Opponents of a proposed gas-fired power plant in Brockton jammed a State House hearing room Tuesday, expressing fears of the type of deadly explosion that rocked a Connecticut power plant over the weekend and urging lawmakers to pass a bill to block the plant’s construction.
Developers of the Brockton plant, anticipating the concerns as lawmakers weighed the home rule petition pushed by city officials, told lawmakers they would not start construction until they know the results of the investigation into the Kleen Energy Systems plant blast and have determined how to avoid any similar problems. Their assurances came at a hearing of the Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government.
Power plant supporters touted its “clean energy” and job-creating potential and its approval by the state Energy Facilities Siting Board. The developer, Brockton Power Company LLC, said the legislation aimed at derailing the plant represents "NIMBY legislation" and its passage "will definitely chill further investment in Massachusetts across-the-board” as it would reflect “the lack of regulatory or permitting certainty” in the state.
They say the project, eyed for an industrial park zoned for power plants for more than 45 years, has been thoroughly vetted. After more than two years of study, 20 days of hearings, and an administrative record featuring 900 exhibits, the siting board found the project would meet “all of the Commonwealth’s environmental, health and safety standards,” according to Arnold Wallenstein, general counsel of Brockton Power.
Plant opponents, led by members of the Brockton legislative delegation, say it is located too close to nearby schools and senior housing. They say they fear particulate pollution from the plant will worsen public health problems, noting pediatric asthma rates at 11 city schools are higher than the state average.
“They just want us to concur that the local people know what’s best for themselves,” Sen. Thomas Kennedy (D-Brockton), a bill supporter, testified before the committee. “It’s a matter of their health. It’s a matter of their welfare.”
Kennedy said Brockton’s industrial park is suitable for “light industry” and said that while the plant is “permissible” under local zoning it is “not desirable.” Noting the plant would be located 1,700 feet from an elementary school and a “few hundred yards” from senior housing, Kennedy said its location – “in a very thick heavy residential neighborhood” - was its “greatest problem.” The grassroots opposition to the plant is “strong” and “widespread,” said Kennedy, urging colleagues to grant the city its wish.
Members of the Brockton delegation who testified Tuesday all referenced the explosion that ripped through a Kleen Energy Systems plant in Middletown, Connecticut on Sunday morning, killing five and injuring at least 12. Lawmakers said the Connecticut plant had a larger buffer zone than what is envisioned in Brockton.
If a similar accident occurred at the Brockton location eyed for the plant, “It would be hundreds dead and thousands injured,” said Kennedy. Rep. Geraldine Creedon (D-Brockton) flashed a newspaper to the committee with a photo of the heavily gutted Connecticut plant to make her point. Rep. Michael Brady said, “God forbid if it ever happened in Brockton.” And Rep. Christine Canavan added: “It shows that nothing is really completely safe.”
Anticipating the concerns in the wake of the plant explosion, Brockton Clean Energy and its parent company Advanced Power North America released a statement. “We understand and share the deep concern about the tragic accident in Middletown, Connecticut and the questions about what this may mean for the construction of a similar natural gas plant in Brockton. We have taken these concerns to heart,” the statement said.
“I am here to tell you,” added Thomas Spang, Advanced Power CEO, in the statement. “We will not begin construction until we know from the investigators in Connecticut what occurred in Middletown, and have determined how we can prevent such an incident from occurring in any plant we build. Accordingly, we will report to the state our findings and how we will protect our workers and our neighbors in Brockton. We will share those findings with all of you. The men and women who build these plants and the residents of Brockton deserve nothing less.” Spang asked public officials to allow time for fact-finding “to determine how best to build a plant with the absolute minimum chance of accident, and to bring those findings to all of you.”
The Massachusetts Building Trades Council strongly opposed the bill, calling it “the jobs killer bill of 2010” and predicting “if this legislation passes, you will never see new power in the Commonwealth again.” The trades council said energy costs are an impediment to businesses in Massachusetts, with businesses here paying some of the highest electricity prices in the nation and industrial users paying more than double the U.S. average.
Canavan, after receiving a show of hands from plant opponents in the room, told lawmakers: “These are all good people who have absolutely worked their butts off for years trying to fight this.”
Creedon and other Brockton officials said Brockton is one of only 20 “environmental justice” communities in Massachusetts, a designation that say was not recognized by state officials who reviewed the project. Creedon decried “predators” who she said push industrial projects in the city and “think they don’t have the intelligence or the money to fight this.” She said Brockton has 347 hazardous waste sites, compared to the state average of 84.
Also, Canavan said the plant could pose a threat to the aquifer that serves neighboring West Bridgewater. And Brady said the plant site may be needed to facilitate an expansion of a regional sewer treatment plant.
The state siting board last summer granted the required state license for construction of the 350-megawatt plant in Brockton, but denied Brockton Power’s requested exemption from local zoning bylaws, a move that state officials said gives the city “veto power” over the plant’s construction and marked the first time the siting board had denied all zoning exemptions requested by a project proponent. The siting board concluded the project’s proposed environmental and energy supply benefits “do not outweigh expected local impacts.”
“In holding that the potential energy benefits of the Brockton plant don’t outweigh the potential local impacts, the Siting Board has left the final determination to local officials and upheld the home rule powers of a municipality,” Energy and Environmental Affairs Undersecretary for Energy Ann Berwick said in a statement last summer.
Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy), co-chairman of the Legislature’s Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, told the News Service that Brockton had not properly rezoned years ago and added that he believes that while the state needs “cleaner power” the markets will help dictate whether the plant ultimately gets built.
The bill bans the siting or permitting of a power plant in Brockton “in any area which is less than 1 mile in linear distance from a playground, licensed day-care center, school, church, area of critical environmental concern, as determined by the secretary of environmental affairs . . . or area occupied by residential housing.”
The project will create 750 direct and indirect jobs in the Brockton area, $2 million in taxes and fees to the city of Brockton, and spark $369 million in “new economic stimulus” to the area, according to Brockton Power.
“It’s an issue that people on both sides are very passionate about,” said committee co-chairman Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton).
