to do a water based farm, don't thnk we needed the EBEC for that one, so it was a waste unless you can tell me where that so called good returns you are talking about has affectedy utility bill. lol
9 cities, hmm newport has not even voted to support the formation of it and Newport is napalitano is the director right now. lol
Wise and lucid lol,you should have been at the wednesday meeting, they were so confused it was unbelievable, if you listened to the questions they asked the former member of the EBEC, Mr. shipiro from APEX, you would have wondered if they even new what the EBEC did. Heck they could not even remember voting to support the Bill or new what was actually in it. lol. Watch the video of the meeting, when it is on line.
Should note that in a prior talk on bonding, they stated clearly that only taxpayers voting should approve bonds, and the were very upset that other towns like Tiverton and Newport along with a few others are now having second thoughts on havng an EBEC to being with. Oh thats right you were not there I guess. Way to support your view. lol
Robert E
5:39 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Do not try to convince xatian with facts they just confuse him if you want to post something he will under stand you need to start with "Once upon a time" and end it with "And they lived happily everafter" because he is living in a fairytail.
Jack Baillargeron
5:51 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
I agree Marina in principle with all that, however the X guy reminds me of the utube video going around with Hannity and the Occupy leader, one of the most hilarious things I ever saw. lol
Jack Baillargeron
6:06 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Here's one for you X, What is the amount of power that will be produced and how many homes will it be equal to powering, also a cost of exactly what it all comes out to after the EBEC forms the new company, takes land, sends out revenue bonds and builds he farm and gets maintenance contracts, what will the cost be to the end user.
Will it be like Obama says, enormous raise in electric Bills, but in order to save the planet and get off of foreign oil we must feel some pain and sacrifice? Will it be cheaper because taxpayers built and own it, or do we wait to see the benefit if we live to be a few 100 yeas old. Just wondering if I can at least get those answers. lol
Verifiable ones only.
PS. I forgot what the Town Solicitor said, is it true no taxpayers are liable for any money the EBEC spends, when they borrow money? I really want that answered.
Personally I loe the thought of renewable energy and new technoly, justnot having the government run it or build, it is too dum and corrupt.
You are one of a kind for sure lol.
Jack Baillargeron
7:35 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
This is how a quasi-Government entity works, It is also how once these things are in place are legislators, put in things that are to big to fail clauses that force the taxpayers to give money, forever, without the option of allowing it to fail, Until the private investors are paid. (back seat yet again for Taxpayers),
Really sad is it not? Do we really want to go down this road,? This is why the EBEC needs to be an advisory entity only, with no power over taxpayers funding or bonding powers. They are unelected and will not be answerable to taxpayers. Just another BCWA in waiting, and that is wrong no matter how it is spun.
Friday, 18 May 2012, 6:53 PM EDT
Nearly $50 million gone now
The gaming company, which relocated to Providence from Massachusetts last year in return for a $75 million taxpayer-guaranteed loan, has so far received $49.8 million of the loan proceeds, with the rest set aside as a reserve to pay off bondholders. 38 Studios says it's blown through the entire $49.8 million, Gallogly said.
Rhode Island taxpayers could be asked to pony up money to pay back the bondholders on 38 Studios' behalf as soon as next year. If the company is unable to make a $12.8 million loan payment next May the EDC will have to tap a reserve account; if that happens, Chafee is required to ask lawmakers to replenish the account.
7:29 am on Saturday, May 19, 2012
The problem you have with the EDC and their bonding authority is that it does not need voter approval. Even with the language in the Constitution, it will take an amendment to put language in to force these people to seek voter approval on ANY bond from ANY AGENCY! NO EXCEPTIONS! You simply can't trust the lawmakers or the leaders in the administration anymore.
Howard Johnson
1:56 pm on Saturday, May 19, 2012
The next President of the United States, Mitt Romney, says: "Corporations are people, my friend." I can see know reason to discriminate against Consortiums (or is it Consortia? Next time I run into one at the market I'll ask.)
marina peterson
4:51 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
For those of you who would like to see the Bristol Town Meeting that discussed EBEC the link is at http://www.bristolri.us/videos/brtc05-16-12.wmv. The discussion starts at 2hors,32 minutes in with a ten -minute commercial by Ken Marshall for the project. He takes full credit for the concept and keeps referring to it as an "idea". Please remember that he fully supports this entity that puts your property in jeopardy, along with the knowledge that it will account to no-one if he runs for any other office.
You will see David Barboza state that the council did not know about the eminent domain clause when they voted. This is repudiated later. They all knew exactly what was in the bill when they voted to support it. That is, IF they read the bill.
It appears that the absolute nightmare of Studio 38 has put the final nail in the coffin for this bill. But we still must stay aware.
marina peterson
5:08 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
Listen to Mary Parella at 3:30 question what exactly is driving this???????? She says she has her own feelings... as do we all..
marina peterson
7:46 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
Please note that at 3hrs55min there is a discussion about whether or not the bill can be amended after it's passed... They infer that it can... and it cannot! Once it is an entity and has floated bonds.. nothing can change it! Nothing! There is amazing pressure to just get this through.. Any ideas why?
Jean Marie Veegh
12:58 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Although I'm no tax attorney, it's my understanding that a substantial amount of any OR all of the 3 sovereign powers (eminent domain, power to tax, police power) is necessary in order to qualify as a "political subdivision" - thereby, achieving that ability to issue tax exempt bonds. Does the IRS indeed, specifically require eminent domain as an absolute? Has this been questioned/challenged?
Jack Baillargeron
1:20 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
We were told at the meeting that you had to have one of the three, since they cannot have taxing power, or police powers they say they have to have eminent domain. That is non starter for most people and rightfully so. Too many quasi entities like this abuse power and no appointee's should even have eminent domain powers or the other 2 for that matter in my opinion. It should be an advisory only.
marina peterson
2:32 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Some questions on new S2870 SubA
Now under Title 42 "State Affairs and Government" rather than Title 39 "Public Utilities and Carriers".
Why is it Chapter 42-156 when there is no 42-155?
42-64.15-2 EBEC falls under the RI EDC as a subsidiary.
Defines alternative energy sources using 39-26-5 rather than listing them.
42-64.15-4 Purpose of EBEC exercise public essential governmental functions.
QUEST. What does defining it as "essential government function" provide for power and authority of EBEC?
42-64.15-5 Powers - To have perpetual succession.
QUEST. What kind of authority does that imply?
42-64.15-6 Board is defined differently (refers to 42-156-?) Exec Board includes exec director of EDC, member from each participating muni, appointed by the Governor.
QUEST. Why would the municipalities want to give up all control of the board to the
42-64.15-7 (a) Board members term limits - 2 terms of 3 years.
(d) Removed only by the Governor (for cause)
QUES. Why no members appointed by the town council or residents of the participating munis.? See the Quonset Point/Davisville Industrial Park (42-64-7.1) Why can't they be removed by their town council?
42-64.15-8 (a) no vacancy impairs the right of a quorum. Quorum is majority ie. 5/9.
Majority vote 3/5.
QUEST. Does it seem right that major decisions in this project could be decided by 3 people?
marina peterson
2:34 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
(b) board still appoints staff members (employees) as deemed appropriate and
determines reasonable compensation. however (d) no employees deemed to be
employees of the state or muni for any purpose, no accruing pension with any state
or muni.
QUEST. In the event that EBEC no longer exists, how would pensions be paid.
Probably should only have 401K type plans.
42-64.15-10 Reporting requirements under 42-64-28 are within 11 months after the year end. Posted on the GA website. Prepared by independent CPAs
42-64.15-12 Additional powers of the board.
(1) collect revenues under tariffs approved by the PUC through long term contracts with electric distribution companies or as an eligible net metering system pursuant to 39-26.4.
(2) To enter into any net metering arrangement permitted under RI net metering act 39-26.4
(3) Coop agreements with participating munis
(4) participant in NE Power Pool
QUEST. What other capabilities does EBEC have beyond what the original intention is?
(5) Negotiated annual "in lieu of" property taxes with participating munis.
QUEST. What happens when the participating municipality and EBEC cannot agree?
Think Providence.
(6) EBEC is a subsidiary of RI EDC
marina peterson
2:38 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
42-64.15-13 EBEC considered public agency.
QUES. What kinds of authority will EBEC have simply because it is defined as a public agency?
42-64.15-18 Obligations not a debt of the state or any political subdivision, including the muni. Paid solely from the revenues and assets of the consortium. No taxing power of the state or subdivision is pledged. Statement to that effect to be written on the face of the obligation.
42-64-7.1 RI EDC shall not be liable for debt of EBEC unless RI EDC expressly agrees otherwise in writing.
QUES. Does this mean the 38 Studios all over again?
42-64.15-17 The state pledges not to limit or alter the rights that are established here which would affect the capacity of EBEC to do business.
QUES. Is this legal? Is it done for any other quasi public agency?
42-64.15-19 Termination of EBEC is at the discretion of the GA.
QUES. How can a municipality leave the consortium?
Again... looks like they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This project belongs in the private sector.
The EBEC could continue as a voluntary organization to consult with the towns on purchasing energy.
marina peterson
4:40 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
It would appear that they may be planning to get ride of the eminent domain clause by rolling this into a subsidiary of the EDC which has it's own Bonding powers (as Curt Schilling knows). Stay on this people!!
Matthew Sanderson
4:58 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Thanks for the update on this ever-evolving thread Marina!
Jack Baillargeron
6:16 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
On that Marina I say Desolve the EBC not ike they have a clue what small business is, and anyone stupid enough to risk $75 million dollars on a video game, sure should not be in control of anything for the taxpayers.
marina peterson
9:45 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Here's the sub A as is stands now. See what YOU think!!
8:00 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
If this power group that is behind the EDEC legislation is trying to soft peddle the new legislation with the thoughts of removing the eminent domain feature along with bond writing in favor of tapping the RIEDC, they had better start paying attention to the news. The RIEDC is under fire by the General Treasurer for the way they handled the 38 Studios situation. Do you want that whole mess landing on the East Bay with EDEC?
"To me the much bigger question is what's been happening over the past 17 months," General Treasurer Gina Raimondo said. "How has the Governor and his staff in his capacity as chair of the EDC board been monitoring this investment? A company does not run out of money overnight. "
Raimondo, who was also opposed to the deal in 2010, said she doesn't believe the government should be in the business of high risk venture capital. She says she asked to be briefed on the situation last week, but Chafee postponed their meeting. Rather than reschedule their sitdown, the two have taken to the airwaves to take jabs at one another over the issue this week.
8:05 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
The EDC has a large budget, a seasoned deputy director, a full Board, legal counsel and a staff and it defies logic if the agency lacks a transparent, well defined process to vigorously monitor companies awarded loans. It's very unsettling to learn that the EDC believes it's an adequate response to tell the Governor and the state that no documented reports exist from the supposed monitoring of 38 Studios by the IBM Corporation." It should be noted that one of the board members is George Nee of the AFL-CIO. That should give shivers to any taxpayer that there is union influence on that board.
This EBEC bill needs to be killed in its tracks. It is clearly not thought out properly and by the manner these people are trying to rewrite the legislation is an indication of another piece of lousy legislation being concocked for the state house. We've already seen that move with the Job Guaranty Program - The Schilling Project. Do we need to go down that road a second time in two years. The names that are on these bills should be remembered in November and tossed out of office. They are threatening your standard of living!
Gary Morse
8:18 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
The local politicians do not realize that because a lot of RI taxpayer dollars went into BCWA's Bristol County Water Supply Act, and then that money was squandered (and never audited), now they have an uphill battle convincing the state that they should be trusted again for another East Bay initiative, particularly one that has Ken Marshall's has attached his name to.
Aside from the debacle at Studio 38, for almost two years, Bristol Council Chairman Marshall has been BCWA's "there's nothing to see here, move along" cheerleader. Now he is the shameless force behind another quasi with state taxpayer dollars on the line.
When BCWA finally gets ONE audit done (yes the first since 1993) on spending under the Bristol County Water Supply Act, then I'll have a little more faith in those promoting this newest taxpayer boondoggle.
8:26 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Apparantly there is a "special" Warren Town Council meeting this Saturday morning which is circulating on Facebook ( which is how I found out about it ), and it's to address our Jamiels Park issues...but...I heard someone say that the EBEC was also going to be brought up but I see no agenda or meeting listed on our Town website...have you heard anything about this ?
8:52 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
ok...got it..here it is..
marina peterson
10:15 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Reposting link. If you have trouble call me at 253 3383
marina peterson
11:20 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
I know some are having trouble accessing this bill. I have downloaded it and can send you a copy via email if you wish. Just let me know. It is more dangerous than the first bill... if that is possible!!
Jack Baillargeron
12:26 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Again, I have to ask, who are the real "Power Brokers" behind this despicable EBEC Bill and what is the real end goal? I suspect it has nothing to do with "Renewable Energy" and everything to do with lining the pockets of a chosen few with, taxpayer money. Hope the supporters are aware the EDC has the power of eminent domain just like "New London" case backed by the State.
There is absolutely no reason on earth for this State or any Local Government, to be involved in this "Fiasco to Come". Come it will if the people do not put a nail in this right away. Forget partisan politics and such, this is about draining the taxpayers once again with ignorance and stupidly by the supporters of this Bill who think they know what the people want, with out even putting it before the people. Do you really want to go down this road below?
Not an extreme opinion, but by definition this is what you are supporting that is a fact. Too many in this Country have lost their way, in the mistaken thought that they know what is best for the people instead of the people, that is not what this country was founded on. It is shameful so many do not even know it, obviously, locally and in the State House.
"communism, the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership."
Jack Baillargeron
12:31 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Also to those that may seem hurt or mad, about being called what you are proposing, you may argue that "definition", but you cannot argue the fact that it has never succeeded in history. Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, expecting a different result. That fits as well and is a fact for you supporters. Get behind the taxpayers and your children, not special interest, and dreams of utopia.
As I told the Council Last week to their faces, I am pissed about this and sick to death of it.
marina peterson
1:11 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Great piece by Justin Katz about putting the EDC in the Wind Farm Business! Please read and forward to others. This must be stopped!!!
Jack Baillargeron
2:10 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Have some work to do will be back after I have read this piece of crappola, that so far looks like, the Justice department should investigate it, in my opinion anyway. It also appears this was written a while ago as a backup to me, for the first one. Which does not surprise me in the least. There is something more hear then we know of, like Mary Perella sid at the meeting.
1:45 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Is the "revised bill" what they may be discussing at the Special Meeting on Saturday in Warren ?
Jack Baillargeron
4:25 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Yep just as bad, and worse in some parts. They still have never heard of investors, filing suit, for malfeasence, incompetence, fraud, etc. No such thing as no liability period. Then there of course is them having employee's etc.
This is a scam to create an organization beholding to no-one but insiders and political shenanigans.
The fact only the Governor can make appointments, tell you right there, the people will have no say in this thing at all, just like the current, EDC debacle, and let us not forget the BCWA which had Councils involved who didn't even know the word oversite, until it was to late.
These politicians who wrote and are supporting this, need to be voted out of office, they think they have become Gods, this is a time for fiscal responsibility, not more risk taking on setting up a utility that does not even exist on paper, as being viable.
Where are the Politicians not supporting this, why are they not speaking out? Is this some unanimous approval, are they scared? I find it almost imposible that not one single politician has the guts to come on this blog and say they do not support this in any form.
There are times when you do not compromise and this is one of them, "Kill this Bill", it is bad for the taxpayers and nothing but a political deal to create jobs for the chosen few. Once in place, there will never be an end to the powers it will eventially be given, once the people are not looking, I'd say midnight last day of session.
Gerald V Felise
4:40 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Is EMINENT DOMAIN really precluded in the S2870 Sub A? Although the following language is in Sub A: (11) The consortium shall not have the power of eminent domain…, further going on to state (2) The Rhode Island economic development corporation is expressly prohibited from exercising the power of eminent domain on behalf of the consortium, however, nowhere does it preclude in that document or the related references, RIEDC, in the future, from authorizing EBEC the power of eminent domain. When the original S2870 entitled EBEC Act was created it had approximately 33 pages and 9,700 words. The current S2870 Sub A, although it only has 12 pages and 4,627 words, in order to determine the purpose, meaning and intent one has to review it in context with the seventeen (17) Chapters/Sections/Sub Sections that are referenced in the 12 page EBEC Act Sub A. Chapter 42-64 alone has 63 subchapters. I would conjecture that all in all the 17 Chapters have in excess of a thousand pages and multi-thousands of words.
marina peterson
1:12 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Very good point! And one we should all bring up at our meetings!!
Gerald V Felise
4:43 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
EBEC hires Lobbyist. On May 9th with no fan fair or advisement to any of the Town Councils, EBEC hired a Lobbyist and paid them, with taxpayer dollars, $20,000 to in effect pressure, influence and twist the arms of Rhode Island legislative representatives to vote for something their constituents may not want.
See Rhode Island Secretary of State Web Site: http://sos.ri.gov/ltpublic/?page=entity_detail&entityId=1619&sessionId=9
In the opinion of this commenter: It is UNNECESSARY, as local governments already have supposedly effective lobbyists in their senators and representatives! It is UNDEMOCRATIC, to use public funds for activities that May in fact run opposite to public interests! It EXPANDS GOVERNMENT AND HINDERS GROWTH, as it hinders limited government and pro-growth policies! It is THE WRONG PRIORITY, to spend money on lobbyists with more pressing priorities! It has LITTLE ACCOUNTABLILITY, as governments do not need to show results for their efforts because there is no immediate or direct feedback for poor performance. continued
Gerald V Felise
4:43 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
In the opinion of this commenter the Citizens of Rhode Island's tax money ($20,000) would have been better spent if EBEC truly wanted to demonstrate the value of their mission by making public all its activities. After two months and the filing of complaints with the RI Attorney General on 5/23/2012 EBEC came back in response to this commenter's request for Access To Public Records under RI APRA Act with a sixteen page letter fourteen of those pages listed out a "Privileged Log" consisting of 164 claims of exemption from public disclosure and they have yet to become a subsidiary of Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation where public disclosure is an oxymoron.
Jack Baillargeron
5:22 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
I agree with everything you have stated Gerald, and would only add that there is a way around the "eminent domain", the minute thus is signed. Granted I am no expert in all this, however it clearly states the the parent corporation, i.e. the EDC can tranfer lands monies, etc, to the EBEC if it wants. How can we ever prove the EDC, if it takes land by "eminent domain" for one project and then determine that is not fisable, they can then tranfer it for use by the EBEC. Same with bonds, tax money etc.
Look at the $50 million and increasing that is taxpayer money, not to mention Shilling is now applying for loans under the Motion Picture fund, that he said he would not do according to WPRI. This whole EDC and EBEC is nothing more than a scam on taxpayers and a decrement to businesses in R.I., those here and those wanting to come here.
Last thing we need is government competing with the private sector, it is and always will be a disaster. To include subsidies and taxpayer loans, a business succeeds or fails on its own merit, and should not need the governments help, that is why the State and the Country is in this mess to start with.
John Tattrie
6:03 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
So I've tried to cath up and read everything posted but, to many blogs to cover. One thing is certain, never again let local government get involved in establishing anything that they say is for our good, especially something involving energy. I'll pass on this one, this is something for private industry and it wouldn't dramaticly affect the tax-payer should it fail. Never would I support government to handled establishing another entity to oversee a utility. It's nothing but a horror show.
Jack Baillargeron
6:08 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Cracked me up and then you ruined it John lol.
I know how the better half, likes to read everything, before forming an opinion, and first thing that came to my mind was that lol.
marina peterson
6:26 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
It's official! 38 Studios.. gone! Our illustrious Governor does not know yet if it will cost the taxpayers money. They have enough in their "reserve" fund to pay the interest for a year. (Where does the reserve come from? Taxpayers???) So we "have plenty of time".
This is why we do NOT want the EBEC being a subsidiary of the EDC... Not in any way, shape or form! Let private industry take on this wind project!! They are willing and able! The EBEC has spend over $500,000 so far... What do we have to show for it? Where did it go? I know that at least $120,000 went for legal fees. Guys, this is just a moneypit! Don't let it happen!
RI Teabagger
7:24 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
What a shame. I supported this because Curt Schilling is a Tea Party supporter, a patriot and an American. But that's it, no more government hand outs to anyone, not even Tea Party supporters.
Jack Baillargeron
6:52 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
If you wish to E-mail or call to these legislator's, here are the contacts, please be respectful, and let them hear your voice.
It does not matter whether they are in your district or not, they are all responsible to all the people with a Bill Like this, that affects the State as a whole.
10 Senator Walter S. Felag Jr. firstname.lastname@example.com (401) 245-7521
11 Senator Christopher Scott Ottiano firstname.lastname@example.com (401) 222-2708
12 Senator Louis P. DiPalma email@example.com (401) 847-8540
13 Senator M. Teresa Paiva Weed firstname.lastname@example.com (401) 222-6655
Speaker of the house
4 Rep. Gordon D. Fox email@example.com (401) 222-2447
67 Rep. Jan Malik email@example.com (401) 247-1271
68 Rep. Richard P. Morrison firstname.lastname@example.com (401) 253-7845
69 Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr. firstname.lastname@example.com (508) 677-4235
70 Rep. John G. Edwards email@example.com (401) 624-8879
71 Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. email@example.com (401) 252-9882
72 Rep. Daniel Patrick Reilly email@example.com (401) 643-1770
73 Rep. J. Russell Jackson firstname.lastname@example.com (401) 848-7979
74 Rep. Deborah Ruggiero email@example.com (401) 423-0444
75 Rep. Peter F. Martin email@example.com (401) 924-2402
Jack Baillargeron
7:15 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
These are Local Councils, all information above and here are from the official public web sites. Remember it does not hurt to call or e mail these people either and tell them you want them to tell these legislators, to kill this thing if they are looking for your vote. Same with above.
Bristol Town Council 401 253-7000
Kenneth A. Marshall, Chairman email@example.com
Antonio A. Teixeira email@example.com
Mary A. Parella email@example.com
David E. Barboza, Vice Chairman email@example.com
Halsey C. Herreshoff email@example.com
Warren Town Council 401-245-7554
Christopher W. Stanley, President firstname.lastname@example.com
David S. Frerichs, Vice-President email@example.com
Davison Bolster email@example.com
Scott Lial firstname.lastname@example.com
Catherine A. Tattrie firstname.lastname@example.com
Barrington Town Council (401) 247-1900
June Sager Speakman, Pres - email@example.com
Jeffrey S. Brenner, Vice Pres - firstname.lastname@example.com
Kate G. Weymouth - email@example.com
Cynthia Armour Coyne - email@example.com
William C. DeWitt - firstname.lastname@example.com
Jack Baillargeron
7:20 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
I should add that the vast majority of the politicians above have allways answered me back, when requesting information or getting my opinion to them. Most of them usually do this on the weekend, but with this being Memorial Day weekend it may be a delay.
Again please be respectful, in no vugar language, threats of violence, personal attacks etc. Stick with facts and your personal opinion and belief of what you want them to do. They work for you and are tasked to do what you want, not what they want. Remind them of that.
Jack Baillargeron
8:57 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
It appears to me he was talking directly about quasi-Government entities.
Jack Baillargeron
10:00 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
First reply from e mails, it appears we have a few days to send these, and I urge all to send them, if you get no reply after a few days, then call them. Make your voice be heard.
From Senator Louis P. DiPalma
"THANKS for the note. The bill was submitted, By Request, on behalf of the Consortium. The amended bill was presented yesterday and a hearing is expected next week.
marina peterson
11:44 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
For those who could not open the Senate Bill earlier...
It's horrendous!
Joe Sousa.
5:49 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Seems most of the Town councils are giving this a second look . Has anyone proposed a bill that would create an advisory board to site private developers? That's what most of us thought was going on to begin with.
Jack Baillargeron
9:37 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Joe. from the sound of the town bristol town council meeting, in which Diane williamson our Director of Community Development, who Started this consortium, on the idea from our Council Chairman, it appeared and was said this was the plan all along, though you are correct, in the beginning we were all given the impression it was to be advisory to help the towns look at way tobring privately developed renewable energy, not form their own electric utility.
I emailed over 20 legislators last night and have one reply so far, we shall see what happens, when this comes up for debate next week. Any politician supporting this, should be voted out in my opinion. They have to realize the people are sick of them telling us what is good for us, whether we want it or not. Our taxes are not their private bank to give away money and form companies in direct competition with private business.
Like Studio 38 was and is a bad apple, so is this EBEC. The new bill is even worse than the previous.
marina peterson
7:57 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Many folks thought that it was an advisory council at the beginning... many naive folks, I might add. That was just to hook everyone in. If you go to the Secretary of State site and read some of the minutes of the EBC meetings you will hear them talk about "not mentioning eminent domain" because it would upset people, etc.
Let's hope they do the honorable thing and offer their services as an advisory to towns in the East Bay on a voluntary basis.
Gary Morse
8:37 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
The language of the new bill includes:
"42-64.15-17. Credit of state or municipality not pledged. -- Obligations issued under the provisions of this chapter and chapter 42-64 shall not be deemed to constitute a debt or liability or obligation of the state or of any political subdivision of the state, including a municipality, or a pledge of the faith and credit of the state or of any political subdivision, including the municipality, but shall be payable solely from the revenues or assets of the consortium."
What this appears to allow is that one communities money losing boondoggle funded by that town can be subsidized by another communities well planned project. If Bristol decides to venture into a similar wind turbine lemon as did Portsmouth, a well planned project in Warren funded exclusively by Warren debt obligations might be subsidizing the money losing Bristol lemon.
This bill still needs work!
Gary Morse
8:45 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
There is simply no proper definition in the bill as to how any town will derive financial benefit for someone else's risk taking.
The cronies, lawyers, and PR folks will do well with this venture. Taxpayers will again be scrwd.
marina peterson
3:27 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
In the words of Moody's investment analysis ""The financial struggles of 38 Studios … underscore the risks pertaining to economic development project financing by state and local governments," Moody's senior analyst, Marcia Van Wagner, said in prepared remarks."
Heed these words. The only people who will benefit from a quasi-governmental EBEC are the bottom-feeders. Let the private sector do it!
Jack Baillargeron
4:43 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Thank you very much for your letter. As you probably know, there is now a second version of the legislature proposed by the EBEC. I am still reviewing it but share many of the concerns you have expressed. I will be meeting with Senator Dipalma next week to go over the details of their amendments to the bill. Please stay in touch.
Dr. Christopher S. Ottiano
Senator, District 11
Bristol & Portsmouth
10 Kaitlin Place
Portsmouth, RI 02871
401-222-1206 (fax)
Manifold Witness
6:05 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Thanks for all your good work, Jack, Gary, Marina, everyone!
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Warren Town Council Meeting, Town Hall, 514 Main Street
4. Discussion and action regarding State Legislation relative to the East Bay Energy consortium.
marina peterson
8:02 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Here is a list of the "players" in the EDC. Govenor Gump – Chair.
Stokes – Ex. Director - Fired
Stephen Lane - Resigned
Karl Wadensten
Dr. David Dooley
J.L."Lynn" Singleton
Cheryl Watkins Snead
George Nee – AFL-CIO
Timothy Babineau - not seeking re-appointment.
Daniel Sullivan, Jr. - not seeking re-appointment.
Helena Foulkes - Resigned
Jerauld Adams
Jack Templin
Stanley Weiss
Eight have been asked to resign... George Nee is one of them.
At the risk of being redundant, we do NOT want to be a part of the EDC. This idea needs to be shelved!
8:45 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
The $261 million in senior lien general airport revenue bonds issued by the R.I. Economic Developm. ent Corporation were given an "outlook negative" by Fitch Ratings at the same time as the global rating agency affirmed their "A-" rating.
RIEDC is also plugged into other ventures across the state; Quonset Point Development, Green Airport, East Providence Water, and the list goes on. Any of these agencies that runs into problems with their operations will make it much harder to get their debt refinanced with a favorable rating - lower debt service. With RIEDC facing a negative outlook on the airport situation, now with the 38 Studios fiasco in default, that situation will have negative consequences on the overall bond rating. And the sponsors of this bill wants to hook up to this locomotive from hell? Do the homework, it's not pretty - don't get hoodwinked by the pols.
Jack Baillargeron
8:32 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Nothing Redundant about the truth. That is the problem in this State, the truth should set you free, instead it gets you called names, suspected of hate, called unintelligent, ignored, talked down too, threatened with legal action, etc. When in actuality it is the politicians who are using those tactics, with no respect for the US constitution, or even a clue what redress means in it. Their goal is to silence the voices, and votes of the people. (BCWA is a good example of those tactics), as well as the push to create yet another quasi-Government inside deal Utility with this EBEC.
I do feel sorry for some of those who volunteered for this EBEC, if they did not know the goal was creating a quasi-government electric company. If they did know, they should be ashamed of themselves, for hiding it from the public. No different then the 20 years the BCWA hide And continues to hide its fiscal dealings.
There is only one reason for that, and it is corruption in something that hasn't even been formed yet. Geeze only in RI, can that happen.
When the next election comes up, it is time for people to vote their heart and what issues they agree with of the candidate, no party line, (I absolutely abhor single levers and the morons who use them). If a candidate seems to believe in everything you do without exception, then either you are insane or he is lying his butt off to you, (run for the hills in that case, the end is neigh). Vote people, not party.
J. Lane McMahon
9:55 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
I'll get right to the point. You have a problem with BCWA...I get that. But here's the rub. IT'S YOUR PROBLEM! You allowed it to happen.
We, and I mean the other 8 communities, don't have the problems that you do. Sorry that your town has issues but don't paint the rest of us with that broad paint brush. Keep yelling that the sky is falling all you want...it doesn't make it true. You seem to hate RI, and I quote,
"There is only one reason for that, and it is corruption in something that hasn't even been formed yet. Geeze only in RI, can that happen." IF RI is so bad, then do the rest of us a favor....leave...trust me, it will make it much more pleasant for the rest of us.
Seriously, where do you get off telling people how to vote? Ignorant Tea Party follower!
Gary Morse
6:05 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
When you say "the other 8 communities, don't have the problems that you do", I hope that you don't count Portsmouth in there.
I watched the last town council meeting on the wind turbine. I was shocked to hear the town council be told that they still do not have a break even analysis completed for the council to review.
In this day of spreadsheets, that analysis is a 2 hr initiative. It is simply establishing a number of variables (e.g. cost of maintenance, life cycle of the gearbox, electricity rates, percent of usable wind, etc.).
That is the problem - the public sector simply cannot be trusted to be good stewards of taxpayers money.
The EBEC has already been given around $500K in grants. Can you point me to a stewardship report on what specific objective has been accomplished in spending down $500K of taxpayer money?
That is a problem for the 8 communities that you seem to ignore.
9:20 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
The turbine at the Abbey (private) is always working and the one at the school in Portsmouth is constantly broken (public). Is there a message here?
Jack Baillargeron
11:25 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Problem with "Freedom of Speech"? Problem with the US constitution "right of redress"? Your answer to "Freedom of Speech", remove a citizen from speaking out? tell them leave the State.
Your answer to corruption, is ignore it and keep quiet? Are you GOD that speaks for 8 Communities? Who elected you to that lol. Sorry to inform you of this, however, if the BCWA should default and go belly up as they say, it will be every taxpayer in the State paying for it, not just the tri-town. You do know who Started this EBEC idea right? One Council Chairman Mr. Marshall of the Bristol Town Council.
Funny how now that the truth of this is coming out, towns and legislators are either re-thinking support, not voting at all, or just plain no comment. I do have to laugh that little old me is making 8 communities, unpleasant according to you, isn't freedom of speech wonderful, though I suspect it is only in your mind.
Did I tell people how to vote? I suggested ways to look a how you vote. Difference between you and me is, I believe in this Country, and you want a new Country, that will never happen here. People have seen your vision before, and fought to the death to stop it, Like my family and so many others to prevent it from ever happening here. Don't like freedom, that is your right, however keep your totalitarian society to your self lol.
By the way I have family in almost all of those 8.
Thanks for the laugh.
Jack Baillargeron
11:31 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
PS, JLane
Get a dictionary on slang language, Teaparty is not in it as foul language or derogatory, remark. Just to remind you again, as you allways seem to see and read only what you want see. I belong to no organization of politics, and never have. I support those who support issues I support.
I am in no way telling Jlane to support anything at all.
Manifold Witness
7:41 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
J. Lane – anyone who lives in RI and doesn't get that the sky IS falling needs to wake up and smell the landfill … and the 38Studios deal….and the wind blowing off the BCWA liabilities (which is not a one-town issue – it's a Tri-Town & state-wide one as well)... and on and on and on in this silly little excuse for a state.
In every municipality in RI, we are unjustly overtaxed.
And, still, infrastructure is falling apart. Look at the streets - we've forgotten what a paved street is actually supposed to look like.
Wind turbines are a passing fad that has already blown by. Wind turbines are more like expensive nuisances than any meaningful net contribution to any bottom line.
And the lobbyists are laughing all the way to the bank.
We are very, very thankful that our friends and neighbors here are trying to do something about the problems. Because that's the only way things are going to get fixed.
Bristol County Anonymous
8:04 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
EBEC needs to be ended.
It is just another example of RI taxpayer's money flowing through EDC, and then wasted on paid lobbyists, lawyers, cronies, and pretend projects.
EBEC's lawyer lobbyists….
7:31 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
We have fallen into a bad habit of letting the government take care of all of our problems. How successful have they been? I think we already know that answer. RIEDC was formed for the purpose of economic development. How successful have they been? Anyone ask for a report on how many businesses they brought to RI that are still operating? The answer is dismal at best. The board of directors of the RIEDC is a dumping ground for political hacks appointed by the governor with the blessing of the Senate. One glaring example is that of George Nee of the AFL-CIO. What is a union hack doing on an economic development board? What does he bring to the table for economic development? His munions have been responsible for the debacle of municipalities across the state and at the state house. Real poor choice there. What you see there will be done on this EBEC board - same process as RIEDC.
This EBEC proposal is more social engineering at its worst. Government should not be in the utility business. They lack the expertise to operate and maintain it. Wind turbines are being sold to us by snake-oil salesmen. These devices are at best, 35% efficient and are prone to breakdowns. Do we need to repeat the same mistakes of Deep Water Wind with another land site? Why do these sponsors keep changing the language of the legislation? Where is the thought process? This is nothing more than a rush to beat a deadline. They want that PPA from National Grid! MONEY!
Gary Morse
8:05 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
You are correct, BCWA is a statewide issue. Under 1993 legislation (Bristol County Water Supply Act), tens of millions in state taxpayer money was funneled into BCWA. To date, there has not been a single audit of that state taxpayer spending.
Residents have asked the state and BCWA to do an audit of spending under the Act, but they have refused (you don't have to speculate on the reasons).
BCWA remains a statewide problem with stewardship thwarted by the same locals who are now pushing this new money loser.
8:31 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
This windturbine legislation just got much worse. Now we have language that would have the RIEDC involved. Talk about a "honey pot." Perhaps there is a silver lining to the failed 38 Studios fiasco - The RIEDC is a backroom state agency supported by the Administration. It's slated to receive $4.9 Million dollars as a budget expenditure on this years budget. We all know how successful they have been! You now have Senator DiPalma pushing this revised senate bill to have RIEDC take a more active role in the securing of property and bond money. That has not changed the face of this pig. There is an exodus happening on the Board of Directors of RIEDC. Unfortunately, George Nee of the AFL- CIO is a board member with an expired term and won't leave until his replacement is confirmed in the Senate. State government has turned this "corporation" into a dumping ground for political pals for special favors. You want some union hack making those decisions for your community? This is still a terrible bill that needs to be defeated.
To the municipalities in the EAST BAY, WAKE UP! READ THE BILL - YOU CAN DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS.
Jack Baillargeron
10:12 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Something to remember not only Monday But always, of why we have the right be against this, and demand change JLane.
It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN, not the politician, Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the VETERANS, that payed the ultimate price for your freedom. RIP
It is the VETERAN who salutes the Flag.
marina peterson
11:27 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Just got back from the Warren Town Council Mtg on EBEC.. They made a motion to hold it for next meeting as advised by their legislators, Malik and Felag. apparently there is yet another revision on its way. Attorney Moses was there and pooh-poohed all of the concerns that the public and the councils have. Scott Lial couldn't understand why the council did not approve it today... yes it is now under the EDC, but it's a tradeoff (his words) to get rid of eminent domain. Tradeoff?? There were at least 15 people that showed up to argue against, and that is monumental on a Saturday morning of Memorial Day Week-end. Since it was moved to the next Warren Town Council meeting all of the arguments were not heard. Ray Palmieri did have the opportunity to make some very good points and questioned why anyone would even consider being involved with the EDC! More later.. Thanks to all who attended!!
Jack Baillargeron
11:32 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Funny (not really), how Chaffee wants what we wants a (forensic Audit), But from the BCWA, whose Bond is at minimum 1.26 and they default at 1.25, according to the board last year, the Councils do not.
This is why you have to look at how the quasi-government entity, got the way it did and is so close to default on a bond that is over 20 years old and only interest payments and a principle that is still millions of dollars the ratepayers and yes JLane the taxpayers are responsible for after 20 years.
Try that on your home with a bank, and no taxpayercash to back you up. Can't know what is going on if you do not look at the numbers, as the EDC didn't on 38 obviously.
Another reaon we do not need he EBEC as a quasi-government agency, they blow money on projects that are high risk gambling at the exspense of taxpayers, well blocking private business from coming to R.I. that is a fact.
." Rhode Island taxpayers could spend nearly $90 million on principal and interest payments if 38 Studios can't pay off its loan.
Chafee suggested he wants a forensic audit of 38 Studios' finances to get a better sense of what went wrong.
marina peterson
12:10 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
"A gaggle of lawyers from Cranston to Los Angeles — including a former Rhode Island lieutenant governor — shared close to $545,650 in payments from the state-backed sale of $75 million in taxable revenue bonds for former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling's collapsed video-game venture, 38 Studios.
$190,000 was paid to Moses & Afonso as bond counsel to the EDC; (Thomas Moses wrote the legislation for the EBEC) "
If you are making money from writing the bonds... is it a conflict of interest?
See article on 38 Studios passing second mortgages on to employees who thought their homes were sold.
Quote from the article "The bank notifications raise the specter of how the financing for the relocations was handled. If the company used state-backed money to finance homes or pay mortgages while the homes were being sold, it could mean that 38 Studios violated the terms of the agreement with the state."
Do we need more evidence that this ridiculous "honeypot" must be stopped!?
Jack Baillargeron
12:36 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Jack - I am strenuously opposed to the EBEC...most of the legislators are.
All the best,
Daniel P. Reilly
State Representative
District 72 (Portsmouth, Middletown, Newport)
(401) 643 1770 - Cell
Bill Carson
1:56 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Update on the wind turbine ? Did they get the parts ? The wind turbine stands as a monument to why everyone should oppose the EBEC ! It will become another failed government project just like 38 Studios ! What if you had twenty five wind turbines in Tiverton and they all started breaking down like the high school wind turbine 3 years after they were built ? The only "Green Energy" is the green out of our wallets to pay these contractors - First they install the turbines -go broke and then charge tens of thousands for maintance plans - What don't you people get ?
Manifold Witness
2:30 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
The Warren Town Council met Saturday,May 26, 2012 at 9:00 am.
Item 4 on the agenda-to vote on the East Bay Energy Consortium proposed legislation. After about 35 minutes of discussion, the vote was 4 to 1 in favor of continuing the matter.
Four Warren Town Councilors got it right: Cathy Tattrie, Christopher Stanley, Davison Bolster & David Frerich. Scott Lial, sadly, did not.
Mr. Lial seemed aggressively in favor of the proposed legislation because, he said, Warren needs the revenue. But no pro forma financials were presented. It is unclear as to how much revenue will be generated and/or whether the net revenue will be sufficient to support bonds.
No timeline was given as to when the project might start to generate revenue and it's unclear as to how Warren would participate in or benefit from the proposed projects or what the risks might be.
Rep. Malik & Senator Felag both spoke about the fact that the process was moving too fast, especially given recent changes that were made, as well as other unsettling issues. Rep. Malik affirmed that he withdrew his support for the proposed legislation.
In the wake of the EDC's recent 38Studios debacle, there are questions as to how able EDC is to oversee a new RI quasi government organization supported by revenue bonds.
Tom Moses, EBEC bond counsel, spoke in favor of revenue bonds for the project. He quoted from the proposed legislation as to the fact that the bonds would be consortium revenue bonds.
Manifold Witness
2:33 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Mr. Moses did not mention money the towns, EDC, have already pledged. There were questions as to who is responsible for the bonds if the project fails to generate sufficient revenue.
The revised proposed legislation puts the EBEC under EDC as to bonds in order to remove the EBEC eminent domain language.
Cathy Tattrie expressed concern as to what would happen if EDC is eliminated, as the Governor said it might be. Mrs. Tattrie pointed out that currently no one seems to want to run EDC.
Senator Felag explained that this proposed legislation is a moving target & things are moving very fast. The original proposed legislation was submitted April 12. It then underwent revisions & Senator Felag only just got a copy of it this week – Thursday afternoon.
Tiverton does not support the proposed legislation.
Members of the Town Council asked why there was such a big rush with this proposed legislation.
Mr. Moses said: "the 9 municipalities did a study of the best place to put the wind project. The town of Tiverton decided to solicit other developers and the only way we can do this is to get the legal entity and a lot of money has been spent … the met tower… a lot of work with National Grid… This was submitted to the legislature in Feb."
Gary Morse
2:38 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
After this morning's Warren Council meeting, it is now apparant that the EDC insiders are looking to siphon as much taxpayer money as they can before the wind party stops.
We still lack a detailed business case that would show a specific wind turbine can function profitably. The existing Portsmouth turbine, even without adding in the gearbox changes, is now projected to take in only $11K per year based on a 4 cents per KWH payable rate (see last weeks Portsmouth TC meeting in the last 1/2 hour). How can anyone float a wind turbine revenue bond against $11K per year in revenue?
The insiders have already blown through $500K in grant money at the EBEC ($129K in legal bills) and we still do not have detailed financials supporting this initiative.
Hats off to the majority of the Warren TC this morning for taking a prudent approach to this legislation.
Manifold Witness
2:40 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Question: "Who is supporting this at the state house level?"
Felag: "Louis Dipalma on the senate side". It was submitted April 12. Senator Felag was not a co-sponsor.
Sen Felag explained that the sponsor of the bill might shepherd it through and maybe worked with a senate committee or someone else to make changes. There was supposed to be a hearing -it was candelled. Then the Sub A was submitted.
Senator Felag tried to get the Sub A but he couldn't get it until Thursday. He sent it around.
Last Wednesday, Rep Malik got the bill from an EBEC lobbyist who said, "your concerns are addressed".
As of May 26, 2012, Barrington Town Manager Peter DeAngelis had not received a copy of the revisions (Sub A) yet.
Rep Malik urged the council to "take your time and read it…. to be fair to the communities of Warren and of Barrington".
Scott Lial (loudly): "Barrington can do it on their own time!"
Sen Felag read a list of concerns that were to be addressed.
Tom Moses: "The way this legislation is drafted – all it does is create the entity. They have to go back and ask the town to do so by ordinance.
A Town Councilor: How does the consortium feel about this?
Tom Moses, apparently speaking for the consortium, answered, "Half a loaf is better than none"… making 'us' (EBEC) a subsidiary to EDC. This bill is the result of all the issues that have come out. In my opinion this bill addresses all the issues."
Manifold Witness
2:48 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Rep Malik urged: "Do your due diligence".
Gov will make selection to the board -Town submits 3 names. Selection might be delayed.
Scott Lial said this process is a compromise for when eminent domain was removed.
Ray Palmieri from a prepared statement – "Let's not forget that this creates another quasi-public agency". He listed problems with other RI quasi-public agencies – RI Resource Recovery, RIPTA, Prov Housing Authority, 38Studios, BCWA, etc.
Two private companies are interested in this project. They might do a better job with no risk to the municipalities.
It was moved & seconded that the council would continue the item to a later date so they can have time to read, understand the proposal and the implications.
Before the vote, Scott Lial interrupted –aggressively – and demanded to know from the other councilors, "What are the concerns?"
Other councilors said: they have not had sufficient time to review the issues, the proposed legislation is a moving target, there is now the additional problem of EBEC being lumped into the EDC, and what will happen with EDC?- Especially if EDC may not be the same entity in a month from now.
Scott Lial – stated that this thing will move forward without Warren. He said that Warren needs the revenue.
Cathy Tattrie – What if it's done by a private organization (instead) and that means jobs and tax payments for the town?
Vote – 4 to 1 to continue to a later date. Lial opposed.
Manifold Witness
2:51 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Tom Moses is not unfamiliar with bond defaults where the state has to step in.
See his online bio at:
"Tom Moses has been involved in almost every major real estate project in the city of Providence for over 25 years… Tom's interest in planning and development began in government service where he worked for 12 years in a variety of executive capacities for government authorities. These include Providence's Department of Planning and Development, Public Buildings Authority, and Economic Development Corporation as well as the Rhode Island Department of Economic Development and Port Authority". ..
"He has been general counsel to the Rhode Island Industrial-Recreational Building Authority for over 16 years. …"
Now see Ted Nesi's report at
"The state also stepped in after defaults by the Fairmont Foundry and a project financed by the R.I. Industrial Recreational Building Authority"….
Bond default? Over at the state quasi where Tom Moses "has been general counsel to the Rhode Island Industrial-Recreational Building Authority for over 16 years."
Maybe some additional questions are in order.
4:21 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Thanks Marina & Manifold for the recap of the meeting....
Scott Clark
7:56 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
This is disgusting, the same EDC whose executive specifically *specifically* waived the need for any written audit of 38S's progress :P
Thank you Marina and Manifold for staying so on top of it!!
Bristol County Anonymous
8:40 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Tom Moses, is the EBEC lawyer / lobbyist who is pushing real hard for the EBEC legislation…
From Pro Jo…;
"A gaggle of lawyers from Cranston to Los Angeles…shared close to $545,650 in payments from the state-backed sale of $75 million in taxable revenue bonds for former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling's collapsed video-game venture, 38 Studios…$190,000 to Moses & Afonso as bond counsel to the EDC";
Looks like $190,000 down the drain (as far as RI taxpayers), but the Tom Moses law firm got the $190K!
Based on the Studio 38 debacle, should we / EBEC be following the advice of lawyer / lobbyist Tom Moses?
Mr. Moses is being pretty pushy about the proposed legislation to create an EBEC quasi public entity…what is his real agenda?
Manifold Witness
8:57 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Good points, Govstench.
Our friends and neighbors are working hard all the time to get information out to others. Every time one person joins to assist, the load gets lighter for all of us.
Saturday, May 26, 2012 at the Warren Town Council's 9 am meeting, 48 people (room capacity of 57) made an effort to get involved: Town Councilors, Town Clerk, a Representative, a Senator, at least one bond counsel, maybe a lobbyist or two, about 19 folks who want a new ball field for the kids, and the rest appeared to have an interest in the East Bay Energy Consortium issues.
Not bad.
Not bad at all.
Happy Memorial Day in memory of those who served our country in uniform, and to those who continue to serve.
In memory of-
my grandfather who, among other things, lived to tell of: a battlefield commission & Bronze Star;
and my dad who served in a M.A.S.H. unit.
Gary Morse
9:33 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Has anybody noticed that the EBEC's Treasurers Report stated a projected a $75K salary for a "Project Manager" in their April 4, 2011 report. Six months later, in the October report, that salary figure jumped to $119,600 as the projected salary (does that include benefits).
How did they get a specific $119,600 unless they have already made a choice? And did the EBEC float a job add for a qualified project manager with engineering background, or was a choice made for a local crony and thus needed this legislation to get the paychecks flowing?
And might I ask: what is the specific project needing a mgr, where are the financials for this project buried, and how does Warren, Barrington, etc derive income from this project that is alleged to actually derive income (gotta have revenue to float revenue bonds)?
The EBEC has a website, so why isn't this important info posted?
Gary Morse
11:06 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
In case any one hasn't yet read the 2010 EBEC Phase II feasibility study for Tiverton, you can find it at:
It is noted in the study that it was done without wind data from the area, and used a "Levelized Net Metering Credit (¢/kWh)" assumption of selling energy back to Nat Grid at 14.9¢ per kWH (page iv).
This is a concern since it appears Portsmouth is currently selling power back to the grid at 4¢ per kWH (discussion in last Portsmouth town council meeting). According to the EBEC Treasurer's Report of Nov 2011, the Phase III study is not yet completed.
EBEC needs to come clean and reconcile this revenue assumption in the Phase II study. Tom Moses, the EBEC bond lawyer at the Warren meeting, failed to reconcile this issue when he told everyone the financing would be based on revenue bonds.
11:47 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
As long as the power is produced in Rhode Island they will get the same rate as Portsmouth. Deepwater is not in Rhode Island technically so their deal crooked as it was gets them more money.
That rate is all they can get unless legislation is created to go around that which I doubt the rest of the State would go along with. If they did this would be implemented all over the State and at that point it's just another rax on overtaxed workers here.
Gerald V Felise
11:46 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
I posted the answer to the question of where is all the financial disclosure information on May 24th "After two months and the filing of complaints with the RI Attorney General on 5/23/2012 EBEC came back in response to this commenter's request for Access To Public Records under RI APRA Act with a sixteen page letter fourteen of those pages listed out a "Privileged Log" consisting of 164 claims of exemption from public disclosure and they have yet to become a subsidiary of Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation where public disclosure is an oxymoron." The preponderance of what I requested was financial disclosure including Financial Proforma's and basic Bond language which EBEC apparently believes that although they are a public body they are exempt from making those disclosures to the Public.
I note in this discussion cogent questions as to the Revenue Bonds, who are liable, how they will be paid etc. The discussions and responses from EBEC are irrelevant absent certain information.
Revenue bonds are all about recovering money from specific projects. Like projects in the private sector, these public works should not be approved by municipalities without compelling feasibility studies that demonstrate the technical and financial viability of the projects. If, by some quirk, the municipality should green-light a project without a feasibility study, the players in the bond market would make it very difficult for that project to get funding. continued
Gerald V Felise
11:47 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Continued The feasibility study should, among other things, outline sources of revenue: user charges or tolls, concessions and fees, special taxes, and rental or lease payments. Another potential source of revenue is legislative appropriation, or tax dollars granted by the residents' elected representatives.
Revenue bonds often have protective covenants written into their indentures for example giving bondholders recourse to the physical assets in case of default. There are rate, maintenance and nondiscrimination covenants. Analysts are concerned with construction only insofar as it is associated with generating their clients' cash flows. Cash flow of funds is of critical importance when assessing revenue bonds.
The present EBEC Feasibility Report was published October 2010 going on two years old. The report lacks the kind of specificity that would pass the Bond Analysts or financing scrutiny. It both warns the reader and points out that it is void of certain substantive information necessary to proceed with funding.
Based on the information available from EBEC absent a guarantee by the nine municipalities or the State of Rhode Island based on the information available no reasonable bond costs would be available nor would the financing be considered by any Venture capitalists. Continued
Gerald V Felise
11:49 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Continued It appears obvious to this writer whose companies spent years and private funds developing its feasibility study, financial model, business model, acquiring site control, wind data, lining up private financing before it moved forward to the permitting phase and only at that point would our financing group cut a check to proceed with construction.
EBEC has decided to skip basic Business 101 fundamentals and proceed directly to having the taxpayers issue the check for their project based on parsed hallow promises and assurances. EBEC in essence is telling the citizens of Rhode Island if substantial and credible private entities can invest private capital and make money on these projects then so can quasi-governments. Why should private enterprise make profits. Assuredly the government on any given day can provide twice as many jobs as the private sector for that same business venture which unfortunately is true.
Manifold Witness
12:15 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Thank you for this synthesis, Gerald.
Mr. Tom Moses, bond counsel with lots of RI connections, is pushing hard for this. Why?
If there are pro formas to show that this project will benefit the taxpayers, why is EBEC not forthcoming with those projections?
If you were a public official being rushed by bond counsel & lobbyists to vote in favor of this, wouldn't you (as Rep Malik urged) do your due diligence?
Especially after 38Studios?
2:32 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
MW, your making that question very easy to answer. Moses wants to line his pockets with taxpayer money. He isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart. This a very dangerous piece of legislation and the if Rep. Rielly is correct and has the bulk of the House membership against it, it will fail. I sense that this bill may make it out of the Senate but will end up with its companion bill in House Finance to die. The names of these supporters needs to be documented and used as a campaign issue in the upcoming election. You don't need people like Mr. Lial to push something that will end up costing taxpayers more money. This is a scam of the 1st order - it needs to be killed as quickly as possible. It's moving too fast with too many changes in the words - running loose and wild.
2:33 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Besides Mr. Moses, people need to find out the names of the lobbyists who are pushing this bill. Get their names exposed in the media. This thing could turn into another 38 studio situation very quickly if it is not stopped.
Gerald V Felise
4:14 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Names of the new lobbyists hired by EBEC on May 9th (Government Strategist, Inc.) were included in my post of May 24th. You will also note that Moses is not only the EBEC general counsel, he is registered as EBEC's executive and legislative lobbyist and with the new Sub A subsidiary EBEC legislation he will also become the Bonding Agent by proxy through RIEDC for EBEC
Requote from post:
"EBEC hires Lobbyist. On May 9th with no fan fair or advisement to any of the Town Councils, EBEC hired a Lobbyist and paid them, with taxpayer dollars, $20,000 to in effect pressure, influence and twist the arms of Rhode Island legislative representatives to vote for something their constituents may not want."
See Rhode Island Secretary of State Web Site: http://sos.ri.gov/ltpublic/?page=entity_detail&entityId=1619&sessionId=9
Gary Morse
5:43 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
You seem to have some experience with the financial's. Is my logic correct that based on EBEC's own Phase II study data, the taxpayer must fund at least 78% of the $49.7 mil installation costs in order for the project to just break even (info from the Phase II study, Option 1 being 20 MW Project – (8) 2.5 MW WTGs on 80 m towers):
Annual O&M = $1,133,000 (from page 51)
Cost per kWH = $ 0.027 (from page 51)
Thus $1,133,000 / $.027 = 41,962,963 total annual kWH from Option #1
Total Cost of Option 1 = $49,784,000 (page 49)
20 year mortgage @ 0% interest = annual mortgage payment of $2,489,160
$2,489,160 (0% Mortgage) + $1,133,000 (annual O&M) = $3,622,160 annual debit
41,962,963 annual kWH * $.04 per kWH = $1,678,519 annual income from Option #1
$3,622,160 debit - $1,678,519 credit = $1,943,641 total annual liability.
$1,943,641 annual liability means taxpayer must fund at least 78% of the $49.7 mil installation for Option 1 to break even (assuming nothing outside of warranty breaks down).
Bristol County Anonymous
5:40 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Question every Rhode Islander has to ask of any new deal- Who is pushing it & why?
Lawyer lobbyist Tom Moses is pushing this EBEC deal like there's no tomorrow. Why?
Excerpts from March 5, 2012 EBEC minutes:
"(EBEC lawyer / lobbyist) Tom Moses ...had spoken with Tony DeSisto and Andy Teitz.. both expressed their support for EBEC…. Moses...met with the Speaker of the House,… Moses reported...he is working with Marie Ganim, the Senate President's Deputy Chief of Staff. …Moses directed the group to converse with their constituent town councils, and offer support to questions on 2012 -- H 7592…. Moses directed that any EBEC members speaking with.the legislature register with the State as lobbyists for EBEC. He noted that he and firm partner Mark Ryan have registered as lobbyists representing EBEC interests."
Tom Moses is not an engineer or "green energy" scientist genuinely interested in wind turbines for public good. He wants fees.
Tom Moses' law firm got $190,000 from taxpayers for the 38Studios deal:
Tom Moses is a driving force behind an urgent push to form a new RI "quasi" to hand over to EDC.
Do RI taxpayers really need greedy lawyers lobbying & pressuring our GA for laws to create another new risky govt venture?
Mr. Moses is betting the GA will vote "yes" one more time.
Gerald V Felise
9:38 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Garymm you need to go to page 60 of the Study. Table 8-5 depicts the Revenues, expenses and cash flow for Option 1. Year 1 they reflect the Net Metering Credit in $/MWh in that case $128.98 MWh ($.12898 cents per kWhr) X 41,234 MWh of production (41,234,000 kWhr) yields $5,330,000 in Revenue less $1,018,000 O&M Less $4,139,000 Debt Service (Bond assumed at 4.5%) annual Cash Flow first year of $173,000 positive year one.
The Study numbers are almost two years old. A myriad of the assumptions are speculative at best. The Study reflects land lease costs of $100,000 which equates out to $12,500 per turbine site. Yet the Town of Tiverton was told that over the 20 year period they could expect $1.2 million average revenue that totals $24,000,000. That is for three (3) turbines the other seven (7) go on the water companies property. Based on that stated fact to the Town, that would mean the Water Companies which have seven (7) turbines on their property would receive $2,800,000 annually averaged over 20 years for a total of $56,000,000. The combined stated revenues to the Town of Tiverton and Stone Bridge/North Tiverton Water would be $80,000,000. The net cash flow for 20 years is only $42,756,000 as stated.
Gerald V Felise
9:40 pm on Sunday, May 27, 2012
The estimated O&M as well as the Debt Service are well off the marker. Take the debt service, only with the State of RI guaranteeing the Bond could a figure of 7.75% be attained (38 Studios figure). That would add close to a Million dollars annually to the debt service reducing available cash flow by almost $19 Million over 20 years, don't forget the $200,000 expense for the bond attorneys which is not in the estimates. Certain O&M figures are grossly understated, the Project Costs are a clear case of wetting your finger then putting up in the air to see which way the numbers are blowing i.e., site preparation on the Tiverton Industrial Park site could eat up the entire contingency estimate. A lot of Fuzzy math and unsubstantiated claims/statements being issued by the EBEC folks make it virtually impossible for the citizenry and their duly elected representatives to evaluate this quasi-government public works project.
Gary Morse
5:09 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
The problem with the Phase II figures is that their net metering income used a number that would not be paid by Nat Grid.
I was generous by giving them a zero interest bond. My point was to illustrate that the so called revenue stream of Phase II was contrived and does not represent reality.
marina peterson
1:38 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
Ocean State Tea Party in Action has a blog on this as well at
A Senate Enivronment and Agriculture Committee hearing on the EBEC bill has been scheduled for May 30th, next Wednesday (posted after 5pm on the Friday before a long weekend!). Here's the amended bill: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText12/SenateText12/S2870A.pdf
We have serious concerns here!
marina peterson
1:40 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
The revised bill, S 2870 Sub A, is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday,
May 30 at the Rise (4:30), in Room 211. We hope to see many municipal
council members at the hearing.
marina peterson
2:28 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
If you were to review the EBEC Feasibility Study of 2010 paid for by the EDC (no conflict here) you will see that it clearly states that the project is feasible only if natural gas prices presumably go up, not DOWN. As we all know, they have gone down substantially.
Gary Morse
5:42 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
It's not just natural gas prices that drive the economics. To anyone who has an interest in the profitability of this government initiative, and has a basic knowledge of Excel, put the EBEC's own Phase II Option 1 numbers into a spreadsheet (takes about 1/2 hour).
The costs (mortgage) is a 20 year mortgage covering $49,784,000 (from page 49)
The annual cost of operation is $1,133,000 (from page 51)
The annual kWH generated is 41,962,963 kWH
There are three variables on the spreadsheet: 1) the interest rate on the mortgage of the $49 mil, 2) the rate at which Nat Grid will pay against the kWH generated (Portsmouth is using 4 -5 cents as their number), and 3) the actual amount of kWH that is really produced being a % of the assumed 41,962,963 kWH
You will quickly understand that this can be a huge taxpayer money pit as Portsmouth is now discovering.
11:34 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
Wind is far far behind solar as a mature technology. Solar efficiency breakthroughs are announced regularly.
The only locations where wind stands a chance of being profitable in the East Bay is Little Compton's shoreline.
That is from studies done showing the Little Compton and Narragansett shores as having the only decent wind characteristics on land in the State.
"During a recent Friday and Saturday two day period, German solar power plants generated a world record 22 gigawatts (GW) of electricity per hour, which is roughly the equivalent of 20 nuclear power plants running at full capacity. The solar power represented about a third of the total German electricity needs on Friday, and about half of the power needs of the country on Saturday.
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year, the German government made the decision to abandon its nuclear power plant program, and immediately closed eight nuke plants. The remaining nine nuclear plants are scheduled to be closed by 2022. In the meantime, Germany has been ramping up the use of alternative energy, and currently is averaging about 20% of its overall electricity needs from alternative sources. Germany added about 7.5 GW of new solar capacity last year and another 1.8 GW in the first quarter for 2012."
Gary Morse
11:53 am on Monday, May 28, 2012
It's not clear that wind would work even in that area. You can test this on a spreadsheet.
I doubled the annual wind output from 42,000,000 kWH to 84,000,000 kWH.
Using an 8% loan rate (likely in the post Shilling era) and a 5 cents per kWH based on what Portsmouth is getting, the project still loses $2,000,000 mil a year and would require almost $20,000,000 tax payer startup dollars in order to break even (hoping the warranty would hold up).
You have to load this onto a spreadsheet to test the numbers to actually see what comes out with each little change. It doesn't look good.
12:18 pm on Monday, May 28, 2012
I agree Gary. I was just saying those are the two best places which as you say doesn't mean a profit.
Look at Deepwater. They are putting theirs 20 miles out into the ocean and the power is priced prohibitively. 24 cents/kwh to start with a 3.5% automatic yearly rate increase and power transmission cables costing anywhere from $50 to $100 million that the GA will allow National Grid to pass onto ratepayers.
Anyone who reads this thread and especially the last say 40 posts cannot possibly believe that this is a good idea.
marina peterson
12:28 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Questions About the East Bay Energy Consortium Bill Sub A
Posted on May 24, 2012 by OSTPA
The amended version of the East Bay Energy Consortium bill is now available at the Rhode Island General Assembly website (S 2870A).
Some of the open questions the OSTPA has about this bill are the following:
1. Relating to Sec 42-64.15-4, what are the ramifications for defining EBEC as exercising "public essential governmental functions"?
2. Sec 42-64-7.1 states that the RI Economic Development Corp. will not be liable for the debt of EBEC, unless RI EDC expressly agrees otherwise in writing. Does this put the RI taxpayer on the hook again for debt in a manner similar to 38 Studios?
3. Relating to Sec 42-64.15-5, what are the ramifications of having "perpetual succession"?
4. In Sec 42-64.15-8, EBEC will continue to hire what they have deemed an appropriate number of employees at a level of compensation they deem reasonable. The draft also states that the employees are deemed not to be state or municipal employees and therefore will not accrue pension benefits with any state or municipal government. If the EBEC were to terminate, how would the future retirement benefits be paid if the plans are not fully funded at the time of termination?
continued next post...
marina peterson
12:29 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
5. The draft does not make any reference to a municipality withdrawing from the consortium. Does that mean it can never leave?
6. In Sec 42-64.15-18, while the draft states that obligations are not a debt of the state or any municipality and will only be paid from the revenues and assets of the consortium and that a statement to that effect will be written on the face of the obligation, does being designated as a public agency in sec 42-64.15-13 contradict this section?
7. Sec 42-64.15-17 continues to inhibit the General Assembly's ability to limit or alter the rights of the EBEC that are established in this legislation. Can legislation commit future legislators to an arrangement like this? It is noted, however, Sec 42-64.15-19 allows the General Assembly to terminate the EBEC.
8. "In lieu of" property taxes are still a contentious issue. The bill refers to negotiating the payment but no provision is made if the two parties cannot agree on an "in lieu of" property tax payment.
marina peterson
4:00 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Please try and attend the hearing at the State House tomorrow (Wednesday, May 30) at 4:30pm. I cannot make it due to another commitment.
marina peterson
5:22 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Just heard that the State Police are investigating the EDC for possible malfeasance. If nothing else, should we hold all decisions until this is completed?
Carl Schloemann
8:21 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
We don't need taxpayer dollars to fund wind power. The US is awash in natural gas. Actually, the world has more carbon based fuel than ever available to it. Leave wind power to the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. When it's ready, it'll come on line. For now, I'd recommend reading the following report. Yes, they are an energy group, but their figures come from the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy.
From page vi of the report:
Total Recoverable Resources: 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet.
Enough natural gas to provide the United States with electricity for 575 years at current natural gas generation levels
Enough natural gas to fuel homes heated by natural gas in the United States for 857 years
More natural gas than all of the next five largest national proved reserves (more than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan)
Note, this is just natural gas for the US. The same page includes info on oil and coal.
Jack Baillargeron
9:14 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
As Carl has so aptly pointed out, with verifiable facts, it is time for people to reconsider wind power ventures that involves taxpayer funding. Whether local, State or Federal, this insanity of wasting taxpayers money to experiment, with unproven technologies is criminal, to the taxpayers.
I know some will quote foreign government project, in Europe, etc. Those are Countries that are as socialistic in nature. Last time I looked, the USA is free enterprise system, tax people to death and dictate what our life will and will not be. You may not like the label for those of you who want these Quasi-Government entities, but the facts are, you are advocating exactly that kind of system. The government, does not knows what is best for the people, if they did then the USSR and many other Country's in the past would still have those socialist systems.
If you compare R.I. to Greece, you will find exact parallels to the problems in this State. Both are dependent on Tourism for the economy, both have problems with public employee benefits from the past that have put the entitlement system in to a death spiral. There are many more I could list, but you get the picture, and if you do not, then you are blinded by your new disastrous ideology you are trying to push on the people of this State. That is disgusting to see in this Country. That is not what this Country is founded on period, but the tyranny this Country fought to get rid of and always has fought against.
Carl Schloemann
12:18 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Jack and Others,
Even the European socialist countries who threw so much taxpayer money at alternative energy are saying no more:
Alarm bells should be ringing around here about now.
Jack Baillargeron
9:27 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
For me Marina, at the very least, the ramming through of this dangerous, debacle, should be tabled until the next session, if not totally scrapped all together, it is un-American to even think of forming yet another unanswerable Quasi-Government agency that the public cannot even vote on.
What are these supporters of this so scared of in letting the public decide? Easy answer, they know the cat is out of the bag on this one, and the lining of pockets will not happen with a vote in my opinion. Better get use to it, the public is fed up with this kind of stealing from the taxpayer for the chosen few. We will not go quietly into the night, so that you can continue your reign of terror over our pocket books.
Dan D
9:32 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
So... are we ready to Frack the country and poison our water supplied for natural gas? Because that is what it will take.
Carl Schloemann
12:10 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Dan D, I suggest you read the following article. If there is one agency bent on stopping fracking, it's the EPA. They have made several attempts to tie contaminated water supplies with fracking, disrupting commerce and people's livelihoods not to say damaging US energy independence. In each attempt, they were soundly defeated. Let's raise the level of discourse a bit. If you have substantiation to support your fears, let's have it. Thanks.
Dan D
1:22 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Carl, there are hundreds of articles and testimonials of fracking being bad. I dont think we need to rehash them all here. Fracking is HORRIBLE. And they are doing it in populated areas. But let us not also forget that 70+% of our electricity comes from coal, too. If you ever lived in a coal mining town, you would see how wonderful and clean it is. Oh! and then there is safety. Because none of us have ever heard of a house blowing up while using gas. What happens when it is a powerplant?
marina peterson
12:25 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Just a reminder... Hearing today, May 30th, State House, Senate side, room 211 at 4:30. Please try to make it.
Carl Schloemann
12:41 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Marina, if you have the opportunity and speak publicly, please make sure they're aware of the facts and figures I posted last night. They're quite illuminating and should give pause to any attempt to spend scarce tax dollars on unproven energy sources. Thanks!
Jack Baillargeron
12:31 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
I agree there Carl I also see to remember that in Span, who is also on the edge of default like greece, lost 2 jobs for every green job created. Can't be a success like that
Another real problem with these EU comparsion ongreen energy, is the fact that theUS not only has a populaiton larger than all of EU compbined, but we use I believe it is Double the energy than all of the EU. There is no way to give up on known reserves. I rust those reserves research coming up ith way to improve getting them, then this so called green energy, that has yet to be proven to handle the energy needs of this country at all. Theories on paper are jus that theories, they are not proven facts and surely not practical application with a history, to determine is long term viability.
We never see the real cost of these project, long ter, allway these pie in the sky lies of profits that are never realized, especially with the government involved.
Carl Schloemann
12:44 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
"We never see the real cost of these project, long ter, allway these pie in the sky lies of profits that are never realized, especially with the government involved."
I don't recall who said it, but, "The business of government is not business."
Carl Schloemann
12:36 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Folks, I have information that this bill is not getting any excitement at all in either the House or Senate and while there may have been some initial excitement at the town level for its net metering, that support is drying up as well.
What I would rather see is an effort to get natural gas, a mature proven clean, cheap energy source that provides Americans high-paying jobs into the areas of Portsmouth that presently have limited availability. Personally, I rely on fuel oil supplemented by a wood pellet insert in the fireplace to heat the house. Expensive! Let's give people a viable alternative. Let's let the free market work to all of our advantage. How do we get natural gas service to these potential customers?
8:11 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Carl, I was receiving the same information regarding the reception of this bill at the legislature. It may squeak by the Senate but it will die in the house. There is no appetite for this in light of the RIEDC fiasco. More rats are jumping from that ship.
Natural gas is a much better fit and the major hitch to this would be the costs of installing these pipes into areas not served - who is going to pay for that? The northeast, particularilly Rhode Island should be working to get off home heating oil. That scam game is getting really old.
Gerald V Felise
12:38 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
In my opinion, Gas versus Renewable Energy has not had a fair and balanced airing in this conversation. What we all are sure of is the fact that when one compares a Coal, Oil and Gas fired electric generation plants we would all agree gas is the cleanest of the three carbons based fossil fuels. But, assuredly, Gas is a carbon based fuel and unfortunately, the perception that it is clean energy is just that an industry marketing perception.
Natural gas power plants are significant air pollution sources, releasing hazardous air pollutants and fine particulate matter. Natural gas releases the greenhouse gas methane, which, ton for ton, traps 25 times more heat than carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, we cannot know the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas because American companies are not required to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Up until 2011 they have not been required to report emissions.
Let's get closer to home. There are six (6) Gas generating plants in the Rhode Island area one plant sitting in Tiverton. According to General Electric and Calpine's own figures, the Tiverton Power Plant will dump 35,000 LBS. OF AIR POLLUTANTS DAILY into the air breathed by workers and residents in and around Tiverton and Fall River MA.
It is equivalent pollution of 2,876 diesel city buses running 12 hours/day or 1,470,000 Chevy Suburban's with an average drive distance of 40 miles per day.
Gerald V Felise
12:39 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
People living and working in and around the one mile and six mile buffer areas will be most affected…... especially those in the 6-mile buffer who a subjected to the following pollution:
Nitrogen Oxides 134.6 tons per year…numerous adverse health effects
Carbon Monoxide 389.3 tons per year…interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues
Precursor Organic Compounds 28.5 tons per year…contributes to ozone
Sulfur Dioxide 12.2 tons per year…SO2 and other sulfur oxides contribute to the problem of acid deposition
*Particulate Matter (PM10) 86.8 tons per year
*PM10 (particulate matter): A criteria air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 microns (about 1/7—the diameter of a single human hair). Their small size allows them to make their way to the air sacs deep within the lungs, where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects including Lung Cancer. Rhode Island citizens have one of the highest rates of lung cancer in the nation! All these facts are verifiable and I would encourage each reader to do their own research.
Carl Schloemann
2:36 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Come on. I live within that six mile radius or pretty close. Trust me. I feel fine. I'm not sleepy from CO exposure, paint is intact on house and car, and the tree leaves are green as can be.
Lung cancer rates are up because of fossil fuels? Well, light me a Camel then! All this talk about smoking being bad for your health. What a bunch of hooey!
We have seen lifespans go from an average of a little over 47 years in 1900 to almost 78 years for both sexes in 2007:
The 1900 to 2007 span is quite fortuitous in that it roughly equates to the beginning and current use of oil based energy products. How much did that energy have to do with both quality and quantity of life?
Tell you what. When Al Gore, Bono, and the Global Warming/Climate Change scientists move underground, then I'll consider it. Until then, let's all enjoy the bounty we have and put it to good use.
Gerald V Felise
12:40 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Natural Gas plants aren't friendly neighbors. The Tiverton Power Plant has gained national prominence as it is one of the two dozen power plants posing the nation's greatest risk for the release of a hazardous chemical. The chemical in question is Anhydrous Ammonia (ammonia is the most commonly reported extremely hazardous substance involved in serious non-transportation industrial accidents). Tiverton Power Plant uses approximately 57,000 pounds of Anhydrous Ammonia for its Chiller system. A catastrophic failure of the chiller system would put at risk the 75,000 people living within close range of the plant. Acute ammonia exposure can irritate or burn the eyes, cause temporary or permanent blindness, and cause headaches, nausea and vomiting. High levels can lead to death, and chronic exposure damages the lungs and causes bronchitis.
There is Gas Plant Generation technology available today to build and/or convert all these plants to Zero Emission Plants but it will raise the cost of gas generation to a level on par with solar and wind.
Carl Schloemann
3:55 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Anhydrous ammonia accidents in the US and associated deaths since 1984. All things being equal, I'll sleep well tonight:
Gerald V Felise
12:41 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
You will note I did not even touch upon the method of extracting Natural Gas called "Hydraulic Fracturing" or Fracking. Hydraulic fracturing is the process of injecting water, salt, and a cocktail of hazardous chemicals deep underground to break open rock formations from which natural gas is extracted. Opponents of Hydraulic fracking claim techniques threaten communities facing drilling operations and downstream communities, including communities near "frac" wastewater treatment plants. Further claiming, this wastewater can contain radioactive materials, high levels of salt that affects aquatic life, and carcinogenic elements and compounds such as arsenic and benzene.
It appears from this commenter research, the jury is out on "Fracking." for a Report released at the annual 2012 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science doesn't give this form of natural gas extraction a clean bill of health. Rather, it suggests that problems aren't directly caused by fracking, instead the report concludes contamination tends to happen closer to the surface when gas and drilling fluid escapes from poorly lined wells or storage ponds. Fracking monitoring was specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act in 2005. They are just now starting to monitor water supplies. Concerns about these issues are real and although they may not be in a Rhode Islander's back yard should they be substantiated we all pay the price.
Gerald V Felise
12:42 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The most compelling argument made in this post related to Solar, specifically where Germany stands in both commitment and installations. Consider Rhode Island has slightly more hours of sun annually then Germany.
Because of these renewable commitments the cost per watt of installing utility scale solar plants has gone from $7.00 Watt installed three years ago to $4.00 Watt today and is expected to go to $1.00 Watt by 2020 which will be grid parity with coal. When it comes to government subsidies a dirty little secret not touted by fossil or nuclear fuel folks is that those industries have and are continued to be heavily subsidized. For example the nuclear industry nuclear power received far higher levels of support per kilowatt-hour generated early in its history than has wind or solar.
At the end of the day, the defining questions we should be asking are; "What kind of environment do we want and the most important question is, What price tag do we place on the present and future health of our families and friends?"
Jack Baillargeron
7:11 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Gerald, on another note, the choice is not clear by a long shot, in my opinion. The Navy Base, the Defence contractors on aquidneck Island and around this State pose a geater chance of something happening, that would effect more people then your numbers. I know this first hand, as a retired Firefighter and a few other jobs I held in my life over the last 45 years. I have yet to see a disaster of any epic proportions and the only major hurricane disaster was in 1938, and ince then every hurricane that has hit has done little in the loss of life catagory anyway. Yet to this day, on the East Coast we still allow houses Built out in the open ait of the Ocean, cape hatterous comes to a real problem, which the taxpayers have rebuilt numerous times at a huge loss, compared to the nation flood insurance.
No the risk of humans are the mst dangerous on the planet, but totally unpredictable, by any person or computer. By the way computer projections are just that projections, not facts, as I am sure you well know.
Gerald V Felise
1:48 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
A note of interest, the Paul Harvey version, The chemicals used in the fracking fluid that are pumped underground are exempt from the Clean Water Act, making it a lot easier to dance around environmental restrictions.
In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Cheney, fracking fluids were exempted from the Clean Water Act. This was a political deal and it probably won't surprise you that the the Vice President's former employer Halliburton is one of the largest players in providing hydraulic fracturing services to gas companies.
I suggest to all those doing research on these issues they look beyond political party lines, do not discount all environmentalists by labeling them Socialists, don't look to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post for unbiased facts pro and con. Do your own independent research don't regurgitate a groups talking point. One basic research principal always seems to work is "Follow the Money" a quote not originated by Deep Throat, but connotatively penned in 1864 "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Carl Schloemann
3:02 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Okay. Let's follow the money. Drop government subsidies to alternative sources of fuel. Let's follow the private equity and see where it goes. Want to continue the experiment? Let's drop the subsidies to the oil companies (whatever they may be. I've never seen them defined. Just alluded to.). I wonder who'll be left standing?
Dan D
1:30 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Subsidies defined. Google it, easy peasy. remain ignorant at your own peril.
Carl Schloemann
3:04 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
One more and then I'm done with this thread. This is a view of North Korea at night in comparison with the more vibrant South Korea. Where do you think quality and quantity of life is better?
6:10 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Rather than natural gas the best bridge to 100% renewable energy is methanol.
Methanol is a liquid which can be used with our existing distribution system. It can be made from a variety of things including natural gas, coal, wood, etc but maybe most importantly it can be made from carbon dioxide. Turning carbon dioxide into a fuel is the ultimate green tool.
Today's engines with some modification can run on it. China is already using methanol in an 85/15 mix with gasoline, the 85% being methanol. China is the biggest user of methanol in the world.
Electric cars are ludicrous. By the time electricity gets to you it is 33% of the energy used to create it. Not very efficient use of resources. Half of the loss is in the grid.
Natural gas poses real problems with distribution and because it is held under a lot of pressure there is an element of danger in the holding tanks. A mechanic was recently killed when a cng tank exploded on the car he was working on.
Jack Baillargeron
6:27 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Part 1
"Carl" Think you may be thinking of this, though I know it is often turned the other way.
Calvin Coolidge, who did not say much, is perhaps best known for saying, "The business of government is business."
Here are some quotes that apply to this EBEC and this Bill totally, and I could type pages and pages of Quotes that prove how wrong all this is.
Government is not the solution, but rather the cause of our problems. – Ronald Reagan
Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. – Henry David Thoreau
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. – Thomas Jefferson
Everything government touches turns to crap. – Ringo Starr
Public works are not accomplished by the miraculous power of a magic wand. They are paid for by funds taken away from the citizens. – Ludwig von Mises
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. – Manifesto of the Communist Party - Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Property rights are not the rights of property; they are the rights of humans with regard to property. They are a particular kind of human right. – David Friedman
The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. – Walter Williams
Jack Baillargeron
6:27 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Part 2
The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. – Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered – Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.
Supporters should think about these quotes through out history and what we have become, because so many people were not listened too.
We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money. – David Crockett, Congressman 1827-35
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered – Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.
The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. – John F. Kennedy
Jack Baillargeron
6:32 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The above are all the problems with this Bill and any quasi-government entity and the continued problems, with this State legislature and local politicians who have the same delusions, in that they have yet to learn from history, the folly of constantly trying to improve on the idiocy, they created, rather than do away with it and get back to the basic's, of government for the people by the people. Not special interest, or themselves.
Joe Sousa.
6:46 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.
Thomas Jefferson
Jack Baillargeron
6:48 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Gerald, I have to disagree, with your arguments on the dangers, By your logic, the fact that, New England and New York city are on one heck of a fault line, should we now start tearing down all the Buildings that do not meet the standards of an 8.0 earthquake.
Prediction of possible disasters are worthless and can never be predicted period. The best laid plans for anything in the disaster area, has never result in anything other than the perverbial cluster/ poop. ;-}.
These to me are nothing but scare tactics to futher an agenda of this green technology. Funny thing is, I support green technology, but on the same grounds of all business ventures, is succeeds or fails on its own merits, and I do not need attempts to put me into fear, for future generations, world blowing up, extinction etc. It only makes me think how folish people are pushing these types of tactics.
If the technlogy can get to a point of out performing our current techology, then it will survive, if not, then maybe something else will come along. If not then we can call it population control I guess, because in the end, humans are t the mercy of the universe, and nothing trumps that, no matter what you believe controls it.
Jack Baillargeron
7:04 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tried to make it to the meeting today on the Bill, however circimstances prevented that. Looking forward to what happened from hopefully someone who was able to make it.
Manifold Witness
8:12 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Jack - watch for the BCWA update also. It was a big day in the East Bay.
Gary Morse
8:13 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The bill was put on hold. The vote was 4 - 3.
The three who voted to move it out of committee seemed to have no trouble with the fact that no agreements with Nat Grid have been reached after 3 years of work and spending $500K in grant money from the EDC.
I liken their view to rationalizing that it is OK to buy a house and put off the inspection report until after the closing.
Anyway, it has been delayed. Thank you Sen Bates for taking a prudent stance on this.
Jack Baillargeron
8:20 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Do you have the names of the 3 who voted to pass it out of Committee yet Gary?
Would like to please ge that if you can.
Gary Morse
8:55 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
I don't have the three names. It was very confusing at the end and I was just trying to keep track of the totals.
Gina, I'm not sure about when this is up again, but I plan to call the clerk tomorrow to ask some questions and will make sure I cover yours and Jack's.
Manifold Witness
8:25 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Hang on, Jack, he's typing the BCWA update.
Gary & Marina - thanks for all your great work!
Bristol County Anonymous
8:50 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Gary, Marina, Manifold...thanks and well done!
Watching for the BCWA update....
Jack Baillargeron
9:25 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
All you guy and gals, staying on top of this deserve so much credit for the time you put in to these issues. I really doubt many understand he time involved in seeking these answers is enormous, in research an in going to meetings and talking to people. Damn you guys are real Americans and know what redress from the government means. Thank you.
Jack Baillargeron
9:26 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Well bedtime for a while, back on after 2 am maybe lol. be good all
8:13 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Thanks Gary...I'm hoping since there are only 6 days left of this session it won't get back on the calendar...but you know how they sneak these things in at last minute...
8:15 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
More good news for the EDC, another director just walked out the door. The place is in schambles now and it needs to be shut down. Ole Georgie Nee is still there, adamant that he will not go. What a hack.
Gary Morse
9:23 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
I just got off the phone with the Senate Chief of Staff office.
The vote has not been recorded yet other than it is being "Held" which I was told is generally a kiss of death for this session given this late date.
You can check later today on S2870 at the "2012 Legislative Session Information website":
Jack Baillargeron
10:13 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012
I hope that is the last we see of this Bill or any other that wants to create another quasi-government scam on the taxpayer, under the guise of it is for our own good, or will save the planet. The argument on this has been about the taxpayers actually, and not whether "Green Energy" is viable or not, though that did turn out to be an interesting side debate on this blog.
It was only 6% of the people that started and fought the revolution that started this country, against tyranny, it is shameful that some of the supporters of this Bill or any formation of these government entities, have no clue about what tyranny is. To go to council meetings and actually have some councilors advocate that they know what is best for the people, and will go against the people, is one of the most despicable acts, I have seen of late, locally.
For what it is worth, we should all be proud of those who took the time to make this issue come to the forefront and get people involved, lets hope the State House is listening loud and clear on these issues, that the free ride of special interest is over!!!
marina peterson
12:32 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Thanks to all that went to the State House for this important EBEC hearing! YOU made it happen!
4:08 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
05/30/2012 Committee recommended S2870 Substitute A be held for further study.
Stick a fork in it - it's over.
Even if the Senate did vote on it, it would never survive the House. No time left.
These turkeys will be too busy fighting over the budget which will come out tonight.
The fur will fly on that one. I seriously doubt they will be doing much cutting again - scheduled to be about a 4% increase - anyone had a raise that high lately?
Robert E
4:50 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
I have a question maybe someone could answer for me if the enabling legislation for this quasi public agency the EBEC has not passed yet how does the EDC give a grant to an agency that does not yet exist?
Gary Morse
5:27 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
The EBEC does exist as an entity, but is simply not a part of the EDC.
The $500K in prior grants from the EDC rest primarily on a business model being their Phase II study under which the assumption set in the study predicted that the EBEC could not only create jobs, but also make money that would be returned to the taxpayers.
However, the assumption set was fictitious in two primary areas: the rate at which Nat Grid would pay EBEC per kWH (14.9 cents) and the rate of interest on those revenue bonds (4.5%).
We have yet to see revisions to the Phase II model bringing the business case into the real world.
Gary Morse
5:42 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
By the way Robert, it appears you were the 500th comment. I think that is some kind of a mile marker never recorded on the Patch.
marina peterson
5:46 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
It is my understanding that right now everything operates through the Town of Bristol.
marina peterson
5:45 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Over 500 Comments! Think this was an IMPORTANT issue for the public?????
marina peterson
5:51 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Just heard that R.I. Gov. Chafee has nominated Alison Vareika, Dr. Pablo Rodriguez and Marcia Blount to the EDC. It's amazing that he could find takers!!
Manifold Witness
6:08 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
The Governor says that abortion doctor Rodriguez is one of the keys to RI's economic future.
9:47 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
If these 9 communities were so interested in being green why aren't they converting town vehicles to cng or methanol?
See that would actually save money without creating some new entity to siphon taxpayer money.
Jack Baillargeron
11:13 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012
The problem downtown is it seems the politicians in these towns have forgotten there is no quick fix, and they just look for ways to get free money in what ever pie in the sky idea that that comes along. They need to get back to the basics of fiscal responsibility and start cutting and then scraping all the fraud waste and abuse that exist in these towns, not to mention top heavey in management.
Gerald V Felise
2:35 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
It appears unlike cats EBEC has ten (10) lives.
DATE: Wednesday, June 06, 2012
TIME: Rise of the Senate
PLACE: Room 211 - State House
Senate Bill No. 2870 SUB A
(by request)
BY DiPalma
04/12/2012 Introduced, referred to Senate Environment and Agriculture
04/27/2012 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
05/02/2012 Committee heard and continued
05/21/2012 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
05/23/2012 Committee recommended indefinite postponement
05/23/2012 Committee recommended Substitute A be held for further study
05/25/2012 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
05/30/2012 Committee recommended indefinite postponement
05/30/2012 Committee recommended Substitute A be held for further study
05/31/2012 Scheduled for hearing and/or consideration
2:41 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
Interesting...Must be alot of money to be made by a select few by getting this to a floor for a vote...
8:23 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
The billed failed to pass (3 to 3 tie) out of committee on Wednesday, May 30th, they will try again next Wednesday, June 6.
It is not yet on the floor of the Senate.
Jack Baillargeron
3:17 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
I agree Gerald this is RI and nothing is over untill it is over or some politicia is in jail from a Justice Department investigation,The State many times has been known to "Duct Tape the Fat Lady from Singing" to prevent clousure. The order of day in this State is Vigilance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
There is something very fishy about this EBEC push, not the least of which, smells like money and typical RI corruption.
Robert E
4:58 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
I am not trying to change the subject here but while they keep us focused on this issue here the new bridge tolls are slipping through under the radar.
Jack Baillargeron
9:34 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
Sadly you are correct on that Robert, tyical of the end of session tricks that slip into the night votes, before midnight, and though the Legislature is estimated to adjourne on June 22, they may just pass all this crappola and adjoure much sooner.
I suggest we all start flooding and phone calling these people, and should they pass any of these policies that are nothing more than ill thought raping of the taxpayers, for any easy fix, we should start finding addresses and protesting in front of their homes all summer. Even the ones that vote against, but have not spoken out publicly against these things. Least ways, that is my opinion anyway.