Court kills tube tariff in Mass, RI still considering
August 18, 2016 - storage organizer
As a Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission considers a ask from National Grid to have ratepayers assistance finance a argumentative tube project, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled opposite such tube tariffs in a preference expelled Wednesday.
“This is an impossibly critical and timely decision,’ pronounced David Ismay, a Conservation Law Foundation’s lead profession on a case. ‘Today a top justice endorsed Massachusetts’ joining to an open appetite destiny by rejecting a Baker Administration’s try to finance to a failing hoary fuel industry. The march of a economy and a appetite markets runs opposite to a will of multi-billion dollar tube companies, and interjection to today’s decision, a supervision will no longer be means to foul and unlawfully tip a beam in their favor.”
The statute by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court might have an impact on National Grid‘s due “pipeline tariff” here in Rhode Island. The Massachusetts justice deemed “it wrong for Massachusetts to force residential electricity business to finance a construction of private gas pipelines, requiring a companies themselves to shoulder a estimable risks of such projects rather than permitting that risk to be placed on overworked families opposite a Commonwealth,” according a a Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) who brought a case.
The CLF was a plaintiff in a Massachusetts case. The CLF confirmed in their motion to intervene in a Rhode Island box that “an electricity placement company” entering “into a agreement for healthy gas travel ability and storage services” and receiving “cost liberation for a gas agreement from electricity ratepayers” is “something that has never occurred in a United States given a Federal Power Act was enacted in 1935, during President Roosevelt’s initial tenure in office.”
Megan Herzog, one of a dual lawyers representing a CLF before a RIPUC pronounced in a phone call that a “pipeline is a bad understanding for a whole segment and that a Massachusetts justice endorsed that.” Though a decider ruled on a box regulating Massachusetts law, there are principle in Rhode Island that simulate identical principles.
According to Craig S. Altemose, a comparison confidant forthe anti-LNG advocacy organisation 350 Mass for a Better Future, “It is misleading how many this will be a deadly blow to any of Spectra’s due projects, though we have positively undercut their financing (to a balance of $3 billion), called into doubt identical tube taxation proposals in other states, [italics added] and have given Spectra’s investors larger reason for pause. Either way, we have unambiguously won a feat that a people’s income should be not used for private projects that serve dedicate us to meridian catastrophe.”
“Today’s preference reinforces what we already know: it’s not in a open seductiveness to finance new hoary fuel infrastructure. It deals a critical blow to companies like Spectra who wanted to finance their unsure projects with handouts from ratepayers. Communities confronting an assault of fracked gas projects in their backyards like those in Burrillville have good reason to feel carefree right now. We titillate Governor [Gina] Raimondo and a Rhode Island PUC to follow a lead of Massachusetts and reject a tube tax,” Ben Weilerstein, Rhode Island village organizer with Toxics Action Center said.
Though a statute in Massachusetts has no orthodox value in Rhode Island, it might settle some lines of authorised logic that will be useful as a Rhode Island Public Utilities (RIPUC) Commission decides on Docket 4267, a Rhode Island partial of National Grid’s desirous devise to assign electrical ratepayers not usually for tube infrastructure investments, though also to pledge a company’s increase as they do so.
National Grid responded with a following statement: “This is a unsatisfactory reversal for a project, that is designed to assistance secure New England’s purify appetite future, safeguard a trustworthiness of a electricity system, and many importantly, save business some-more than $1 billion annually on their electricity bills. We will try a options for a intensity trail brazen with Access Northeast and pursue a offset portfolio of solutions to yield a clean, reliable, and secure appetite a business deserve. While healthy gas stays a pivotal member in assisting to secure New England’s long-term appetite future, a recently upheld purify appetite check also presents a welcomed event to support a growth of large-scale purify energy, such as hydro and wind.”
Yesterday The RIPUC held a hearing on Docket 4627, seeking National Grid to explain since it used such a “broad brush” in redacting information in a application. In a assembly proclamation it was pronounced that RIPUC Chair Margaret Curran suspicion “it is not intuitively transparent how a information redacted falls within a difference to a Access to Public Records Act.” Much of what National Grid argues that many of what it wants to keep tip falls into a difficulty of trade secrets, and releasing a information would put it during an astray waste with competitors, such as NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra).
As pointed out previously, National Grid will not recover how many income ratepayers will be on a offshoot for if this thought is authorized by a RIPUC.
Here’s full video of a hearing:
NextEra brought a apart suit to concede a lawyers entrance to rarely trusted tools of National Grid’s application.
Here’s a full video of that hearing:
The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) expelled a following matter currently in response to a auspicious preference from a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Conservation Law Foundation v. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU):
‘This is an impossibly critical and timely decision,’ pronounced David Ismay, CLF’s lead profession on a case. ‘Today a top justice endorsed Massachusetts’ joining to an open appetite destiny by rejecting a Baker Administration’s try to finance to a failing hoary fuel industry. The march of a economy and a appetite markets runs opposite to a will of multi-billion dollar tube companies, and interjection to today’s decision, a supervision will no longer be means to foul and unlawfully tip a beam in their favor.’
According to a opinion by Justice Cordy, DPU’s 2015 order (“Order 15-37”) permitting Massachusetts electric business to be charged for a construction of widespread gas pipelines is taboo by a plain languages of principle that have been a law of a land in Massachusetts for roughly dual decades.
In his opinion, Justice Cordy wrote, Order 15-37 is ‘invalid in light of a orthodox denunciation and purpose of G. L. c. 164, § 94A, as nice by a restructuring act, because, among other things, it would criticise a categorical objectives of a act and reexpose ratepayers to a forms of financial risks from that a Legislature sought to strengthen them.’
Court kills tube tariff in Mass, RI still considering,