Yesterday was a green day in the Lege, with a bunch of bills supporting renewable energy moving through both houses (you can see the release here) and the most important, for Portsmouth, was the approval of Net Metering, which will give the town full credit for all the electricity produced by the planned Wind Turbine Generator.

Currently, the town would only get full credit for the electricity used directly at the high school. Here's the money quote, from both the Senate and House versions:

"Any Rhode Island city or town, educational institution, farm, or the Narragansett Bay Commission may elect to apply any such credits earned to another account owned by it."

So we can offset not just the power consumed at the high school, but our rising energy costs across the town.

Of course it ain't over til it's over, but Governor Carcieri has been a strong supporter of alternative energy, and I would hope for a quick signature. Our WTG just got a whole lot more valuable.

Portsmouth Town Council President Dennis Canario and Alexander Pichs of WindSmart, LLC.

Hailing it as a "milestone for Portsmouth," Town Council President Dennis Canario signed a $2.9M contract with WindSmart, LLC to install a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine generator on the grounds of Portsmouth High School.

"The voters overwhelmingly approved this," Canario said in brief remarks before the signing. He went on to thank our state legislators, Gov. Carcieri's energy advisor Andrew Dzykewicz (who came down from Providence for the occasion), the RI Office of Energy Resources, and the volunteers on the Portsmouth Economic Development Committee (PEDC).

"They pursued a nascent concept for over three years," said Canario. "The PEDC, and the energy subcommittee led by Gary Gump turned this into reality."

Construction is set to begin this summer, and the wind turbine is expected to be installed in November, and in operation before the end of the year. It will begin pumping out 3 million kilowatt-hours of power each year, providing direct savings of over $100,000 per year over its projected 20-year lifespan.

A couple of technical approvals remain — final signoff from the FAA on the original location and cultural clearance since the turbine borders the historic Ft. Butts site. The Town anticipates resolving these "shortly," according to a release distributed at the meeting. "Our committee did an extraordinary job," Gump said in the statement, "In analyzing various aspects of the project and working with Town, State, and Federal officials and technical experts to make sure all the technical risks were minimized."

Congratulations and thanks are due to the hardworking folks on the PEDC. It will be a great sight, come November, to see that tower going up and knowing that with every revolution, it puts a little money back in the town coffers and reduces our dependence on carbon.

And a big thanks all around to the voters of Portsmouth for the vision and willingness to support this project. A great day for the town. Yay.

cc-licensed high-res photo available on Flickr.

Update:
Thanks to Doug Smith of the EDC, the video is up on YouTube.

Update 2:
The Newport Daily News has a great writeup.

According to a story in today's Providence Journal, the FAA notice regarding Portsmouth's proposed wind turbine is not nearly as dire as what moved on the AP wire. The issue was a plan to slighly relocate the tower south of the proposed location to provide more distance to a nearby water tower. While that met with resistance from the FAA, there does not seem to be any issue proceeding with the previous plan, Economic Development Committee chair Rich Talipsky is quoted as saying.

The agency is likely to signal its approval of a 336-foot tower at the original location within a few days of receiving the required engineering data verifying the height and the latitude and longitude of the tower, Talipsky said yesterday. — Via ProJo

In case you didn't believe me about Monday night, where Portsmouth Town Councilor Karen Gleason repeatedly asked, not about the economics of the Wind Turbine in general, but about the state requirement that National Grid buy excess production. Watch.

See for example, RIGL § 39-26 which you should read in conjunction with the Public Utilities Commission Rules and Regulations. (You can download the pdf directly here.)

This would be a whole lot more understandable if we hadn't gone through a detailed explanation of the economics back in October, 2007 when the bond was discussed. Look, Gleason was there — I even have video.

I hope the 60% of the Town who voted for the Wind Turbine remembers this in November.

Gary Gump at podium reviews wind turbine bid with Council as EDC Chair Rich Talipsky distributes materials.

By a 5-2 vote, the Portsmouth Town Council this evening selected the $2,915,000 bid from Wind-Smart to install a wind turbine at the high school.

If you just want the significant bit, you can stop reading here.

In what was clearly a pasta-flinging expedition seeking sticky items for November's upcoming elections, the Portsmouth Concerned Citizens (PCC) and their fellow travelers turned virtually every agenda item into a protracted debate, resulting in a mind-numbing 3-and-a-quarter hour session.

Tailgunner Gleason started in on the wind turbine, looking for one of her guarantees (See here, here, and here). "I absolutely have to have that guarantee," said Gleason. "I sat on the gym committee and look at the disaster there."

Also a disaster was trying to explain the finances of the turbine. It seemed Ms. Gleason just could not believe that National Grid would buy the electricity from Portsmouth at wholesale rates.

"Is that contingent?" asked Gleason.

"It's not contingent on anything on the planet," replied Sustainable Energy subcommittee chair Gary Gump.

"Why would they buy it"

"It's a state law," replied Gump "They have to buy it."

"I want that in writing," insisted Gleason. "I don't see why National Grid would put themselves in a position where they're going to lose."

By this point, Council President Dennis Canario had enough. "They're not losing," he said, "They're selling it at retail. We've already gone through this."

But a few minutes later, Gleason came back to it again. "I still suffer the nightmares from before," she insisted, asking for a guarantee in writing.

"I can point to the state law that requires them to buy the electricity from us," said Gump.

PCC, Inc. President Larry Fitzmorris got up to peck at a few minor points (was it wind speed, or the velocity of an unladen sparrow? I get the PCC and Monty Python mixed up sometimes...) and snipe at the lack of cushion in the proposal. I'm sparing you the protracted jousting. The bid was approved by a 5-2 vote, with Gleason and McIntyre opposed.

Then there was a long go-round on an agenda item proposed by Councilor McIntyre to change the zoning ordinance to force an organization proposing a group home to go through a notification and hearing process. Given the back and forth, it appeared that the Council had been given an opinion by Town Solicitor Kevin Gavin that such an ordinance might not pass legal muster, but McIntyre countered that what he proposed was already on the books in Middletown.

Councilor Len Katzman spoke in opposition. "What we are talking about here is an attempt to place into our zoning laws a hurdle to the efforts to help those less blessed than we are. It is wrong to tell the mentally disabled they are not welcome here. It's wrong not because our solicitor says it won't work."

Councilor West concurred. "People know I served on the board of the Newport County Community Mental Health Center. There are many, many clients of that agency who are from the town of Portsmouth. They do not have a shelter here. I could not in good conscience approve a resolution like that."

Gleason tried to argue that this was not a zoning change. "In fairness to Mr. McIntyre," she said, "He's just asking for notice. I see nothing wrong with providing notice."

But Councilor Seveney was unconvinced. "When you go down a path like this, you are giving the Zoning Board the power to allow a variance. I see very clearly that all the discussion related to notification, that's not what we're voting on. We're voting to give Portsmouth the power to say yes or no to something. These people have to live somewhere. The State has the policy and procedure and authority. We're talking about an ordinance that puts the Zoning Board in the position of making a decision they don't have the authority to make."

"If Middletown can do it," said McIntyre, "I don't understand why we can't."

Nonetheless, the matter was tabled, after a debate that was MUCH longer than indicated here. Completists are invited to view the Channel 18 version. We need to come up with a drinking game for when Gleason asks for a guarantee or says she needs more information. Using soft drinks, of course.

Next up was another Peter McIntyre item, the oft-requested opinion from the Town Solicitor about the legality of adjusting the Town Budget to recognize additional revenue mid-year and, if necessary, increase the town's total expenditures based on additional revenues. One of the triggers was a payment for FEMA for storm damage from last year's Nor'easter, which the Council had to accept recently, but which necessarily changed the bottom line of the budget.

The very budget ordinance the Town passes, Councilor Katzman pointed out, contains the language describing the total as the dollar amount "Plus state aid, federal aid, and other credits not specifically stated. When we get money from FEMA, that is a credit not specifically stated. We didn't exceed the amount appropriated, becuase the amount includes unstated figures."

"My position is I look at the bottom line," said McIntyre. "It's a million, that's what I vote for."

I'll just quote from the legal opinion of the Town Solicitor, lines 19-23. "The Office of Municipal Affairs and the Town's independent auditors agree this is a proper budgetary and fiscal practice. Such amendments do not result in an additional tax levy and do not increase the amount of taxes the town may levy in future years under the maximum tax levy statute."

I'm not going to give the PCC any more air on this one. This is common sense. If we have our household budget worked out, but I suddenly get a bonus, I change the bottom line on the Excel spreadsheet so that we can buy more groceries. This is so blindingly obvious that the only possible explanation for the PCC grandstanding — and their attempt to hoick it up into a Charter fight — is that elections are coming up.

After an interminable debate, the Council moved to table the matter indefinitely.

There were reports from the Solid Waste Committee laying out plans to help foster more recycling, and from the Conservation Commission on their Earth Day objectives. The Council moved to support a request to widen West Main Road and add a turn lane at Mill Road, and to support the Virtual Net Metering legislation which has recently been introduced in the Lege. Gleason nattered away at a correspondence item from the School Department indicating lower than anticipated Little Compton tuitions, which was also slapped down with a motion to table rather than continue "rhetorical musings" with no School Department personnel in attendance.

Tonight's Portsmouth Town Council meeting saw a great step forward for the Wind Turbine project, and what looked like a carefully orchestrated campaign to plant doubts in the public's mind about the ongoing School audit. About 25 people were in attendance when the meeting kicked off on a wonderful note, with the Portsmouth Lions donating $500 from a fundraiser to support Glen Farm. Big thank you to the Lions!

After some preliminary housekeeping — the yearly liquor and victualer licensing and some committee appointments — the Council heard from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Chair Rich Talipsky and Sustainable Energy Subcommittee leader Gary Gump, who had provided the Council with the ready-to-be-issued Request for Proposal (RFP). Yes, we're ready to go buy a turbine! But wait! Who hasn't said anything daffy in a while? Ohhhh, yeah, right. Tailgunner Gleason. After picking away at why the RFP didn't include a quote for tearing the turbine down in 25 years at the end of its lifespan (uh...WTF?) she let loose with this diatribe.

"I don't want to be negative by any means," she began, and then proceeded to be, well, negative. "Before the referendum, I was concerned about risk. Because I don't have a sure guarantee, I'm going to vote against you tonight. I will continue to thoroughly read and assess the situation going forward, I will continue to ask my questions. [Hey, kids, remember how much Tailgunner loves QUESTIONS?] I want a guarantee. I'm not going against you, I'm just not going along with you."

Huck Little doesn't say a lot at Council meetings, but he responded to this. "I think we have to go with the voters," he said. Good on ya, Huck. The Council voted 6-1 to approve the RFP, with Tailgunner Gleason the lone "no." Let's start keeping track of this. We're only a year out from the election, and I think everyone in Portsmouth should start noticing how often Gleason votes no (despite an overwhelming majority of the Town voting for wind in the referendum) or saying that she doesn't have enough information to make up her mind ("still a little bit hazy" on the transfer station sticker, six months after she approved the budget.)

The Council also voted to seek low interest loans from the RI Renewable Energy Fund to cover the difference between the bond and the anticipated cost of the turbine (again, this has all been factored into the proposal.) This was approved unanimously, as was a motion to create a "construction oversight" committee separate from the EDC. (So let me get this straight...she voted to create a committee to oversee an RFP that she voted against? Is it just me, or does this make no freaking sense?)

Speaking of making no sense, there was a contingent there tonight who began attacking Berkshire Advisors, the firm contracted to conduct the performance audit of Portsmouth's schools. And what were they attacking? That Berkshire had asked for a steering committee, comprising members of the Council, School Committee, and Town and School administration which would meet with them for periodic progress reviews.

"What we have here then is 6 elected officials and that bothers me," said Peter McIntyre. "This whole idea was to get an audit team in here. Why not have the elected officials out of the picture." He left no doubt about where he was going with this line of questioning. "Maybe Berkshire doesn't realize how we got here."

Tailgunner couldn't resist another opportunity to complain that she was uninformed. "I've gotten different answers," she whined, about the purpose of the steering committee, and argued that Finance Director Dave Faucher should be sufficient. "The rest of us — I don't understand why we're all there. Why are we all there?"

Indeed, Tailgunner. Why are you there?

Councilor Len Katzman provided the simple answer. "We're paying them $85K, and they say they want this group, they say this is how they function best. They are going to be interviewing all Council and School Committee members. There's no big secret conspiracy being cooked up."

Council President Dennis Canario expressed concerns. The whole idea, he said, was to "Take the politics out of it. All of a sudden now. Everybody's involved. Are we going to get an unbiased opinion from this company?" But illustrating his typical sense of balance, he went on to say, "I just don't want Portsmouth to be anything different than anything they've done anywhere else. If this is their norm, I can accept that. I just pictured it differently."

"I think we can stop digging," said Councilor Seveney. "The liaisons from the Town Council are there ensuring quality product. The School Committee are there as experts so that Berkshire is not fumbling around when someone could hand information to them in 15 minutes. We should bring them here and the Council should ask them whether this is forfeiting any independence."

From the audience, Cheshire Kathy Melvin tried her usual rhetorical ju-jitsu. "I want what you want. A final report that the public will have great confidence in." Then she sprang the trap, saying that having a steering committee meant "we are going to be a party to Berkshire's findings and recommendations." and that this was "raising concerns in the mind of the public." Then she pushed on down that slippery slope. "The Town would like to see this professional organization go in there unimpeded," she said, "a steering committe adds nothing to the process — just elected officials trying to influence the outcome."

See how she goes from a position everyone can agree with (yes, we all want a good report) to injecting an unsupported assertion (a steering committee means being party to the findings) and jumping to an unsubstantiated generalization (this is raising questions in the mind of the public.)

Then, gee, look who's back. It's Dame Judy Staven. "All this does is bring doubts into the public's mind," she asserted, as if it were a fact. "It makes no sense to me. What do lawyers say — the appearance of impropriety? It waters the whole thing down."

Indeed. It is worth recalling that if you begin with a false premise, you can prove anything. It was at this point that I had to get up and attempt to set the record straight. A steering committee is standard practice in consulting, and having progress reviews to sanity-check interim results is absolutely expected behavior. Consulting firms are aware of the partisan feelings of the folks they work for, but to assume that they are influenced displays a real ignorance of the consulting process.

Matt Daily took the podium and said it more succinctly: "Either you trust that they're independent or you don't."

But here's my take: it's not ignorance. This is what we call in media theory "innoculation." The PCC and their fellow travelers have attempted to vaccinate the public with the idea that the performance audit results are tainted. Now, if they don't like what comes back in six months, they are on the record with an objection, and they can point back to the partisan meddling of that evil steering committee. Don't believe me? Okay. Wait. Let's see what happens.

By commanding margins, all three of the questions on the Portsmouth ballot were approved today, in an election that saw 3,737 votes cast (a turnout of 31%, very strong for an off-year.) Charter change, at 54 to 46% was the narrowest margin, but still a 9-point win. Wind energy was approved by 60 to 40% and Open space by 57 to 43.

Town Council Vice President Jim Seveney was pleased with the result. "The community has spoken," he said. "In one evening, we voted for better participation, using less power, and looking over more beautiful vistas in this already beautiful town."

With a 9-point margin of victory, the result on Charter Change is clearly a stinging rebuke to the Portsmouth Concerned Citizens, Inc., who, in the last few weeks of campaigning, were engaged in a full-court press to defeat the measure and attempt to salvage their last shred of relevance. (I get to say that because I'm not a real journalist. But you know it's true.)

Sal and Chris Carceller, who had been outspoken champions of the change to the charter, were jubliant. In a statement released to the media, they said, "We trusted Portsmouth residents to make the right decision when it came to fair voting rights, and they did. Now every resident will have a say in a booth when it comes to challenging our budget, not just the residents who are able to show up under the tent. The tent meeting of August 2006 tore this town apart. We are hoping that the passing of this charter amendment will help heal our town. This is a victory for Portsmouth."

There were pockets where the PCC message clearly had traction. The votes from the Common Fence Point polling station were actually the reverse of the general trend: all three questions failed there. My hypothesis is that lingering anger over the sewer issue may have played some role with voters here. But a strong turnout, and substantial lead in the South end of town easily erased that deficit.

Town Councilor Len Katzman saw it as a victory for the truth. "There was a lot of deliberate misinformation put out there," he said. "I'm proud to see that Portsmouth didn't buy into it and were able to think for themselves."

Councilor Bill West also complimented the voters. "I want to thank the voters of Portsmouth," he said, "For turning out and voting, and for looking at and voting on the issues, and realizing that these are for the benefit of all the citizens of Portsmouth."

Personally, I think the Carcellers are spot-on. This is a victory for Portsmouth, and it removes any doubt in people's minds about whether the cranks in the PCC who get up and whinge at meetings really speak for a silent majority. Read my lips, Larry: You. Do. Not.

There are massive thanks due to many folks: the Carcellers, for taking on the Charter Change issue. The EDC and the Energy Subcommittee led by Gary Gump who put together such a compelling case for Wind. Ted Clement and the Aquidneck Island Land Trust for their partnership and vision on open space. And the Town Council, for whom this vote is a real validation. They got out there and pushed these issues, and this vote is a mandate on their leadership.

And we also owe thanks to our Canvassing staff, led by Madeleine Pencak, and the host of poll workers who pitched in to make this happen so smoothly.

But the biggest thanks go to you, voters of Portsmouth. Thank you for confirming our shared vision for our town. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Update: I was unable to reach Ted Clement of the Aquidneck Island Land Trust last night, but this morning, he was kind enough to e-mail me this response to the vote:

"When I learned that the Open Space and Recreational Development Bond had been approved I felt such joy and hope because long-term vision had won the day. In 2005 and 2006, Aquidneck Island lost around 360 acres to development with about 300 of those acres being in Portsmouth alone. Now is the time to act for land conservation and the environment in Portsmouth, and that is exactly what the majority of people did at the voting stations yesterday."

Update 2: Robert Marshall, chair of the Prudence Conservancy, sent along this comment on the results, with a focus on Prudence Island, which joined the rest of the town in approving all three ballot items:

"Forty-three Prudence Island voters went to the polls yesterday at the Fire Station and joined their counterparts on the mainland in approving a bond referendum authorizing Portsmouth to borrow up to four million dollars for open space and recreation projects.

Portsmouth has a good record of providing funds for the protection of open space, including contributing funds towards Prudence Conservancy recent purchase of a conservation easement on the Blount property. However, recent budget constraints had eliminated the source of funding for open space, passage of the bond will restore the availability of funds."

The editorial page of today's Newport Daily News is a real treat for Portsmouth voters hoping to pass the Charter Change, Wind Energy, and Open Space ballot questions next Tuesday: the paper has given all three a thumbs-up.

On the first question, Charter change, the paper slams the current Tent Meeting and its lack of absentee ballots, saying "that inherently is undemocratic." The editorial goes on to say:

The acrimony during and after the last "tent meeting" in August 2006, is testimony to the need for change. Some residents did not want to vote for fear of reprisal, others did not speak to each other because of the way they voted, and still others were confused about what they were voting on, including a cut to the town budget.

If the benefits of knowing the question or questions beforehand and being able to cast a private vote were not enough, the ability to electronically count the votes - and recount them if necessary - should be another strong selling point, and the lower cost of the proposed process should close the deal.

Summing it up: "[W]e believe a special election would better serve the interests of the town as a whole."

I couldn't agree more.

On the Wind Turbine bond, the paper urges passage and has this to say:

This is the wave of the future, and the project would make the town a leader in Rhode Island in the environmental and alternative-energy arenas (a little ironic, if you consider the number of windmills that once graced local shorelines). Better yet, it would more than pay for itself, starting in the first year of operation.

Rounding out the trifecta, the editorial writers also support the Open Space bond:

Years ago, Portsmouth voters had the foresight to approve spending $3.6 million to purchase the Glen and preserve it from development; we hope they will have the same foresight now to protect more of its future.

You can read the whole thing at the Newport Daily News, or better yet, why not take this opportunity to subscribe? (Yes, they get a free plug. They have done a Really Nice Thing for folks here in Portsmouth. A big thank you to the whole editorial staff.)

Out of the Tent and into the Booth!

Portsmouth goes to the polls on November 6 for the most important off-year election in recent memory, voting on Charter change, Wind Energy, and Open Space bonds. This is our chance to convert the Tent Meeting into fair, all-day voting in a booth. We know that the PCC will be doing everything they can to get people to the polls, and we know they can turn out at least 1,300. We need to get 1,500+ people to the polls on November 6. Please, take the time to vote, and please talk with your friends and neighbors.

Here are links to coverage, info, and recommendations.

Charter Change — YES
Replaces Tent Meeting with a "real" all-day election with absentee ballots. Costs one-third of a Tent Meeting and preserves the voting rights of the elderly, disabled, and our men and women in uniform.
Charter change Web site »
Charter backgrounder in the ProJo »
Carcellars launch Charter Change Web site »
Projo: Portsmouth Dems endorse 3 ballot questions »
And what does Bob Dylan say? » (Thanks Chris!)

Wind Energy Bond — YES
Provides for up to $3M in bonds (2.6M interest-free) for a wind turbine that would generate electricity for the Middle School and produce $300,000/year in revenue for the town.
PEDC presentation »
Portsmouth Energy site»
Watch clip from PEDC presentation »

Open Space Bond — YES
Up to $4M in bonds/notes for open space purchases (saving town tax money on housing developments) and upgrades to the Glen.
Read more »
ProJo article on Glen Farm »
Sakonnet Times article on Glen Farm »
Portsmouth Economic Development Committee position statement »

JUST VOTE YES!

Got a link, or a suggestion? Contact me and I'll add it. Thanks!

Cut together some of Portsmouth Economic Development Committee member Gary Gump's explanation with the revenue chart to help make clear just how much money this will save the town.