Mail sent to mail@CharlestownCitizens.org
The Energy Facility Siting Board should not accept Invenergy’s proposal to withdraw groundwater from within the Town of Charlestown to satisfy any requirement for a water supply.
This application is before the Energy Facility Siting Board, but if it were an application before the Planning Commission, our Planner would stamp it incomplete and send it back to the applicant. The EFSB should do the same.
The following letter was submitted to the Energy Facility Siting Board on the subject of water withdrawal to cool Invenergy’s power plant, and is shared with us here by the […]
It is now up to Invenergy to prove that a dot on a map in a wetland is sufficient and environmentally acceptable. I don’t see how they can do that and hope that as soon as the Show Cause Hearing is held, the EFSB will require that the water withdrawal plan for Charlestown be removed from Invenergy’s application.
On Tuesday, December 5, the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) held a hearing in Charlestown to hear testimony on Invenergy’s proposal to truck water from Tribal land in Charlestown to Burrillville to cool the turbines of Invenergy’s proposed power plant in the forest of that town. Hundreds of citizens attended the meeting, dozens spoke against the water withdrawal plan, no one spoke in favor of the plan. Many speakers asked questions, but Invenergy provided no answers.
Post includes videos of the speakers.
When: Tuesday, December 5 at 6 p.m. (doors open at 5 p.m.)
Where: Charlestown Elementary School, 363 Carolina Back Road (Rt. 112), Charlestown
What: The purpose of the hearing is to hear your public comment.
Who: This is entirely the Energy Facility Siting Board’s (EFSB) hearing. This is not a Town meeting and the Charlestown government has not been allowed to make a formal presentation. The applicant however gets an opportunity to present to the public and the hearing will begin with a presentation by the applicant Invenergy Thermal Development LLC.
Ideas for questions to ask the EFSB on Tuesday night are at the end of this post.
In denying the Tribal Council’s motion to intervene, the EFSB claimed approval of the motion would put the EFSB in the position of taking a side in internal tribal politics, instead they would just take the contract between Invenergy and “two members of the Tribe”, Matthew Thomas and John Brown, at its “face value”.
Since this November 27 EFSB hearing I have wondered what the EFSB meant by the “face value” of the contract. And what is that face value?
If things weren’t already complicated enough with the proposal by Invenergy to truck water from Tribal land in Charlestown to Burrillville to cool the turbines of Invenergy’s proposed power plant […]
Letter from Ruth Platner: “The Energy Facility Siting Act requires that the EFSB base their decision on a finding that the applicant has shown that there will not be “unacceptable harm to the environment and [that the proposal] will enhance the socio-economic fabric of the state”. With the facts of the water withdrawal hidden from the public, is the EFSB expecting us to just trust their judgment?”
When: Tuesday, November 21 at 7 p.m.
Where: Cross Mills Library (map in post)
What: Invenergy plans to withdraw groundwater from Charlestown and carry it by tanker trucks to Burrillville where it will cool the turbines of the proposed gas and oil fueled power plant. You can learn all about the project that will use this water at this informational meeting.
Who: This event is sponsored by the Rhode Island Association of Conservation Commissions and the Burrillville Land Trust. Burrillville Land Trust President, Paul A. Roselli will lead the presentation and discussion.
Thanks to residents of Burrillville who shared these two videos of tanker trucks carrying water to an existing power plant in northern Rhode Island.
When: Tuesday, December 5 at 6 p.m. (doors open at 5 p.m.)
Where: Charlestown Elementary School, 363 Carolina Back Road (Rt. 112), Charlestown (map in post)
What: Hearing to allow public comment from Charlestown citizens and others on Invenergy Thermal Development’s proposal to withdraw groundwater from Charlestown and transport it by tanker trucks to Burrillville to cool the turbines of the natural gas and diesel power plant they are seeking to build in the forest in that town.
Invenergy now proposes to connect Charlestown and Burrillville with a caravan of tanker trucks carrying water from the Indian Cedar Swamp in Charlestown to cool the turbines of the power plant in Burrillville.
At the November 6, 2017 ChurchWoods Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, Tom Gentz summarized what it took to make ChurchWoods a reality. Tom Gentz served as Charlestown Town Council President from 2010 to 2016.
“While Tribal Council members have not received a copy of the purported agreement between Invenergy and the Tribe, generally speaking formal contracts that may be implied or expressly created in this type of agreement require a tribal resolution, signed by the Chief or First Councilman. Such a resolution requires a special tribal meeting and a vote by the body. No tribal meeting or vote has occurred regarding a proposed agreement to sell tribal water to Invenergy.”
On Tuesday, October 17, Charlestown Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero successfully presented the Town’s motion for intervener status before the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB). The EFSB has determined Charlestown is […]
Once we get more reliable data, we’ll be able to assess impacts such as safety, noise, air quality, cumulative damage to roads, and energy used. Invenergy will pay for the water, but all these other costs associated with health, safety, and diminished quality of life will be borne by the communities the trucks pass through. And it all depends on how much water is trucked on any given day.
“Charlestown’s interest, therefore, is the potential of a material, adverse impact on Charlestown’s water supply as a consequence of the operation of the proposed Power Plant. To this extent, the Town of Charlestown is an “affected community” … “As such, a public hearing must be conducted in Charlestown, with notice at least 30 days prior, and prior to the final hearing on the Application.”
The Energy Facilities Siting Board should not allow the developers of the Invenergy power plant to use an agreement to withdraw groundwater from within the Town of Charlestown to satisfy any requirement for a backup water supply because of insufficient notice to the Town of Charlestown, insufficient information provided to the Town, and a need for the Siting Board to seek additional legal advice.
Westerly Sun: “You may now become an affected community under the Energy Facility Siting Board’s regulations and if that’s the case they may need to amend the proceeding that they’re in now and have a hearing in Charlestown, but only if we’re allowed to intervene,” Ruggiero said.
Westerly Sun: “We haven’t been notified, we’ve had no calls from the state agencies, and no calls from the tribe,” council President Virginia Lee said Friday. “We have no information so we’re going to discuss with our lawyers how to go about getting the documents we haven’t been provided and how to get the data.”
ecoRI News: “John Brown, Narragansett Indian Tribe medicine man, gave ecoRI News a list of reasons for agreeing to work with what could be one of the biggest polluters in the state.”
The eclipse in Rhode Island may have only been 67%, but the crowds at Frosty Drew Observatory in Ninigret Park on August 21 were full! Estimates on attendance range from […]
Over 75 Charlestown residents attended the Solarize Charlestown program at Cross Mills Library on June 27 to learn about the State Incentives, Federal Tax Credits, and group purchasing power made possible by the partnership of the State of Rhode Island and the Town of Charlestown that make this an affordable time to add solar panels to your roof.
If you missed the program or just want to review the June 27 presentation, we have put together a slide show with a short summary of what we learned.
We can’t really think of any reason to mention these ‘dropped’ routes specifically in the Record of Decision, other than to guide later planning, and to assure that plans for the Kenyon to Old Saybrook Bypass, and Quadtracking between Branford and Guilford are reintroduced into decision making at a later date.
“Just in Charlestown, we had 19 pieces of open space that would have been affected, and we counted upwards of almost 100 pieces of private property,” said Filippi. “The rerouting in northern Charlestown was going to save about one minute of time and cost over a billion dollars to do. And it just didn’t make sense.” Video included
“We now place our faith in RIDOT and CTDOT to work with the FRA on a good-faith process to evaluate the New Haven to Providence corridor and impacts of the various route alternatives.”
Greg Stroud, “And let me say that the entire Northeast Corridor owes a debt of gratitude to the leadership and work, late in coming, but remarkably effective, from the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, and the Charlestown government. It has been a model effort on their part as a local government. Let us all learn from them.”
Now, the new plan is calling for a studies in both Connecticut and Rhode Island to examine ways to improve service on this stretch. The FRA said those studies will be conducted by the states in conjunction with the FRA and other “stakeholders,” but the agency did not offer specifics on funding, costs or a timeframe.
Bowing to local pressure, the Federal Railroad Administration has dropped plans for a controversial new rail line from Old Saybrook CT to Richmond RI from its ambitious project to overhaul the railroad system in the Northeast corridor.
The official waiting period after the release of the Federal Railroad Administrations’s (FRA) Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement ended on January 31. The FRA could have published a Record […]