LETTER TO THE EDITOR

List of failures continues to grow

Posted 4/1/21

To the Editor:

If Mr. Murray and his clients are so concerned about alleged interconnection misinformation ["Solar project has undergone extensive review," March 25], then they should welcome a …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

List of failures continues to grow

Posted

To the Editor:

If Mr. Murray and his clients are so concerned about alleged interconnection misinformation ["Solar project has undergone extensive review," March 25], then they should welcome a public hearing with National Grid’s experts to clear the air. Contrary to his letter, residents have not heard from National Grid experts only Mr. Murray representing his clients’ interests at the public meetings. He tells us the project is “routine,” so what’s the worry? Drive down Hope, Lippitt, and Laten Knight and see for yourself. He assures us that the proposal has been reviewed by numerous city committees and departments yet they were responsible for the Laten Knight Road tree debacle that ended up in the Attorney General’s office. The residents of western Cranston need to hear from National Grid’s experts. We’ve heard more than enough from Revity Energy’s spokesman.

After what his clients did to our neighborhood and failed to disclose, excuse me for not trusting his word or his clients’. Their list of failures continues to grow. A recently discovered letter from Revity Energy to the Connecticut Siting Council dated 2020 July 6 contains their answers to questions raised by the Council [Petition No. 1401]. “Which criteria does Revity Energy, LLC (Revity or Petitioner) consider in its site selection process? Explain.” The witness, Ryan Palumbo, responded: “Key attributes for site selection include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Cleared land

b) Disturbed earth such as gravel pits and sand operations

c) Earth quality (lack of ledge)

d) Locations that efficiently located for Interconnection

e) Consistent topography (preferably gradual inclines from north to south)

f) Isolation from residential areas

The Natick Ave solar proposal violates every single criteria on the list. It is a heavily wooded area sloping to wetlands with substantial ledge that may require blasting in the middle of a residential area and is over three miles from the substation. Did Revity Energy forget their own siting criteria or just decide that it wasn’t relevant to Cranston because … ? If solar developers can’t meet their own siting criteria, then why should communities approve their construction?

Douglas Doe

Cranston

Comments

No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here