Reuters

November 3, 2009 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The natural gas industry looks to be a big winner in U.S. Senate legislation to tackle climate change on expectations it would lead to more gas demand and a new wave of gas-fired power plants.

After getting few breaks in the House of Representatives climate bill earlier this year, the industry stepped up lobbying as the Senate wrote its version.

The industry won the support of lawmakers as it trumpeted gas as abundant, cleaner than coal and more reliable than wind and solar as a constant energy source to cut greenhouse gases.

The Senate bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to help subsidize coal-fired power plants switching to fuels that emit much fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States, which was recently overtaken by China as the top greenhouse gas emitter, will meet in Copenhagen in December with world leaders from 190 nations to try to hammer out an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol on fighting climate change.

However, hopes of a binding global agreement are fading with the Senate bill still stuck in committee and Congress not expected to finalize legislation until next year.

In the Senate measure, the replacement fuel would have to result in at least 25 percent fewer emissions from 2007 levels through 2020. The reductions would rise to 40 percent and then 65 percent during the subsequent 10 years.

The bill does not mandate a specific fuel, but as the legislation is written, the energy source that would be able to meet the emission-reduction targets and also be the easiest for coal-fired power plants to switch to, especially in the early years, would be natural gas, analysts say.

“Clearly it was directed at natural gas, and natural gas would be the principal beneficiary of these subsidies,” said Mary Anne Sullivan, an attorney specializing in climate change and energy at the Washington law firm of Hogan and Hartson.

The gas industry has acknowledged it was asleep at the switch as the House crafted its legislation to tackle global warming. There were incentives to help coal and renewable energy companies prepare for a clean energy economy but precious little for gas.

Sullivan said the Senate bill does not actually provide money for the EPA program, which would have to be approved by lawmakers under separate legislation.

Nonetheless, the industry could still claim a big win.

“That is a very important step forward, because it provides an economic incentive to switch from coal to gas,” said Dan Weiss, energy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

If the funding comes through, it could result in about 140 new 500-megawatt power plants running on gas, said William Durbin with the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm.

“It will add about 5 to 6 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas demand. That’s a big number,” he said. The Energy Department forecasts U.S. gas demand will average about 62 billion cubic feet a day next year. 

KING COAL

Still, the industry has a tough sell as coal accounts for half of U.S. power generation.

“Electric generators have shown a preference for coal,” said Roger Cooper, executive vice president of the American Gas Association.

Coal has generally been cheaper than natural gas to run power plants. Any financial incentive to use natural gas in the climate change bill could cause power generators to switch to gas.

The industry argues natural gas is more reliable than solar and wind for electricity generation as these sources can be slowed by weather-related factors, such as cloudy skies or when there is little breeze.

Supporters also point to rising supplies of natural gas in the United States, which has increased its natural gas reserves by 40 percent over the last few years from gas trapped in shale rock thanks to advanced drilling techniques.

The industry also argues gas is a good fuel for national security. While America must import about 65 percent of its oil supply, nearly 90 percent of its gas is drilled domestically.

While environmental groups see natural gas as a better alternative to coal, they prefer using more renewables for future electricity generation. Green groups also oppose the gas industry efforts to expand offshore drilling.

“We do believe natural gas will be the winner in any reasonable carbon-constrained legislation,” said Cooper of the American Gas Association.

Herald News

November 5, 2009

SOMERSET — Forty employees will lose their jobs when NRG Energy shuts down its circa 1925 power plant on Riverside Avenue in January.

According to NRG spokesman David Knox, the company will deactivate the plant on Jan. 2.

“Market forces are part of the reason,” Knox said. “Also, the requirement that we close down or repower kicks in in September of 2010. We are obeying that.”

Knox said NRG will continue to move ahead with plans to convert the plant from burning coal to a plasma gasification process, which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. Knox did not provide a timeframe for the completion of that conversion.

The conversion to gasification has been steadily opposed by citizens groups, including the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmentalist group. Those groups believe the Department of Environmental Protection should not have allowed the conversion because it violates a 2001 agreement between DEP and NRG Energy that would have required the plant to significantly reduce emissions or close. The CLF claimed that converting to synthetic gas violates the spirit of the original accord because it will not reduce carbon emissions sufficiently.

Owner NRG claims the gasification process allows for a 95 percent reduction in both mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions and a 60 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide.

“I’m a little shocked,” said CLF attorney Shanna Cleveland. “My reaction is that this is what we’ve been asking for all along.”

Cleveland said her group would continue to oppose any attempt to convert the plant to coal gasification.

“It doesn’t make sense to bring this plant back from the dead to emit more greenhouse gasses,” Cleveland said. “We’re hoping this serves as a recognition that coal-fired plants are no longer environmentally or economically feasible.”

Knox said union workers would be laid off according to union contracts and nonunion workers would receive standard company severance pay.

The announcement came as a surprise for many.

“I can’t comment,” Somerset Board of Selectmen Chairman William Meehan said Wednesday afternoon, shortly after NRG announced plans to close. “I haven’t heard anything.”

“I’m thrilled,” said Boston-based Toxics Action Center Lead Organizer Silvia Broude, who has participated in many local demonstrations against the the power plant.

“I’m going to call it a victory,” Broude said. “Organizing works.”

Broude said her group will continue to oppose coal gasification at the site.

Local Coalition for Clean Air member Al Lima, who has participated in numerous demonstrations against the plant and against plans to convert to coal gasification, was guardedly happy.

“Good,” Lima said. “They said they would clean it up or shut it down.

“We’re still concerned about gasification,” Lima said. “It’s not over yet.”

Wall Street Journal

November 3, 2009

The biggest energy innovation of the decade is natural gas—more specifically what is called “unconventional” natural gas. Some call it a revolution.

Yet the natural gas revolution has unfolded with no great fanfare, no grand opening ceremony, no ribbon cutting. It just crept up. In 1990, unconventional gas—from shales, coal-bed methane and so-called “tight” formations—was about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40%, and growing fast, with shale gas by far the biggest part.

The potential of this “shale gale” only really became clear around 2007. In Washington, D.C., the discovery has come later—only in the last few months. Yet it is already changing the national energy dialogue and overall energy outlook in the U.S.—and could change the global natural gas balance.

From the time of the California energy crisis at the beginning of this decade, it appeared that the U.S. was headed for an extended period of tight supplies, even shortages, of natural gas.

While gas has many favorable attributes—as a clean, relatively low-carbon fuel—abundance did not appear to be one of them. Prices had gone up, but increased drilling failed to bring forth additional supplies. The U.S., it seemed, was destined to become much more integrated into the global gas market, with increasing imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

But a few companies were trying to solve a perennial problem: how to liberate shale gas—the plentiful natural gas supplies locked away in the impermeable shale. The experimental lab was a sprawling area called the Barnett Shale in the environs of Fort Worth, Texas.

The companies were experimenting with two technologies. One was horizontal drilling. Instead of merely drilling straight down into the resource, horizontal wells go sideways after a certain depth, opening up a much larger area of the resource-bearing formation.

The other technology is known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fraccing.” Here, the producer injects a mixture of water and sand at high pressure to create multiple fractures throughout the rock, liberating the trapped gas to flow into the well.

The critical but little-recognized breakthrough was early in this decade—finding a way to meld together these two increasingly complex technologies to finally crack the shale rock, and thus crack the code for a major new resource. It was not a single eureka moment, but rather the result of incremental experimentation and technical skill. The success freed the gas to flow in greater volumes and at a much lower unit cost than previously thought possible.

In the last few years, the revolution has spread into other shale plays, from Louisiana and Arkansas to Pennsylvania and New York State, and British Columbia as well.

The supply impact has been dramatic. In the lower 48, states thought to be in decline as a natural gas source, production surged an astonishing 15% from the beginning of 2007 to mid-2008. This increase is more than most other countries produce in total.

Equally dramatic is the effect on U.S. reserves. Proven reserves have risen to 245 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008 from 177 Tcf in 2000, despite having produced nearly 165 Tcf during those years. The recent increase in estimated U.S. gas reserves by the Potential Gas Committee, representing both academic and industry experts, is in itself equivalent to more than half of the total proved reserves of Qatar, the new LNG powerhouse. With more drilling experience, U.S. estimates are likely to rise dramatically in the next few years. At current levels of demand, the U.S. has about 90 years of proven and potential supply—a number that is bound to go up as more and more shale gas is found. 

To have the resource base suddenly expand by this much is a game changer. But what is getting changed?

 It transforms the debate over generating electricity. The U.S. electric power industry faces very big questions about fuel choice and what kind of new generating capacity to build. In the face of new climate regulations, the increased availability of gas will likely lead to more natural gas consumption in electric power because of gas’s relatively lower CO2 emissions. Natural gas power plants can also be built more quickly than coal-fired plants.

 Some areas like Pennsylvania and New York, traditionally importers of the bulk of their energy from elsewhere, will instead become energy producers. It could also mean that more buses and truck fleets will be converted to natural gas. Energy-intensive manufacturing companies, which have been moving overseas in search of cheaper energy in order to remain globally competitive, may now stay home.

 But these industrial users and the utilities with their long investment horizons—both of which have been whipsawed by recurrent cycles of shortage and surplus in natural gas over several decades—are inherently skeptical and will require further confirmation of a sustained shale gale before committing.

 More abundant gas will have another, not so well recognized effect—facilitating renewable development. Sources like wind and solar are “intermittent.” When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, something has to pick up the slack, and that something is likely to be natural-gas fired electric generation. This need will become more acute as the mandates for renewable electric power grow.

 So far only one serious obstacle to development of shale resources across the U.S. has appeared—water. The most visible concern is the fear in some quarters that hydrocarbons or chemicals used in fraccing might flow into aquifers that supply drinking water. However, in most instances, the gas-bearing and water-bearing layers are widely separated by thousands of vertical feet, as well as by rock, with the gas being much deeper.

 Therefore, the hydraulic fracturing of gas shales is unlikely to contaminate drinking water. The risks of contamination from surface handling of wastes, common to all industrial processes, requires continued care. While fraccing uses a good deal of water, it is actually less water-intensive than many other types of energy production.

 Unconventional natural gas has already had a global impact. With the U.S. market now oversupplied, and storage filled to the brim, there’s been much less room for LNG. As a result more LNG is going into Europe, leading to lower spot prices and talk of modifying long-term contracts.

 But is unconventional natural gas going to go global? Preliminary estimates suggest that shale gas resources around the world could be equivalent to or even greater than current proven natural gas reserves. Perhaps much greater. But here in the U.S., our independent oil and gas sector, open markets and private ownership of mineral rights facilitated development. Elsewhere development will require negotiations with governments, and potentially complex regulatory processes. Existing long-term contracts, common in much of the natural gas industry outside the U.S., could be another obstacle. Extensive new networks of pipelines and infrastructure will have to be built. And many parts of the world still have ample conventional gas to develop first.

 Yet interest and activity are picking up smartly outside North America. A shale gas revolution in Europe and Asia would change the competitive dynamics of the globalized gas market, altering economic calculations and international politics.

 This new innovation will take time to establish its global credentials. The U.S. is really only beginning to grapple with the significance. It may be half a decade before the strength of the unconventional gas revolution outside North America can be properly assessed. But what has begun as the shale gale in the U.S. could end up being an increasingly powerful wind that blows through the world economy.

Mr. Yergin, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, & Power” (Free Press, new edition, 2009) is chairman of IHS CERA. Mr. Ineson is senior director of global gas for IHS CERA.

Energy Facilities Siting Board – Final Decision (APPROVED)

 Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J¼, the Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board‖ or “EFSB”) hereby APPROVES, subject to the conditions set forth below, the petition of Brockton Power Company LLC (”Brockton Power”) for approval to construct a 350 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle, dual fuel (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur diesel oil (ULSD)) electric generating facility (the “proposed facility” or “project”) in Brockton, Massachusetts. Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 72, the Siting Board also APPROVES the petition of Brockton Power to construct an electricity transmission line connecting the proposed facility to the regional transmission grid.

Final Economic Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic Impacts – Citywide & Regional
The construction and eventual operation of the proposed Brockton Clean Energy facility (“the Project”) will create economic impacts for the city and the larger 3-county regional ‘Metro South’ economy which Brockton is a part of. The MetroSouth region consists of Bristol, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties. Plymouth County is where Brockton is located. Economic impacts include the direct spending associated with the Construction Phase and Operations and Maintenance & Phase activities, subsequent indirect impacts from cycles of businesses making purchases of local
supplies/services, and induced impacts from workers’ spending take-home wages where they live.

During the 26-30 month construction phase, the Project brings $368.6 million in total economic stimulus, new tax revenues and new job salaries. The economic impacts emerge as follows :
City of Brockton:

• Direct Construction Budget: $279.6 million of direct economic stimulus
• including 300 new construction jobs and $47 million in new wages;Indirect: $4.4 million of indirect economic stimulus including 22 new jobs and $1.7 million in new wages;
• Induced: $8.8 million of induced economic stimulus including 73 new jobsand $3.0 million in new wages;

Rest of Greater Brockton Region:

• $75.8 million of additional economic stimulus benefits in the 3-county region including 362 new construction-related and other required services jobs and $36.4 million in new wages;

During the 30 year Operation and Maintenance Phase, the Project brings $12.5 million in total economic stimulus, new tax revenue and new job salaries annually. The economic development can be outlined as follows:

City of Brockton:

• Direct Annual Budget: $6.1 million of direct economic stimulus including 22 new positions and $2.6 million in new wages
• Indirect: $3.4 million of indirect economic stimulus including 15 new positions and $1.7 million in new wages
• Induced: $816k of induced economic stimulus including 6 new positions and $388k in new wages

Rest of Greater Brockton Region:
$2.1 million of additional economic stimulus benefits in the 3-county region including 14 new operation-related and services jobs and $1 million in new wages.

The Project accomplishes three key outcomes – additional capacity of clean energy generation into the regional energy marketplace which itself has likely positive economic implications to energy customers; new revenues contributed by
the facility to the City of Brockton to support municipal programs; and economic development opportunities (vis a vis construction-related and annual O&M spending) for new business sales, household income creation and future in-fill of
suppliers to the city’s economy.

By Clyde Barrow
Brockton Enterprise
August 14, 2009

BROCKTON —

After reading The Enterprise’s story (“Power plant gets support,” Aug. 9) and editorial (“Survey says little about power plant,” Aug. 11) about the poll conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis on the proposed natural gas power plant, I am truly shocked by the misleading statements about the poll reported in your newspaper.

According to the editors of The Enterprise, the poll “has several major flaws,” but the only flaw I detected is that the findings were not to the liking of your editors, prominent public officials, and a few vocal residents who have long opposed the construction of the proposed power plant.

First, The Enterprise asserts that the “foremost problem is that the poll was commissioned and paid for by Advanced Power. So even though it was conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass-Dartmouth, it’s not fair to call it objective.”

The Center for Policy Analysis has no position on the power plant and, as an organization that has conducted polls on numerous issues over the last 15 years, we are politically indifferent to the final results. We report the facts objectively, although we are accustomed to the political reality that activists and politicians on any side of an issue will always criticize poll results when those findings reveal that they are not speaking for the public.

The objectivity of a poll has nothing to do with who paid for it, because objectivity is a function of the methodology employed in conducting the poll. As we documented to The Enterprise, the Center for Policy Analysis employed best practices in conducting the poll, including the use of a random sample telephone survey conducted with the most up-to-date polling technology available in the world. It is the same methodology used in virtually every poll conducted by every polling organization in the United States and we employ the same methodology in all polls regardless of the issue.

Thus, I am truly astounded by the remarkable ignorance about survey research demonstrated by (Kathryn) Archard, an instructor at Bridgewater State College, when she points out the obvious fact that “the number of respondents, 401, represents just 1 percent of the city’s voters and .4 percent of the city’s population.”

Pollsters and those who react to polls — like the media – are well aware that 401 responses is a standard sample size with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. This random sample is sufficient to guarantee that the results are an accurate measure of Brockton’s registered voters.
Furthermore, whether this or that respondent lives in Ward 4 is not relevant to the overall findings, because it wasn’t a poll of Ward 4, but a random sample cross-section of the entire city.

Finally, Mayor James E. Harrington commented that, “It’s always how you ask the questions.” He is correct. However, in this case, the question could not have been posed any simpler. One of the first questions in the poll — long before any statements were read for or against the project — was, “Do you favor or oppose the construction of a new natural gas power plant in Brockton’s Oak Hill Industrial Park?”

Our finding was that 41 percent favor its construction, 31 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are undecided. The question is fairly phrased and provides a scientifically valid measure of the views of registered voters. As for diesel fuel, our poll specifically asked a question about it — which the Enterprise failed to report — and we found that the use of diesel as a backup fuel did not significantly affect voters’ views about the plant.

The real problem with the Center for Policy Analysis poll is that public officials, newspaper editors and opponents of the plant must now confront the fact that more registered voters in Brockton support the construction of a new natural gas power plant in Brockton than oppose it. That is a fact. Now, please don’t shoot the messenger. The poll results are available at www.umassd.edu/cfpa under “What’s New!”

Clyde Barrow is the director of the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass- Dartmouth.

By Christy Mihos
Brockton Enterprise
August 12, 2009

My Brockton roots run deep: I was born here, grew up here, graduated from Brockton High School, and went to college right next door at Stonehill. I played with my friends on Brockton’s once-safe streets and got my first job in a local store.

My family’s Brockton roots run even deeper. My forebears were embraced by Brockton, a working Gateway City that respected and helped people willing to work hard and build for their future. My grandfather opened Massachusetts’ first Christy’s store on Main Street and my father, mother, uncle, siblings and I turned that store into a region-wide chain of stores. It all started here, with the help and vitality of Brockton.

What makes me so sad about what I see today in Brockton? This great city built on hard work, manufacturing and a diverse commercial base now turns its back on industry, on construction jobs and on technological development. Factories once thrived in Brockton right up until the 1960s, making everything from shoes to electronic equipment, clothing and tools. Cheap overseas labor killed those industries. But just because those factories are gone, and those industries are not likely to return, does that mean Brockton should give up on industry altogether? Of course not!

This city did not enjoy its boom years because of handouts or stimulus programs. Brockton boomed because we made things the country needed and that need enabled tens of thousands of men and women to draw good paychecks from hard work in plants and factories.

In turn Brocktonians spent that money on their homes and in thriving local restaurants and stores. For this city to thrive again, Brockton’s political and business leaders need to actively identify and pursue both familiar and new industries. Only then will the jobs, taxes and economic ripple effects follow and enliven the city once again.

The key to the future of this region, and this country, is plentiful, affordable energy that is clean and, most important, domestically produced. North America has a plentiful supply of clean burning natural gas.

Massachusetts, which can be so tough environmentally, has long embraced natural gas plants and it’s time for Brockton to stop saying “no.” A natural gas pipeline already runs through the Oak Hill Industrial Park but it’s the cities of Cambridge, Braintree, Taunton, Weymouth and two-dozen other communities in this state that have welcomed and benefited from natural gas power plants in their communities. With each new natural gas plant that comes on line, Massachusetts comes closer to shutting down the notoriously dirty, old plants that still burn oil or coal. In fact, the state Department of Environmental Protection has actually traced a decline in this state’s air pollution to its increasing use of natural gas electricity generation.

Electrical energy is something that we increasingly need in Massachusetts. Communities that host natural gas facilities also have more jobs and tax revenue while helping the region meet our collective high – weather and technology related – New England energy demand.

Day by day, business leaders, city employees, union leaders and community activists are starting to learn the whole truth about the safety, reliability and value of the proposed Brockton Clean Energy natural gas plant proposed for the Oak Hill Industrial Park. Brockton missed the building and development boom of the 1980s because we could not solve a water supply issue in time. The lost opportunity cost the city jobs and new property tax revenue.

Stakeholders truly committed to this city do not want this to happen again. We are worried about our schools and public safety. Many wonder how Brockton can continue to grow its tax base, job market, and hope to stop working people and families from moving out. Saying “yes” to the Brockton Clean Energy facility means “yes” to jobs and new tax revenue that the energy generation industry provides, and “yes” to building our community.

As state revenues continue to decrease, Brockton will suffer the ill effects of losing local aid. This means that there be additional layoffs of police, fire, teachers and no chance for any property tax relief without new commercial industry. Brockton should stop fighting the power plant and help to get it going as soon as possible. It’s time Brockton took a meaningful step toward returning to the boom years.

Christy Mihos is a businessman, entrepreneur and candidate for governor.

By Richard J. Lawton
Special to the Brockton Enterprise
July 15, 2009
The proposed construction of a 350-megawatt electricity generating facility on Oak Hill Way has created a passionate divide among community activists and the citizens of Brockton and surrounding towns.
On the one hand, the proposed electrical plant is the largest private creation of infrastructure in Brockton. It will create clean energy and hundreds of jobs, and provide a monetary windfall for Brockton and the regional economy. On the other hand, there are highly organized and financed groups such as Stop the Power and Clean the Air, as well as concerned citizens who profess that there are inherent risks to the health of the citizens in the area due to Co2 emissions and fallout from fine particle pollutants and that children are the most susceptible to the detrimental effects posed by the pollutants.
Historically, we have all born witness to climate and pollution theories designed to scare the public into fear and rash decisions. First, we all remember the “nuclear winter” as a scenario of doom that predicted the deprivation of sunlight to plants and animals and our ultimate extinction from the use of nuclear weapons. Second, the “acid rain” fears in the ’70s supported by government studies predicted an ominous threat to the environment and human health.
The immediate threat of global warming and the dangers of Co2 emission thereby depleting the ozone layer and causing greenhouse warming is the most recent doomsday scenario peddled by politicians to push through a political agenda — i.e., increased taxes. Last week saw the passing in the House of a tax bill engineered as Climate Control legislation known as the Cap and Trade bill or the carbon tax. In the original bill, it taxed everything that moved, including carbon gases emitted by cows.
The lesson to be learned is that there is much that we do not know. Without that basic honest humility, the public should remain skeptical of all extreme prognostications and fear initiatives peddled by organized groups, especially those which are being used for political gains.
The reality is, however, that we have an energy crisis in Massachusetts and the United States. Many people are unaware that we purchase much of our electrical energy from out of the state and out of the country. New Brunswick Canada is now constructing a 1,100-megawatt nuclear reactor that was approved in 2008 after a feasibility study revealed that the energy-strapped northeast was in need of electrical energy.
Canada is also capitalizing on our need for energy by exporting hydroelectric power. Quebec Hydro recently received regulatory approval to transmit power to this region through lines in Maine and New Hampshire. The question remains as to why we should be dependent on energy generated by Canadian companies and their workforce.
The crisis that now looms in our state and country is largely because of the neglect and bad decision-making of our leaders and citizens alike. The economic recession that we’re in is one of the longest and deepest since the Great Depression.
Somehow we allowed the United States to morph into a country that hollowed out its manufacturing base and sent it overseas. We refused to maintain and build infrastructure. The American dream is on life support. For the first time in memory, parents are worried that their children will not live better lives than they did.
A recent study by the Education Trust indicated that the U.S. is the only industrialized country in which young people are less likely than their parents to graduate from high school. What happened to America’s greatness?
In our self-destructive way, we have lost sight of how important the maintenance and development of infrastructure is to one’s long term prosperity. It’s not just about roads and bridges, but about our electrical grid, schools and technological innovation necessary for a world class industrial platform. We have suffered a loss of 5.7 million jobs. If we want any hope of recovery, we must focus on putting people back to work; rebuilding the infrastructure is the place to start.
No one can say with any certainty that the proposed power plant poses any risk of harm to us or our children. We can say that we all have to decide what kind of country we want the United States to be, what we want our children to experience and what steps we are willing to take to bring about that kind of change.
Lastly, there is no hope that help will come to save us from ourselves. This underscores our responsibility to one another to think of what is good for us all.
Richard J. Lawton of Easton is a member of the board of trustees for the University of Massachusetts and serves on the Committee for Science & Technology. He is chairman of the Energy Task Force made up of university professors and graduate students engaged in studying energy in Massachusetts and the region.

By Elaine Allegrini
Brockton Enterprise
August 8, 2009

BROCKTON – A recent survey of voters showed support for a power plant proposed for an industrial area on the south side, but opponents say the study is not representative of the city.

Advanced Power Services NA, which would build and operate the 350-megawatt plant, paid for the survey conducted by Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass-Dartmouth.

Barrow said 401 random registered voters in Brockton were interviewed by telephone for the study. The calls were made between July 12 and July 19.

According to the study:

41.4 percent of those interviewed favored construction of the plant.

30.9 percent opposed construction of the plant.

27.7 percent responded they did not know if they support or oppose the plant.

The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent, Barrow said.

The power plant has sparked active opposition among a number of residents, especially in Ward 4, where it would be built, and nearby Ward 3.

Top city leaders, including Mayor James E. Harrington and most of the City Council, oppose the plant.

The former mayor, John T. Yunits Jr., labor union leaders and some in the business community support the plant.

Proponents say the $350 million plant would bring much-needed tax revenue and jobs to the city. The state Energy Facilities Siting Board last month granted the final state license for the facility, but left zoning approvals in the hands of the city, effectively giving city officials the final say.

The City Council will meet Monday to consider asking the state Legislature to pass a bill that would ban power plants in Brockton.

In the UMass study, more than one-quarter of those interviewed – 27.7 percent – said they were not aware of the proposal.

“Proponents and opponents will tailor it to meet their desires,” said Councilor-at-large Todd Petti, the lone councilor who has come out in support of the plant.

“I believe it’s a credible poll and reflects a good sample of the city of Brockton,” he said.

But Stop the Power, a vocal group that continues to fight the plant, reviewed the survey and said it is skewed.

For example, the number of respondents, 401, represents just 1 percent of the city’s voters and .4 percent of the city’s population, said Kathryn Archard, who teaches at Bridgewater State College, and group leader Edward Byers.

Further, the questions state it would be a “natural gas power plant” instead of it being fueled by natural gas and diesel fuel, they said. According to Byers, Barrow came up with some of the questions, but Advanced Power had the final say as to what was asked.

“The questions themselves are invalid since they pose incorrect information to base the choice on,” Stop the Power said in a prepared statement.

Also, 10 statements pointing out potential benefits of the plant were raised to see if they might affect respondents’ opinions – but just six statements citing potential drawbacks were included. The statements pointing out the benefits were also far more detailed, including such information as how much tax revenue might be generated, while the statements outlining the drawbacks were much shorter and had no such information.

“This is a paid non-objective survey from a vested interested party and the results collected have not been independently verified or analyzed by an impartial expert,” Archard and Byers said in a statement.

Three city officials had not seen the study but asked The Enterprise about its findings. They questioned the study, how it was done and who was interviewed.

“It’s always how you ask the questions,” said Mayor James E. Harrington.

“You have to have a real analysis of where the information came from,” said Councilor-at-large Linda Balzotti, a candidate for mayor.

“You want to know where the people are from,” said Ward 3 Councilor Dennis Eaniri.

The study did not include the area of the city where those interviewed live, so there is no way to judge if the opposition was concentrated in any particular neighborhood, such as streets near the plant site.

But Jeremy Crockford, spokesman for Advanced Power, argued that the entire city will benefit from the increased tax revenue, additional jobs and other aspects of the project, so respondents were not asked where they lived.

The study also did not include any written conclusions, though Barrow and Crockford in their oral presentation at The Enterprise gave their analysis.

Contacted about that issue, Gary Langer, a polling expert with ABC News, said it is unusual not to draw conclusions as part of the written study, but that does not necessarily pose a problem.
“You can make sense of the results yourself, if given adequate disclosure,” said Langer.

The study also questioned voters about general city issues and priorities. It found that:

51.5 percent of those surveyed thought the “single most important issue facing Brockton today” is crime.

Education came in second, at 18.5 percent of those surveyed.

Economic development was third at 12.9 percent.

Poll takers asked about seven specific issues in the city, but did not include the power plant as one of them.

The company behind the plant is Boston-based Advanced Power Services NA, a subsidiary of the Swiss company Advanced Power AG.

The plant would be fueled using natural gas and diesel, and could power up to 250,000 homes. Advanced Power has said it hopes to open the facility in 2012.

The project has faced opposition from officials in Brockton and some of its suburbs amid concerns over possible health impacts and the location of the plant near homes and schools.

By Timothy D. Sullivan
Special to the Brockton Enterprise
July 3, 2009

BROCKTON – Like many communities in Massachusetts and across the nation, our city is badly in need of new funding sources. Clearly, there is not enough revenue and too few jobs.
Without some creative approaches to the serious challenges that are before us, important city services, good public schools and public safety, will be dramatically cut.

Mayor Harrington and the City Council must take swift action and bring much-needed economic development to our city. Recognizing the need for new industry, the Representative Council of my union, the 1,400-member Brockton Education Association, voted last month to support a proposal to build a new power plant in the city.

The BEA members who serve on the Representative Council did not take the vote lightly. Two months prior to the vote, a BEA subcommittee, made up of six educators and chaired by a Brockton High School science teacher and former environmental consultant, was formed to analyze the power plant plan. In researching the proposal, the committee members sought out raw data, information from community members, as well as proponents and opponents of the plant, and toured a similar facility in Londonderry, N.H.

Ultimately, the committee determined that the power plant plan is sound and advantageous to the people of Brockton.

“We are advocating for this project because we believe the science makes sense and the revenue generated will be beneficial to city,” noted study committee chairwoman and Brockton High School science teacher Eleri Merrikin. Based on the recommendation made by the study committee, the Representative Council voted overwhelming in support of the proposal.

We don’t have time to waste. Without new funding sources, our city will lose many talented and dedicated educators, as well as police, firefighters and other valued services. On May 15, 74 Brockton school teachers were given layoff notices. At a time when our school district is on its way to becoming the best urban district in the state, we cannot afford to lose 74 educators. The results will be devastating for Brockton students, who get one chance at a great public education.

The elimination of school buses, library hours, and people who help teachers has also been proposed. Our schools and our children just can’t afford it.

We must stand up and welcome the jobs and new revenue that a new power plant will bring to our community. Public safety, school buses, and quality education depend upon that new revenue.

At a time when every job is in demand and when cities and towns are fighting each other for commercial and industrial taxpayers, our mayor and city council must recognize the value of this proposed plant. The “City that Shoed the World” recently saw the closing of the last of the shoe factories, Foot Joy. Let’s work to try and restore our city’s industrial base and encourage and support its return to our city. Too much is at stake.

Timothy D. Sullivan is president of the Brockton Education Association.