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 !!!

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!

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, Marina.

How do I apply for a job sounds like a sweetheart deal.

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

http://barrington.patch.com/articles/barrington-man-to-seek-house-seat

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.

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.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText12/HouseText12/H7592.pdf

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..

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

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..

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

"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!

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!

Marina,

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.

http://eastprovidence.patch.com/articles/council-supports-east-bay-energy-consortium-legislation

Just saw this Marina...East Povidence

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.

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

This item is on the Warren Agenda for their meeting on Tuesday, May 8th. Please try and attend and voice your opinion!

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.

Wind power is not competitive without huge tax subsidies.

97.7% of the electricity generated in Rhode Island is from natural gas.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/rhode-island/

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.

Interesting agenda for the East Bay Energy Coalition at
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/5706/2012/124797.pdf

HMMMMMMMM.

Gary;

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.

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!

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.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/cleannrg/pdf/narrpp.pdf

http://www.ad-institute.com/Narragansett_RI_Wind_Study.pdf

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010568266_apuswindenergy.html

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.

"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

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.

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."

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."

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/portsmouth-wind-turbine-remains-stopped-while-officials-wait-for-batteries

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.

“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.

http://www.wind-power-problems.org/

http://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2011/interim/energy0928_0929_molitor.pdf

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?

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 ;-}

All you windmill lovers will be happy to hear....The Hodges Badges Windmill started running TODAY.

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;

http://www.eastbayri.com/news/2012/feb/24/developer-offers-cash-buy-tivertons-industrial-par/

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.

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.

http://sustainablesakonnet.blogspot.com/2010/02/eco-industrial-park-presents-its-case.html

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?

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.

http://sustainablesakonnet.blogspot.com/2010/02/eco-industrial-park-presents-its-case.html

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?

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.

Point well made. Robert E!

92 comments so far on this thread:: And THEN: They just went POOF. What's up with that..??

My last post was # 93. PATCH is loosing Credibility, don't you think........................

Where's the 94 comments...??

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 ??

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!

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, 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.

http://www.bristolri.us/documents/community/EBEC_Phase_II_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.windri.org/conference/Session_8_RI_Towns_Initiatives/RI_Towns_Presentation.pdf

Raise your hand if you think Little Compton wants 60 turbines lined up on their beach!

Man Patch does not hold cookies I have to log in every time I post. Kind of a pita.

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 .

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.

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.

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!

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.

Downtown,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gerald

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.

http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/OpinionsOrders/pdf-files/04-357c.pdf

This is the section Gerald pointed to:

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE42/42-64.12/INDEX.HTM

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

April '09 through March '10 The town of Portsmouth received $257,075 NET profit from it's turbine.

J

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

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.

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.

Bristol will revisit this issue on
Wednesday, May 16th. All who are concerned should come to the meeting.Bristol Town Hall 7:00 pm.

Bill on police powers for PUC passed recently. Could that be plan "B" for the ebec?

Wind Turbines will bring problems.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120511/NEWS/205110318/1004/TOWN03

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”.

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!

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!

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.

“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

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

oops for got the link. More info on it also on this.

http://sustainablesakonnet.blogspot.com/2010/02/eco-industrial-park-presents-its-case.html

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.

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.

http://www.naturalenergygeneration.com/mythsvsfact.html

From the article at:

http://www.eastbayri.com/news/2012/may/10/eminent-domain-concerns-buffet-wind-plans/?c=1709

"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.

The Portsmouth Wind Turbine stopped spinning again for several days ?

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.

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."

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.

Please see companion blog on Bristol revisiting EBEC Wednesday May 16th at
http://bristol-warren.patch.com/blog_posts/bristol-town-council-to-revisit-east-bay-energy-consortium-wed-may-16th

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)

(continued)
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 GRANT TO THE CONSORTIUM THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN111
It would BYPASS THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION!!!

Your approval of this now would be buying a pig in a poke.
NEITHER YOUR CONSTITUENTS NOR RHODE ISLAND RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS YET.
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)

(continued)
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.

To Robert Crane - Department of Defense?????? Really? You think that is equivalent to Government controlling our energy??????

Hmm letter of smoke and mirrors from the EBEC.

http://bristol-warren.patch.com/articles/energy-consortium-needs-certain-powers-2596ed66

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?

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?

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?

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?”

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.

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”.

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??

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!

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.

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!!

Article in Warren Times on EBEC. Leave comments!
http://www.warrenri.com/news/2012/may/10/eminent-domain-concerns-buffet-wind-plans/

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

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view/20220515save_situation_for_ex-sox_pitcher_curt_schillings_video_game_co/srvc=home&position=0

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.

Just heard that Portsmouth Abbey Turbine is offline... Turbine blades are falling apart due to UV radiation. Blades are not safe to use.

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.

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.

BTW: The Hodges Turbine is also running at "Full Tilt" this afternoon.

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.

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.

http://www.ropeworks.com/service_wind_blade.htm

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.

http://www.appropedia.org/Recycling_of_wind_turbine_blades

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!

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!

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.

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.

http://www.eastbayenergy.org/

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.apexwind.com/news/

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.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html

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…

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

"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...

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.

xatian

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.

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

"Technology has made it so much easier to complain about technology."

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxWOy6wpRLw

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.

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.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/gov-chafee-news-conference-38-studios

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.

This is what makes Thomas Moses so dangerous.

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.)

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.

Listen to Mary Parella at 3:30 question what exactly is driving this???????? She says she has her own feelings... as do we all..

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?

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?

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
Governor????

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?

continued...

continued...
(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

continued..

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.

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!!

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.

Here's the sub A as is stands now. See what YOU think!!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1377b9cd75d12137&mt=application/msword&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D57b07d5b45%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1377b9cd75d12137%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Decf10100a89a9670_0.1.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTlX2GsksV2CK0g7EZveLiTbXL6aA

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.

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!

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.

Marina,
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 ?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1377b9cd75d12137&mt=application/msword&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D57b07d5b45%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1377b9cd75d12137%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Decf10100a89a9670_0.1.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTlX2GsksV2CK0g7EZveLiTbXL6aA

Reposting link. If you have trouble call me at 253 3383

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.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129104/communism

“communism, the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership.”

Great piece by Justin Katz about putting the EDC in the Wind Farm Business! Please read and forward to others. This must be stopped!!!

http://oceanstatecurrent.com/analysis/putting-the-edc-in-the-wind-farm-business/

Is the "revised bill" what they may be discussing at the Special Meeting on Saturday in Warren ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

my badd "catch -up"...sorry

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!

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. sen-felag@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 245-7521

11 Senator Christopher Scott Ottiano sen-ottiano@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 222-2708

12 Senator Louis P. DiPalma sen-dipalma@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 847-8540

13 Senator M. Teresa Paiva Weed sen-paivaweed@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 222-6655

Speaker of the house

4 Rep. Gordon D. Fox rep-fox@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 222-2447

67 Rep. Jan Malik rep-malik@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 247-1271

68 Rep. Richard P. Morrison rep-morrison@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 253-7845

69 Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr. rep-gallison@rilin.state.ri.us (508) 677-4235

70 Rep. John G. Edwards rep-edwards@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 624-8879

71 Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. rep-gordon@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 252-9882

72 Rep. Daniel Patrick Reilly rep-reilly@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 643-1770

73 Rep. J. Russell Jackson rep-jackson@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 848-7979

74 Rep. Deborah Ruggiero rep-ruggiero@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 423-0444

75 Rep. Peter F. Martin rep-martin@rilin.state.ri.us (401) 924-2402

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 kmarshall@bristolri.us

Antonio A. Teixeira mrtonyteixeira@gmail.com

Mary A. Parella mparella@bristolri.us

David E. Barboza, Vice Chairman David02809@aol.com

Halsey C. Herreshoff hherreshoff@bristolri.us

Warren Town Council 401-245-7554

Christopher W. Stanley, President voteforstanley@cox.net

David S. Frerichs, Vice-President dbffarm@aol.com

Davison Bolster davisonbeaux@juno.com

Scott Lial scottlial@gmail.com

Catherine A. Tattrie riemt@aol.com

Barrington Town Council (401) 247-1900

June Sager Speakman, Pres - jspeakman@barrington.ri.gov

Jeffrey S. Brenner, Vice Pres - jbrenner@barrington.ri.gov

Kate G. Weymouth - kweymouth@barrington.ri.gov

Cynthia Armour Coyne - ccoyne@barrington.ri.gov

William C. DeWitt - wdewitt@barrington.ri.gov

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.

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.

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.

THANKS.....Lou"

For those who could not open the Senate Bill earlier...
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText12/SenateText12/S2870A.pdf

It's horrendous!

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.

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!

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.

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,
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.

Chris

Dr. Christopher S. Ottiano
Senator, District 11
Bristol & Portsmouth
10 Kaitlin Place
Portsmouth, RI 02871
401-864-7456
401-222-1206 (fax)
sen-ottiano@rilin.state.ri.us

Thanks for all your good work, Jack, Gary, Marina, everyone!

Saturday, May 26, 2012
Warren Town Council Meeting, Town Hall, 514 Main Street
9:00 AM

4. Discussion and action regarding State Legislation relative to the East Bay Energy consortium.

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!

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.

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?