Power boost? Not so fast
Diesel plant plan leaves many cold
Despite the developer's request that people approach the project with open minds, a low-sulfur diesel energy plant proposed for Chelsea continues to draw denunciations from residents and area politicians.
That was essentially the case last Thursday when the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office held a community meeting to hear comments from developer Energy Management Inc. and the general public about the proposed 260-megawatt plant that would be used during peak energy times. Written comments must be submitted to MEPA by Monday.
Energy Management project manager Matthew A. Palmer outlined in a PowerPoint presentation the months' worth of federal, state, and local permitting that the company (under the name Chelsea Energy, LLC for the project) was anticipating. He also stressed the regional need for a peak energy facility capable of starting up quickly. If built, the plant is estimated to net Chelsea at least $500,000 in annual property tax revenue.
In his presentation, Palmer addressed one of the main complaints by Chelsea residents and environmental activists that Energy Management, which is behind the Cape Wind proposal for Nantucket Sound, is proposing an oil-burning plant for Chelsea instead of wind turbines. He said a power plant is proposed for Chelsea because the Independent System Operator for the New England electric grid (ISO-NE) determined there is a need within the metropolitan Boston area for quick-starting facilities.
"We're asking the regulatory authorities to judge this project on its merits," Palmer said before a packed house in the Chelsea High School auditorium.
A decision on whether Energy Management would be required to perform further environmental impact studies is expected from Executive Office of Environmental Affairs secretary Ian Bowles on Jan. 29.
During his presentation, Palmer was heckled by residents questioning his contention that the plant would improve the area's air quality, as well as his failure to mention in the presentation that the plant would be located yards away from the Mary C. Burke Elementary School Complex.
State Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, who said fellow state representatives Kathi-Anne Reinstein and Robert DeLeo also opposed the project, noted that Chelsea is already overburdened with pollution from the Tobin Bridge, Route 16, the New England Produce Center, Logan Airport, oil spills, and the area's most active public bus routes.
Chelsea, he said, may be a dense, urban minority community, "but we don't lack political power or the ability for us to speak our minds." O'Flaherty did not question the area's need for a quick-starting energy facility, saying that Chelsea businesses and schools will also need that type of energy, but he added that MEPA officials should " consider that our community is already carrying its fair burden."
Saying that Chelsea, with its high asthma and cardiovascular disease rates, is "one of the sickest communities in the Commonwealth," state Senator Jarrett Barrios blasted the proposal and its claims of cleaner air.
According to Palmer, the Chelsea Peak Energy facility would result in reduced output from Everett's Mystic 7 plant and Salem's Harbor 4, which must run continuously because they're not quick-starting facilities. But Barrios said he called an ISO-NE representative, who told him that operation of the Everett and Salem plants was independent of the Chelsea proposal.
"They said it was possible that the Mystic 7 would shut down or that it could operate full time, which would not make the air cleaner, but worse," Barrios said. "The main point there was that there is no direct connection to this project."
In his presentation, Palmer said the existing plants operate about 100 hours a year, using fuel with a sulfur content of 10,000 parts per million, whereas Chelsea Peak Energy's fuel would emit a sulfur content of 15 parts per million. With the plant's state-of-the-art emissions controls, Palmer said that one hour of operation would be equivalent to one truck making a round trip past the school at 20 miles per hour.
"By simply being there, we'll be able to reduce the pollution," Palmer said.
Area communities already benefit from the salt pile and the oil farms in Chelsea, Barrios said before asking MEPA officials to reconsider having Chelsea house another environmentally burdensome facility for the benefit of the region.
City Council president Roseann Bongiovanni said there were "fallacies" in Energy Management's proposal, including that the facility meets the site's zoning requirement that any development there make use of the adjacent Chelsea River. The mere fact that Chelsea Peak Energy will get its oil through a pipeline from the neighboring Gulf Oil terminal doesn't cut it, she said.
Most speakers, mainly area residents, voiced opposition to the plant, citing health concerns and its proximity to the school, but some trade union leaders, as well as representatives from area businesses, applauded the proposal, saying it would be vital for their operations during the threat of brownouts or blackouts.
Katheleen Conti can be reached at kconti@globe.com 