Six-month halt on processing applications
Rockland Council preliminarily approves moratorium on power generation plants
Mon, 12/14/2015 - 10:00pm
Steve Roberts, of Rockland, urges the Rockland Council not to adopt a moratorium on grid-scale power generation facilities. (Photo by Lynda Clancy)
Rockland City Attorney and Councilor Will Clayton.
Rockland City Council Will Clayton, Larry Pritchett, Mayor Louise McLellan-Ruf, William Jillson, Valerie Geiger and City Manager James Chaousis.
Steve Roberts, of Rockland, urges the Rockland Council not to adopt a moratorium on grid-scale power generation facilities. (Photo by Lynda Clancy)
Rockland City Attorney and Councilor Will Clayton.
Rockland City Council Will Clayton, Larry Pritchett, Mayor Louise McLellan-Ruf, William Jillson, Valerie Geiger and City Manager James Chaousis.
ROCKLAND — It was due diligence, moral responsibility and commitment to renewable energy versus economic development, regulatory oversight and tax revenue Monday evening, Dec. 14, as citizens urged the Rockland City Council to either approve or reject a moratorium on new grid-scale power generation facilities. Following considerable discussion, the council voted 3 to 2 to preliminarily approve the moratorium.
The measure had been submitted by council member William Jillson and applies to all new applications for plants generating 10 megawatts or more, unless they are proposed on the site of an existing business for its own power generation.
“The provisions of this moratorium do not apply to businesses constructing heating or power generation systems to meet onsite heating and/or power needs,” the amendment reads.
Council members voting in favor of the moratorium included Jillson, Valerie Geiger and Larry Pritchett. Councilor WIll Clayton and Mayor Louise MacLellan-Ruf opposed the measure. The vote took place at a regularly scheduled meeting of the council at Rockland City Hall. There were approximately 30 citizens present, as well as numerous members of the press.
A public hearing will take place Jan. 11 with the final moratorium vote; however, amendment wording allows for the moratorium to be effected Dec. 14.
The Planning Board is to produce by March 4 draft language that regulates the siting and development of grid-scale power generation facilities in Rockland.
Additionally, the amendment says that within 14 days from the ordinance adoption in second reading, the Rockland Energy Committee is to give the city’s Planning Board a summary of issues to address.
And, no later than March 4, City Manager James Chaousis is to submit a draft of a street opening ordinance to the council that addresses technical questions, inspection requirements and responsibility for costs related to the installation of natural gas distribution lines and other infrastructure changes relating to the power plant work.
The last directive relates to the fact that Rockland has no street opening provisions that require adequate inspection of natural gas piping as it is being installed to prevent leaks.
“I think the council made the right choice,” said Jillson, after the vote. Jillson was just recently elected to the council, and this was his first formal meeting.
The discussion occupied the council for approximately an hour. Earlier in the meeting, the public comment portion of the regularly scheduled meeting was extended to 45 minutes to accommodate citizens who approached the microphone to offer opinions, pro and con, about the moratorium.
The measure had been proposed by Jillson, and he approached both the city manager and attorney for help in crafting appropriate language that he then took to the council.
The amendment says that “properties within the City of Rockland have become a focus for a proposal to construct a gas-fired, combined cycle electric power generation facility,” and “if not properly sited and designed and regulated, grid scale power generation facilities can be a source of considerable air, water and noise pollution that can adversely impact the neighborhoods and communities where these facilities are located, thereby endangering public heath, safety and welfare.”
At root is the proposal introduced last spring by Rockland Energy Center LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Management, Inc., of Boston, which originally proposed building a $200 million, 76 megawatt, gas-fired combined heat and power (also referred to as a cogeneration) plant on land it said it had hoped to buy from the city. That land is where the existing city hall, and nearby public works garages, sit, just off of Route 1 at 270 Pleasant Street.
The CHP plant would, the company said, produce electricity for the New England electrical grid, and steam heat for Rockland manufacturers. To do so would require extending a natural gas pipeline down Route 17 from a inland spur. That pipeline carries natural gas that is produced off of Nova Scotia and transported to a Massachusetts distribution point in Dracut.
In August, Rockland Energy signed an option with the city for the land, with the anticipated February 1 deadline for further fleshing out a purchase and sales agreement.
Since then, the project has been scaled back to 35 megawatts; however, no other substantive details have been submitted to city hall.
Last week, Rockland Energy Center’s spokesman, Evan Coleman, questioned the need for a moratorium, saying his company would be producing more details in February.
At the Dec. 14 council meeting, several citizens warned that a moratorium would peg Rockland as anti-business and threaten its economic development.
Both Tess Kilgour and Steve Roberts urged the council to shelve the moratorium.
“I think it’s dangerous to not allow business to grow in this community,” she said. “We need to grow.”
She said if the company “is on the other side of the line [in Thomaston],” then “most of what people are concerned about is likely to float, or end of up in people’s water,” but Rockland would not have control over it.”
“It is a dangerous precedent to hang out, ‘Rockland does not have to have your business,’ on the town line,” said Kilgour.
Roberts, who serves on the city’s economic development advisory committee, said he was concerned “about the reputation of our city, including our city council, and our region.”
He urged a more elevated discourse, “even when tensions are rising.”
The city gave its word to a contract, he said.
“Why are we in such a hurry to violate such an agreement,” he asked. “Why not hear the full proposal? What do we have to gain to rush into a deal-killing moratoirum. Council does not have to act. Can we not table this motion, or send it off to a committee?”
Others countered with a cry against the fossil fuel industry.
Amy Files, founder of the group New Rockland, said the goal is to promote the community’s sustainable health.
“Voting for the moratorium is careful consideration and responsible government,” she said.
Rockland firefighter Chris Whytock said he had submitted a letter to the council voicing the firefighters’ union concern that it would not be able to see the proposed plans if the plant were sited in Thomaston.
“We won’t know what they are going to bring to the table,” he said. “If it is built in Thomaston, we will have to deal with it anyway. Why not have it in our city to gain control over it, and the tax revenue?”
Nathan Davis said he was in favor of a moratorium, saying construction of new fossil fuel facilities belongs to the past, “perhaps not the financial past, but the moral past.”
He cited the recent Paris climate change talks, the agreement there to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and to mitigate suffering on the poorest.
“ It is an emerging global human consensus,” he said. A moratorium, he added, represented an act of prudence and caution.
Everett Spear wound down the public commentary, encouraging the council to reject it. He said the city’s comprehensive plan was updated recently and the cogeneration project “is not inconsistent with the current plan.”
He said the land use ordinance speaks to lighting, noise, vibration dust and fumes.
“I see nothing in the proposal that indicates we are not prepared to address a project such as this,” said Spear. “There are a lot of regulations on the book that would regulate this project. The Planning Board is the more appropriate venue for review. Let them come, make their proposal, and we will review it.”
The council’s subsequent discussion surprised many in the room with its direction.
Council member Valerie Geiger said she had agonized over the moratorium proposal for the past week.
“In the end it comes down to some sort of gut responses,” she said, including her moral compass.
“I am not necessarily against a 25 megawatt gas plant,” she said. “I believe in regional energy.”
She was, however, “uncomfortable with the lack of details.”
Councilor Larry Pritchett said he had a list of questions, and had believed their discussion in the context of a purchase and sales agreement posed an appropriate vehicle.
But he also favored a stronger public process and discussion of the plant proposal. He cited the Beaver Ridge Wind farm in Freedom, which involved much public discourse before the project was finally approved.
“Saying to the developer to wait does not have to kill projects,” he said.
Pritchett also said Rockland does not lack business vitality, and pointed to the Dowling Walsh building plans that were recently approved, the construction of the Lyman Morse hotel, and the O’Hara building on Tillson Avenue.
“There’s plenty going on to show that Rockland has economic activity,” said Pritchett.
Councilor Will Clayton, however, expressed concern about the reasoning of the moratorium and questioned whether it was crafted for general safety concerns or to keep out a certain business.
“That’s a key crux,” he said, pointing to the purpose of the moratorium. “I believe we are opening ourselves to something that is not right here.”
He said concerns about safety and location could begin to be addressed at that very meeting.
City Manager Chaousis advised that business proposals must be aligned with the city’s comprehensive plan.
”If you listen to any advice I give, I try not to give it in a vacuum,” he said. “I do focus on economic development, because I think that is an area where we can improve.”
He said the city needs to be “certain, predictable and consistent,” and added, “maybe we should address whether our vision and values fit with the comprehensive plan.”
Geiger then added that she: “wished that Mr. Coleman, Clear Energy and EMI had come to the table with a clear proposal in writing,” and provided “solid numbers about customers and emissions and water use and gray water. But none of those things have been addressed. I am just uncomfortable with a lack of transparency.”
Clayton asked whether the moratorium also restricts wind or solar projects.
Yes, replied City Attorney Kevin Beal, if it generates more than 10 megawatts of electricity.
In his city manager’s report distributed earlier in the day, Chaousis had written: “The principal statutory requirement for a development moratorium is that it be necessary either (1) to prevent a shortage or overburdening of public facilities (e.g., sewer, water, roads, schools, public safety), or (2) because existing plans, ordinances or regulations, if any, are inadequate to prevent serious public harm. Either of these rationales will suffice, though a municipality should cite both as justification for a moratorium if there is a factual basis for doing so. In order to create a record for a reviewing court in the event the ordinance is challenged, every moratorium ordinance should include a preamble that recites the facts which demonstrate the necessity for the moratorium. While factual justification is critical, courts will not second-guess a municipality's determination of necessity; a moratorium, like any other municipal ordinance, is presumed valid, and the challenger must establish "the complete absence" of any facts supporting the need for a moratorium (Minster v. Town of Gray, 584 A.2d 646 (Me. 1990)).
“While the legal basis of whether the City can establish a moratorium on development is one aspect. Economic development, taxable value and appropriate level of taxation is another. Neither should be the determining factor without accompaniment from the other.”
Mayor MacLellan-Ruf had earlier submitted her reasons for voting against the moratorium. In an email, she wrote:
"Since May, the Council, Energy Committee and the community have had the opportunity to discuss implementing a moratorium on energy plants. Nary a question or suggestion about a moratorium from Council, the Energy Committee or the community was raised.
“Some in the community did not want City Hall sold. Nor did they think this was an appropriate site for a power plant. The energy company heard this concern and opted to look at private land.
“As a result the city and community have much less say in negotiations with the energy company.
“A moratorium feels like a knee-jerk reaction that just does not make logical sense. Imagine, just a few months ago Fisher bought property to expand their parking lot. Why? Because their business is booming. Now, imagine if someone objected to the parking lot and placed a moratorium on the development of the property. (Some will debate that this is an apples versus oranges example.) The message sent to the business community: ‘Doing business in Rockland is unpredictable.’
“Rockland needs to be predicable. Moratoria are not to meant to be used in a willy nilly fashion. Moratoria are not decided on whether someone likes a person or does not. Nor should a moratorium be selected as an option because some may not like a business proposal.”
Related stories
Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com
Event Date
Address
United States
Standard Post
