A battle to get more clean energy into New England’s electric grid is underway. Here’s what you need to know.

Jan Ellen Spiegel

IN January 2020, Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection — speaking to environmental advocates attending the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters annual environmental summit — leveled this broadside at the independent system operator that runs the six-state New England electricity grid and the federal authorities that govern it:

“Because of the lack of leadership on carbon at the ISO-New England, we are at the mercy of a regional capacity market that’s driving investment in more natural gas and fossil fuel power plants that we don’t want and that we don’t need,” she said. “This is forcing us to take a serious look at the costs and benefits of participating in the ISO-New England markets.”

It was widely misunderstood.

“People interpreted that as physically leaving the grid,” Dykes said a year later. “Ratepayers have gotten a lot of benefits of more reliable and affordable power by participating in a regional grid.”

What she had been talking about was a market paradigm the ISO uses to purchase power for the grid. Not much more than a year later, she is still talking about it. And with nothing short of evangelical zeal and little deference to a potentially paralyzing pandemic, Dykes has commandeered the other five New England states, the ISO, system stakeholders and more than a little national interest into a bona fide effort to figure out how to increase renewable power, decrease the use of fossil fuels and lower costs — or at least not let them go through the roof — and keep everyone on civil terms with each other.

“Our goal has been to ensure that we have an electricity supply that is meeting our carbon goals, that’s affordable and that’s reliable,” she said.

And that, she has also said repeatedly, means the grid needs to change.

A blueprint called the New England Energy Vision was unveiled in October, signed by all six states through the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE), which represents the six New England governors’ electricity interests. The Energy Vision launched a series of online public forums featuring experts on the key areas the states felt needed overhaul: the wholesale market, transmission and governance. A fourth on equity and environmental justice was added later. The forums have generated a blizzard of documents, presentations, studies, comments and more — all laden with an alphabet soup of acronyms.

While success is not guaranteed, the effort is now bolstered by a new administration in Washington that is already making ambitious moves to deal with climate change including appointing new leadership at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the ISO-NE and other grid operators.

Looking broadly at the issues that are driving what Dykes considers New England’s key problems is high up on FERC’s agenda. In March, FERC began a series of technical meetings on topics that include the market structures Dykes is complaining about.

The recent power crisis in Texas has provided extra heft by illuminating potential hazards for a grid that does not operate properly.

ISO 101

The ISO for New England, which is actually a non-profit RTO – a Regional Transmission Organization – has three main functions today: operating the transmission portion of the grid, running the wholesale markets that supply power for the grid, and doing the long-term planning for both.

The ISO-NE did not have all of those functions when it came into existence as part of deregulation in the late 1990s. Over its first 10 years, the ISO evolved from a regional power operator into one that also ran competitive wholesale electric markets and the regional transmission system — those tall power lines, not the ones that come to your house.

But it wasn’t until 2008 that it began operating what’s called the Forward Capacity Market (FCM). It’s the mechanism the ISO uses to purchase future energy resources three years in advance. It was envisioned to give the ISO the security that power will be there and to provide a commitment to potential new power sources so they can get financed and built, though not all are.

Up until 2008, states were deciding what future power they wanted, and the focus was still mostly on supporting a classic centralized grid, which has big so-called baseload power plants and long power lines crisscrossing the region. How clean the power was, from the standpoint of standard pollutants, as well as cost were the big considerations, so the push was to convert from coal and oil to natural gas.

And that was the thrust of the capacity market rules the ISO put in place for the auctions it uses to select that future power. Those rules are the crux of the dissatisfaction expressed by Dykes and others.

“We’ve been arguing about capacity market for over a decade,” Dykes said. “Connecticut was reluctant from the outset.”

The initial reluctance has exploded into full anger that the system favors greenhouse gas-emitting natural gas generation, ignores state policies and overall societal goals for clean and renewable energy to help curb climate change, and makes it next to impossible for clean energy facilities to be chosen. Dykes has been relentless in her complaint that as a result of the auction rules, ratepayers wind up paying more than they should.

In Connecticut, the ISO’s rules could make it difficult for the state to meet its greenhouse gas emissions goals and Gov. Ned Lamont’s executive order to have a 100% clean electric grid by 2040. And it makes the clean energy the state has already approved for development even more expensive.

The proposed Killingly natural gas plant has become the poster child for the failures of the existing system. The ISO has approved it through the FCM, while those concerned about climate change — including Gov. Lamont — say it’s the wrong choice and unnecessary.

Within the auction rules the ISO put in place is something called a Minimum Offer Price Rule. MOPR sets the lowest price that a resource can offer as its cost — that mainly being the amount it needs to recoup what it cost to build.

The auction is something of a reverse auction in which the lowest price wins — meaning it’s chosen by the ISO for use three years in the future. The point of the MOPR is to keep certain generators from undercutting others and manipulating the market price. The MOPR is specifically targeted at facilities that have state-sponsored contracts and other sorts of subsidies. Mostly those sponsored resources are clean and renewable energy. And that means they COULD offer cheaper power — but can’t, because of the MOPR.

Since newly built resources are mainly covering their capital costs, ones that receive subsidies and other incentives are already able to cover some of those costs. Dykes — along with a whole lot of other folks in other states even outside the ISO-NE — believe the clean resources should only have to offer a price accounting for the non-covered portion of their costs. That means they could offer a lower price and have a better chance of clearing the auction and beating out fossil fuel resources, since clean energy, while coming down in cost, still tends to be more expensive than natural gas.

Dykes and others say the ISO is over-estimating costs of clean power. And the draft Integrated Resources Plan released by her office late last year stated: “ISO-NE’s MOPR has gone well beyond its market-protection purposes.”

Indeed, the ISO has approved natural gas plants Connecticut doesn’t want and rejected the clean energy the state has already agreed to purchase. Ratepayers in Connecticut will wind up paying for both. And there’ll be an over-capacity to boot.

“Ratepayers should not have to pay twice,” Dykes said — her often-stated complaint. “We don’t want to build a whole bunch of new renewables and then find that the grid operator is extending or expanding reliance on fossil fuels.”

But she said MOPR is just one thing — the whole paradigm of clean energy, reliability and a 21st century grid needs comprehensive reform.

“We have this one-size-fits-all capacity market, but we’re not actually thinking about what does reliability look like in 2025 or 2030,” said Francis Pullaro, executive director of RENEW Northeast, an advocacy group uniting renewable energy and environmental advocates. “It’s not just having steel in the ground — we need certain types of steel in the ground.”

But there’s another player in the MOPR problem — the FERC.

Changes at the FERC

The FERC has to approve many of the processes the various ISOs have, including the forward capacity market. And the ISO-NE isn’t the only grid that uses a MOPR-style rule in its capacity auction. New York, a one-state grid, does. So does the huge PJM Interconnection that covers the mid-Atlantic all the way into Illinois — 13 states plus the District of Columbia.

During the Trump administration, in late 2019, the FERC ruled that PJM’s capacity market auction MOPR had to include the full cost of clean energy projects, even if some of the cost is already subsidized. While it didn’t directly order this for other ISOs/RTOs, it was widely seen as a shot across the bow and that all the ISOs would have to do it.

“It really set everybody back a number of years,” said Rob Gramlich, a one-time adviser to former FERC chair Pat Wood. Gramlich is now an energy consultant at Grid Strategies, the company he founded and runs. “It simply makes no sense, and they need to quit doing it.”

Bruce Ho, senior advocate in the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, added his voice to the chorus. “A very simple, straightforward fix would be to stop doing that,” he said.

The elimination of the MOPR is not a solution in itself, said Eric Johnson, the ISO-NE’s director of external affairs.

“It certainly would address the challenge some of the states have identified for bringing clean energy resources into the capacity market,” he said. ”But if we just eliminate the MOPR without finding a way to provide adequate revenue for the other resources that you need to balance renewable and clean energy, it’s not really a full solution.”

The ISO-NE has generally argued that power like natural gas needs to be available to backstop sources that may not be available all the time, like solar, or might be available in lower amounts, like wind

But is ending the MOPR a necessary first step toward getting more clean energy on to the grid?

“That’s a great question,” Johnson said without directly answering. He pointed out that the MOPR was a directive of the FERC, so the ISO can’t just eliminate it. He also said changing the capacity market rules would have to be a whole package, more than a step one followed by a step two. “We’re operating a system; we’re not operating just renewables.”

In written comments to the FERC in advance of that March 23 technical meeting on the capacity market situation, the ISO-NE seemed to be trying to have it both ways.

“While we believe that capacity markets are still the right vehicles for ensuring resource adequacy, they must evolve,” the comments said, indicating that “energy adequacy” should replace “resource adequacy,” to indicate the variability of some types of resources and newer means, such as energy efficiency or rooftop residential solar could lower energy needs.

The comments indicated the MOPR did need examination, though elimination must “be consistent with the maintenance of reliability.” In other words, it can’t jeopardize grid operations. And then went on: “Without taking additional action, the elimination of the MOPR creates risk for investors in unsponsored resources” — such as natural gas.

The FERC could very well push the ISO faster than anticipated to get rid of the MOPR and make other reforms to enhance clean energy. The change of administration from Trump to Biden is already signaling a changes in thinking on MOPR. At the March 23 session, the commissioners — including Republicans who supported MOPR in the past — indicated they’d be willing to reconsider it.

The FERC has five commissioners — no more than three from any single political party. Three are presently Republicans, but one of those positions expires in June, and Biden more than likely will fill it with a Democrat. On the day after his inauguration, Biden named one of the Democratic members as chair. And the new chair — Richard Glick — has relentlessly objected to MOPR.

He’s called arguments that MOPR protects the competitiveness of the capacity market “just plain garbage,” which he also called a “charitable” description.

And he’s said that the FERC was purposefully “making it very difficult for state-preferred resources to [be selected] in the capacity market.”

Pretty much what Dykes has said.

The FERC may well deal with MOPR, but Dykes has no intention of waiting around.

Replacement ideas

A few ideas for reforming the capacity market have bubbled to the top in the Energy Vision process. The idea with the most traction right now is the concept of a forward clean energy market, FCEM. While there’s no existing model, it would essentially be a clean energy-only market.

It’s been suggested by several groups in the past and resurfaced in Energy Vision comments from RENEW and a coalition of environmental advocates. The ISO is acknowledging it and plans a study, contracting with an outside consultant for a report due later this year. The report will also look at the ISO’s longstanding preference for a carbon charge as a solution, essentially paying to pollute as a way to incentivize lowering emissions, even though states have pointed out for just as long that a carbon charge is likely politically untenable.

Other ideas include returning capacity responsibilities to the states, instead of leaving them in the hands of the ISO, essentially subdividing the market to share the decisions between the ISO and the states, or even delegating it to the retail energy providers.

Over the last 15 years, the states gradually relinquished to ISO-NE all responsibility, control and authority over how much generation gets built, what kind and where, said Mike Hogan, a one-time generation developer who is now a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project, a group assisting the transition to clean energy.

He said the ISO had done a pretty good job maintaining system reliability, noting that the last “Texas-sized grid failure” here was the 2003 failure in the northeast. “New England managed to stop it at their border, pretty much,” he said.

But regarding the balancing act between state policies on clean energy and the ISOs, he said: “I don’t see any way out of it other than for the states to take back, in some form or fashion, responsibility for and authority over how the grid achieves resource adequacy. There’s no reason why responsibility for resource adequacy has to be centralized with ISO New England,” he said.

Casey Roberts, a senior attorney with the Sierra Club, said her organization is advocating for the states to be the primary decision makers. “The ISO and FERC would play sort of a backstop role,” she said. “That’s kind of how it was initially before the capacity market came in.”

But Caitlin Marquis, a director at Advanced Energy Economy, a trade association for the clean energy industry, worried. “Are you getting six different tiny markets?” she asked. “It’s a big responsibility for the states to take back what they did used to have, but it’s not something they’ve been responsible for, for a while.”

Some have broached the thorny issue of reforming the concept of cost when comparing generation types — particularly clean versus fossil fuel energy. The ISO’s marching orders are to provide technology and fuel-neutral power that’s reliable, at least cost.

One idea for re-defining cost might be something akin to a social cost of carbon calculation the federal government uses. Instead of the basic view of cost that exists now, a new definition of cost would also monetize attributes such as health benefits of energy sources and contributions towards addressing climate change, as well as considering fuel availability. Natural gas has struggled with availability in the winter when gas is sometimes diverted for heating. It was also one of the issues in the Texas crisis.

“That’s a big question,” said Dykes about changing the definition of “cost,” and left it at that.

“That’s a good question,” said Ellen Foley, another spokesperson at the ISO, who defined the question but offered no answer. She said the federal, state and environmental objectives are not quite aligned. “How do we get to a wholesale market that will price those attributes in?” she asked.

Ho at NRDC said it’s not that the ISO should get rid of the goal of getting reliable power at the lowest cost. “I think the problem is the perspective they have on ‘least cost’ is too narrow. It’s not counting enough things. They’re missing some costs and benefits in the electricity system that haven’t historically been within their calculations,” Ho said — namely, climate change and its nexus with electricity generation. “What’s needed is a new paradigm in thinking. How do we provide not energy markets that procure how the market used to work in the past, but more markets that look at how do we provide the service of affordable, reliable electricity that’s also clean?” he said.

An ISO effort a few years ago to get more clean energy into the system by essentially replacing a retiring resource with equivalent clean energy is largely described as a failure. Out of 800 megawatts of offshore wind Massachusetts has planned for its Vineyard Wind project, only 54 megawatts cleared the capacity auction through substitution. The rest has not.

As frustrating as the capacity market problems have been, it’s not the only grid issue that prompted Dykes to take action.

Millstone and more

The Millstone Nuclear Power Station issue involves a payment negotiated with Connecticut in 2019 that secured a 10-year guarantee that the plant — which provides about 20% of the region’s power, all of it carbon-free — would continue to operate. Connecticut has had to pick up the entire cost of that. No help from the ISO; no help from other states.

But when the Mystic Generating Station near Boston threatened to close, the ISO stepped in and got a deal to keep the plant open until 2022, now pushed to 2024. But instead of Massachusetts footing the bill, each state in the grid had to pick up part of that cost. In Connecticut’s case, it was about 25%.

“We’re now paying an outsized share here in Connecticut for the failures of that capacity market to produce investment in resources needed to keep the grid reliable,” said Dykes, indicating she repeatedly asked the ISO to apply the Mystic solution to Millstone.

There are also concerns over the ISO’s closed-door governance practices — no press and little state representation at most meetings. And there are concerns about transmission capabilities, the ISO’s original and core mission.

A recommendation from Energy Vision is to look longer term at transmission systems — 10 years into the future, instead of five, as it is now. The ISO has proposed what it calls a 2050 transmission study. “One of first things we need is for states to identify what resources they want us to build into the system 2030 to 2050 — so mainly offshore wind,” said the ISO’s Johnson.

And then they have to figure out how to pay for it. But according to Johnson, climate change will not be an explicit variable in the study, though he said it informs planning broadly.

Transmission planning also raises questions such as: What kind of flexibility will a 2050 or even a 2030 grid need so that variable power like offshore wind or intermittent power like solar can become primary sources? How would the grid of the future handle electric vehicle charging needs or the power those vehicles can put back in the grid? How would it accommodate storage, energy efficiency and other non-centralized sources like rooftop solar and move them around as needed? How will it handle the challenges of climate change?

“What is changing is that it’s no longer enough to just pile up a certain number of megawatts of capacity,” said RAP’s Hogan. “It matters what kind of megawatts they are.”

About 95% of resources currently proposed for the region are grid-scale wind, solar, and battery projects. As of January 2020, about 20,100 MW have been proposed in the ISO Generator Interconnection Queue.

And even those critical of how the ISO has handled some things acknowledge an ISO may be more important than ever as technologies and needs grow more complex.

“The grid itself is one of the most miraculous inventions of mankind from an engineering perspective,” Dykes said. “The ISO has the best engineers, system planners who manage this complex and delicate system.”

But she said: “Reliability is in the same breath as decarbonization. They have to be prioritized together.”

She’s not as totally sold as others on how reliable the grid has been, and there have been some hair-raising near-misses in recent years.

The ISO’s own Operational Fuel-Security Analysis in 2018 depicted multiple dire scenarios requiring rolling blackouts due to insufficient natural gas supplies in winter. All the more reason Dykes and others say the ISO should end a system that favors natural gas. They also point out that the price for gas tends to be highly variable, while renewable prices are more stable.

Winter cold snaps in 2013, 2014 and 2015 severely tested grid reliability as gas supplies were diverted for heat and in 2014 pushed gas prices to 10 times their normal levels.

Wildfires in Canada in July 2013 shut down transmission lines from Hydro-Quebec to both the New England and New York grids, cutting off that source of power. Lucky timing due to the July 4th weekend spared both grids catastrophic problems. Peak demand on the grid still occurs in summer — the 10 highest demand days on record are all in summer. While efficiency and things like rooftop solar have kept energy use flat, summers are getting warmer due to climate change.

On a 90+ degree day in August 2016 — the hottest summer in 122 years — a lightning strike took one Millstone plant offline at a time several other plants were not available. Power that normally cost $40 per megawatt hour spiked near $2,700 per megawatt hour on the spot market the ISO was forced to use.

Maine contractors fear labor agreement will shut them out of offshore wind work

Tux Turkel

Maine’s largest construction contractors say they fear being shut out of work in the state’s nascent offshore wind industry because of a pending labor agreement between the lead project developer and trade unions.

At issue is an agreement being negotiated between New England Aqua Ventus and the Maine Building and Construction Trades Council on the role of skilled labor in building a demonstration floating offshore wind turbine near Monhegan Island. That arrangement, called a project labor agreement, would set terms and conditions for employing workers from trade unions on the project. But more broadly, it could set a precedent for work and hiring rules for hundreds of future jobs that clean-energy advocates hope will emerge in offshore wind.

The union collaboration was announced earlier this month at a news conference, and it caught leaders of some of the state’s top construction firms off guard. One of them was Peter Vigue, chairman of The Cianbro Companies.

Cianbro is an employee-owned firm and Maine’s largest contractor, with 4,000 workers. Like an estimated 90 percent of the general contracting companies in Maine, Cianbro’s workers aren’t members of organized labor unions. They work in a so-called “open shop.”

“The pending labor agreement will preclude all open-shop contractors from involvement with the project,” Vigue said. “That would be very unfortunate.”

Cianbro has been at the vanguard of Maine’s offshore wind aspirations. It built a one-eighth-scale prototype of the Monhegan turbine platform, a University of Maine-patented design that was tested off Castine in 2013. The company has been positioning itself to be a major player – and employer – in the evolving ocean wind power industry.

“I’ve invested over 10 years in this project, but that’s irrelevant,” Vigue said. “It’s not about me. It has everything to do with our state.”

But Vigue’s concerns may be overblown, according to Chris Wissemann, the chief executive of New England Aqua Ventus. Wissemann said project labor agreements, or PLAs, are individually negotiated and can be tailored to accommodate a range of work considerations. The final language of the PLA in question is still several months away, he said.

“We’re frankly just finding our way to figure out the best way to build it,” Wissemann said about the project. “And that helps us figure out who can build it. Our intention is to have a really well-thought-out PLA. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing.”

CLIMATE VS. LABOR CONDITIONS

Confusion over the impact of PLAs isn’t limited to offshore wind. A bill meant to elevate the pay and benefits of workers on big renewable energy projects is currently being debated in the Legislature. It contains language that seeks to reward developers that enter into such labor agreements.

Vigue and other construction interests, including the Associated General Contractors of Maine, testified against the bill at a recent public hearing. The bill’s lead sponsor, however, said an amended version should ease their concerns.

The bigger issue, said Rep. Scott Cuddy, D-Winterport, is how to fulfill the dual promise of a clean-energy economy: fighting climate change impacts while creating well-paying jobs.

Project labor agreements aren’t uncommon on large construction projects, notably in places where organized labor is influential. They are widely used in Europe and are familiar to the global wind power firms now setting up shop in the United States. They have become a cornerstone of the emerging ocean wind industry on the East Coast and are being negotiated from Virginia to Massachusetts.

Policymakers and politicians see them as a tool to encourage diversity and minority hiring in a growing sector. For unions, they create long-term demand for their members. Developers count on partnerships with unions to set up training programs that can provide a reliable supply of skilled workers. That helps close the so-called labor gap, Wissemann said, on big infrastructure projects that take years to complete.

“We reached out to the trades,” Wissemann said about seeking a PLA. “We didn’t expect anything other than that.”

Wissemann was the former managing director of Deepwater Wind, which built the 30-megawatt Block Island wind farm off Rhode Island in 2016. The project, now owned by Danish wind developer Orsted, was built largely with organized labor through a PLA. Wissemann said he expects the Block Island agreement to serve as a template for the Monhegan project.

Aqua Ventus is a joint venture between a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp., Diamond Offshore Wind, and German energy giant RWE Renewables. It’s currently developing the $100 million project 14 miles off the coast. The Monhegan project will consist of a single, semi-submersible concrete platform supporting a full-scale, 11-megawatt wind turbine. It would send power to the electric grid via an undersea cable, enough to meet the annual needs of more than 5,000 homes.

The demonstration project is expected to kick off more than $125 million in total economic activity, according to the developer, along with hundreds of Maine-based jobs. Construction is slated for 2022 and 2023.

Beyond that, the administration of Gov. Janet Mills is seeking to create the nation’s first floating offshore wind farm dedicated to research. The project could include as many as a dozen turbines floating 20 to 40 miles offshore in the Gulf of Maine.

Taken together, the two projects could employ several hundred workers for at least a couple of years, Wissemann said. The floating concrete base of each turbine platform will weigh roughly 10,000 tons and be fabricated on land. They will require teams of carpenters to build the forms, iron workers to install thousands of reinforcing bars, engineers to operate massive cranes and electricians to handle the power cables.

Union wages for those trades range from $50,000 to $80,000 a year, Wissemann estimated.

REQUIREMENTS VS. INCENTIVES

But how that work gets done and by whom is still being decided, Wissemann said. A PLA could be developed that creates a division of labor for various elements of the project, he suggested, and leaves room for open-shop companies to participate.

That doesn’t make sense to Jackson Parker, chief executive and chairman of Reed & Reed, a nonunion general contractor in Woolwich that specializes in wind energy. The employee-owned company has a wind power services division that helped build most of Maine’s land-based wind farms.

But Parker said he doesn’t understand how some workers could agree to rules, pay and benefits that are different from those at their own company. In his view, a PLA would force the company’s employee owners to join unions in order to participate in offshore wind projects.

The broader application of PLAs on large renewable energy projects is now under scrutiny in the Legislature.

A union electrician, Cuddy said he sponsored L.D. 1231 so the men and women who will be building the surging number of solar and other renewable projects can benefit appropriately. The bill  specifically mentions “disadvantaged communities” and Mainers not well represented in construction, such as people of color.

Cuddy’s bill calls for using registered apprenticeship programs to build a workforce in the trades. The recently amended version drops a requirement for PLAs on big projects. Instead, it specifies that a developer who signs one will receive “a beneficial consideration” by the Maine Public Utilities Commission during a procurement process in which the agency ranks and selects new projects for power contracts.

In testimony at the public hearing, Cuddy stressed that any contractor could bid on a PLA.

“Every contractor who bids knows the terms before the bid and has to agree to live up to them,” Cuddy said. “But PLAs do not limit participation to union contractors or unionized employees.”

Despite that intention, the bill was widely panned by Maine contractors. Besides Vigue and Parker, opponents included representatives from the Associated Builders and Contractors of Maine, Sargent Corp. and Maine Drilling & Blasting.

Cuddy said he was “blown away” by the claims those critics made around the PLA provision.

“It’s the same opposition you hear any time you try to improve the lives of people who actually perform the work,” he said.

The bill has yet to have a work session scheduled before the committee that handles labor issues.

Whatever happens with the Aqua Ventus labor agreement and L.D. 1231, a third document may influence who works on offshore wind.

In 2019, the PUC approved a long-term contract for the Aqua Ventus project to sell power to Central Maine Power Co. The 45-page contract has many specific provisions that must be met, including those contained in a section titled “Economic Benefits to Maine.”

Throughout this section, the power seller commits to using “Maine-based entities” during various stages of the project, including development, construction, operations and maintenance. During construction, for instance, the seller must use “commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that all or substantially all, but in no event less than 50 percent of contract expenditures for the project’s construction period activities, be performed by Maine-based entities that create and/or retain jobs in Maine.”

Wissemann said Aqua Ventus intends to honor the economic benefits provisions in the power contract, but that details need to be worked out.

“The core issue for me, regardless of what the power purchase agreement says, is we need to build this with labor from Maine,” he said. “It can’t be labor brought in from other states. It has to create local jobs, or we won’t go on to project No. 2.”

Will Biden fund a high speed train from Boston to NYC? Northeast lawmakers are lobbying

Emilie Munson

WASHINGTON — On Thursday, U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro, Richard Neal, and other New England lawmakers had a call with an urban planner who’s pitching a high-speed train to carry people from Boston to New York City in 100 minutes or less.

The call is one of many conversations happening now among members of the Northeast Congressional delegation about securing high-speed rail for the New England region through President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill and a transportation funding package that is also expected to pass this year.

“We’re going to fight for it,” said U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “We’re going to be fighting first for the American Jobs Plan and second for the investment in the Northeast that is necessary for high speed rail.”

DeLauro, D-3, said her staff was actively working with groups that advocate for more rail investment for the Northeast Corridor “to ensure these federal dollars make it to Connecticut and fund high-speed rail projects across New England.”

“Together, we can build the architecture for our nation’s future while at the same time creating millions of good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced,” she said.

Asked whether Biden intends for his infrastructure package to fund high-speed rail projects like the one proposed for New England, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the White House and Transportation Department are considering how it could be done.

“Certainly high-speed rail is part of an option of investment,” Psaki said Friday. “The president is a big fan of Amtrak and railways himself. But we have to work through with Congress what the different mechanisms are for funding. Where would we fund the projects? Are they through states? Are they through different grants? So that’s part of the discussion and the nitty-gritty negotiation happening in the coming weeks.”

In the eyes of New England’s rail champions, Biden’s huge infrastructure spending plans are an unrivaled opportunity to fund a massive train project that would transform the region.

“We can put a ton of money into 1950s highways, and maybe we'll get some electric vehicles so you can be traveling around in a brand spanking new electric car with an added lane to Route 93 and you'll still be stuck in traffic. Or you could be zipping across Massachusetts and zipping across the entire region at 250 mph in a high speed train,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who sits on the House Transportation Committee, in a recent WBUR interview. “That's what we're really gunning for in this proposal."

But lawmakers from every region are lining up lobbying efforts to snag cash for their preferred projects — including pitches for other high speed rail projects.

Prodding the conversation in the Northeast is a group of urban and transportation design experts, civic and business leaders that has coalesced around one vision they’re calling the North Atlantic Rail initiative.

Their plan is for a high-speed rail line carrying trains moving 200 mph from New York City up Long Island, through a tunnel under the Sound to New Haven and then north to Hartford before tacking east to Providence and then Boston. Travel from Boston to New York City on this train would be two hours faster than the quickest train Amtrak now operates, they say.

They also propose a host of other rail improvements — like upgrades to the existing New Haven line to New York — and new rail expansions — like service from Boston to Springfield, Mass. and Pittsfield, Mass. to Danbury.

The whole thing would take 20 years and $105 billion to accomplish, the project’s advocates say. And they’re seeking authorization for a new federal-state partnership to run it all: the North Atlantic Rail Corporation.

“We are putting our economy and our cities at a competitive disadvantage by not having a network like we propose,” said Robert Yaro, an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former leader of the Regional Plan Association in Manhattan. Yaro is a big name in infrastructure: he assisted President Barack Obama with rail initiatives tied to the 2009 stimulus, worked on the Tappan Zee bridge and helped lay the vision for Hudson Yards.

Since Biden took office, Yaro’s North Atlantic Rail initiative has been presented to the U.S. Department of Transportation and many lawmakers and their staffs.

“Our work right now is focused on building as strong and united a coalition as possible in these seven states — New York and the six New England states — to push this vision forward,” said Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, who co-chairs the initiative. “This region has more than 10 percent of the country’s population, 14 percent of GDP, the highest train ridership in the country and an enormous opportunity to connect dozens of mid-size cities that have been left behind economically over the past 50 years to two of the biggest metro-areas in the country.”

Biden — or “Amtrak Joe” as he’s been nicknamed for his own frequent train ridership — already has at least some awareness of the proposal. Yaro, who has been working on this effort since 2007, described discussing his rail vision with Biden on at least two previous occasions.

In Sept. 2010, Yaro and his Penn students presented their high-speed rail plan to Biden in the White House Roosevelt Room. Biden pounded his fist on the table and said “Damn it. I’ve been waiting 30 years for this,” by Yaro’s retelling.

But some New England lawmakers are not embracing the full North Atlantic Rail vision, although they love the idea of high speed rail.

“I am not saying we are adopting hook, line and sinker what is the North Atlantic Rail Initiative, but they’ve got a lot of really good ideas that a lot of members care about,” said Rep. Jim Himes, D-4. “So we are pushing that both with the White House and obviously at the end of the day — this is a bill that gets written in Congress — so with each other.”

Some hold objections to North Atlantic Rail’s boldest idea: a 16-mile tunnel under Long Island Sound that would carry a high-speed train from New Haven to Long Island.

“I spent a lot of years and time as attorney general opposing projects that threaten the environmental integrity of Long Island Sound and this one seems to raise a lot of questions,” Blumenthal said. “I approach it with initial skeptcism, but I’ve heard very few details.”

Multiple lawmakers said they’d prefer to make improvements of expansions to the New Haven Line so that a high-speed train might run there. Yaro and Bronin said that is simply not possible because that corridor is “highly constrained,” “narrow” and “winding” and one high-speed train would yank two to three Metro-North trains out of the schedule. They set newest tunnel digging technology would allow the tunnel to be located deep underground where it would not impact the ocean floor or the wildlife of Long Island Sound.

Blumenthal also raised objections to creating a new rail corporation to do the work.

Yaro said that was needed because Amtrak “has got their hands full.” Amtrak announced it would make numerous improvements and service expansions — some in New England and some to new markets across the country — with the $80 billion Biden allocated for it in the American Jobs Plan.

DeLauro, D-3, called recent meetings with Yaro “informative” and said she appreciated North Atlantic Rail’s desire to “go big.”

U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1, said he shares “the goals of North Atlantic Rail,” but the congressman is not committing to the details of the plan yet.

“This is an exciting vision for our region’s future,” he said. “I’m committed to improving rail connection between New Haven and Springfield, finishing the Hartford line and connecting it to Worcester, and connecting western Massachusetts to Boston with Hartford as a hub.”

Numerous other countries from Japan to Kazakhstan have high-speed trains under construction or already operating. In the U.S. there is only one such project underway: a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. That project is facing funding woes and backers are almost certain to be reaching to Biden’s infrastructure bill for aid.

Proponents of high speed rail in New England will have to compete with this and other projects proposed in Texas, Las Vegas and elsewhere for the major investment needed to kick start it. At least down payment for New England high speed rail and the necessary authorization could come from the American Jobs Plans, lawmakers and advocates hope.

Republicans have opposed Biden’s $2.3 trillion proposal as too costly and too expansive in its definition of infrastructure. They say it’s a terrible idea to fund the work through a corporate tax increase. They countered with their own smaller proposal of $568 billion to invest in roads, bridges, rail, ports, water systems and broadband.

When Biden announces part two of plan — big expansions of the social safety net, likely paid for by more tax increases on the wealthy — as soon as next week, Republican opposition is likely to grow.

Although Biden has reached out a hand to work together with Republicans, it means Democrats are likely to again use a legislative procedure that allows them to pass their vision without Republican votes.

People like Yaro are confident Amtrak Joe will get the legislation over the finish line, so they’re sprinting to ensure their project will too.

“I’ve been in this business for 50 years and this is the best opportunity we’ve had for 50 years,” Yaro said. “We’re running to catch this one if we can.”

Hamden deal includes construction jobs for residents and tax break for developer

Meghan Friedmann

HAMDEN — A vacant plot near Lake Whitney soon could be home to an apartment building with retail space in a deal that gives the developer a tax break while also setting workforce requirements aimed to promote diversity and ensure Hamden residents get construction jobs.

The proposed building would sit on Mather Street near Dixwell Avenue, behind Autozone Auto Parts. A $5.3 million investment, it would offer 30 upper-level apartments and four first-floor retail spaces, a letter from Mayor Curt Balzano Leng to the council indicates.

Stamford-based construction company USHS President Chris Downey said he hopes the project will be completed in a year-and-a-half.

Under the agreement, Curtis Eatman, the town’s director of economic development, said, Hamden would phase in the site’s post-development tax increase over six years. USHS is expected to save roughly $255,000 in tax payments overall, according to a memo from Eatman’s department that was attached to a meeting agenda.

Afterward, development could bring in roughly $142,000 in additional taxes, per the memo. Eatman stressed all numbers were preliminary and based on the town’s current tax rate.

The Legislative Council recently approved the agreement, and USHS LLC, was to sign off Friday, according to Eatman, .

As a result of a proposal from Councilwoman Dominique Baez, the town also is requiring the developer “provide evidence of best efforts” to give at least 10 percent of its on-site construction hours to Hamden residents, 6.9 percent to women and 17 percent to men of color, according to the contract language.

USHS also should draw 10 percent of its construction services from Hamden businesses, and 6.25 percent from Minority or Women-owned Business Enterprises, the contract says.

The goals are similar to those the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities uses for public projects, according to Baez.

“I believe that giving back these dollars to Hamden residents directly in their pockets helps the economic development of our town,” she said. “This is something I feel very passionate about … so I’m glad that we’re able to write it in this agreement here.”

While the diversity goals were included in the contract that went to the Legislative Council, Baez said she got an added provision passed that will help the town enforce those standards by requiring the site owner to provide evidence to the Economic Development Commission on a monthly basis.

“Said evidence shall include but not be limited to certified payroll records and other such information as the Commission deems necessary,” the language, provided by Baez, says. “Should Proposed Owner fail to abide by the provisions of this section, tDowney, the USHS president, said he also hopes to bring in Hamden residents to work in the retail spaces after the construction is complete. Rather than rent out the space, the company is considering using it to open its own businesses, he said.

Six of the apartments, which the economic development memo indicates will include 18 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom units, will meet state affordable housing requirements, according to Downey.

The plan has cleared the Planning & Zoning Commission, Downey said, noting that it previously was proposed by a developer who gave up the project.

Downey said his firm’s offer was contingent on the tax abatement. A bank currently owns the land, according to Eatman, who said the transfer would be worked out privately.

USHS still would have to obtain a series of permits before moving forward, he said.

Eatman, whose appointment as economic development director was approved officially by the council last week, expressed excitement about the project, which he said will turn a vacant spot currently collecting trash into a space with job, living and shopping opportunities.

“Projects like this bring ... vibrancy to the community, excitement to the community,” he said. “We love mixed-use developments, particularly (in) the southern part of the town.”

his Agreement shall be declared null and void.”

Cromwell officials delay vote on $1.8 million on capital projects, including Town Hall roof

Jeff Mill

CROMWELL - The Board of Finance has put off action on a $1.8 million request for a range of capital projects, including a new roof for much of Town Hall.

It did so as it awaits clarification of the ways in which impending federal stimulus funds can be used, as well as the level of tax payments, and the outcome of the vote on the proposed town budget, board Chairman Julius C. Neto said Friday.

Even as it delayed action on the other requests, however, the board approved a $130,000 allocation for a new backhoe for the Highway Department.

The board acted after Director of Public Works Louis J. Spina said the existing 1989 backhoe is no longer usable.

The town has rented a backhoe, at a weekly cost of $1,500, Spina said.

Now that he has been permission to replace the backhoe, Spina said it could be 60-90 days before the new piece of equipment arrives.

The finance department has to cut a purchase order before he can place the order, Spina said, adding that he expects the purchase order “to be ready after the weekend.”

If the capital projects list is proved next month, Spina said he is “confident the roof repair project can be completed in this construction season.”

The finance board postponed action until its May 27 meeting.

The remaining items include $1.005 million for replacement of the roof that covers the Town Hall atrium and gymnasium, the Senior Center, and the Cromwell Belden Public Library.

Also included on the list is a $332,000 allocation to replace a retaining wall on Main Street, $260,000 for the replacement of the family and consumer science kitchen at the high school, and $50,00 for a mason dump truck.

Officials are particularly intent about installing a new roof over the library, which reopened last year following a $3.2 million renovation.

Board member Edwin Maley Jr. led the effort to postpone action on the list.

Maley has long been a critic of the process that has been used to fund the capital non-recurring account.

“Why don’t we wait until we have more information” about using the American Relief Package funds, he asked.

For his part, Neto said, “I feel very comfortable with the explanation that was presented to us by (Director of Finance Marianne Sylvester),” adding “The Fund Balance is in good shape.”

Sylvester said any additional delays could upset the timeframe for several of the projects, pointing out that a roof repair project is not something that can be carried out in winter.

Town Manager Anthony J. Salvatore said Friday, “We’re pretty confident of several areas in which we can use the APP funds.”

He said he was not put off by the delay called for by the finance board, acknowledging, “It could provide us with a better financial picture of the town.”

But if delays were to stretch out beyond 30 days, “that would cut into the construction season,” Salvatore said.

Brookfield’s new senior living facility expected to open this fall

Currie Engel

BROOKFIELD — Construction on the town’s newest senior living facility is expected to be completed by Oct. 1.

The new 51,170-square-foot, three-story facility, located at 291 Federal Road, will be the town’s second senior living facility and is expected to have 136 beds. Of those, 26 beds will be in a memory care unit for residents with Alzheimer’s and dementia. There will also be 69 parking spaces on site, called Brookfield Senior Living.

The Village at Brookfield Common, the town’s other assisted living facility, is located a half mile down the road.

“There is need for additional senior housing where people who want to move out of houses— don’t want to do lawns and gutters and things like that— and still want to stay in their community,” First Selectman Steve Dunn said.

Sales offices will be open a few months prior to the opening of the new facility, he said.

Building plans show project costs estimated around $21.1 million. Developer Columbia Pacific Advisors, based out of Washington state, is building the new facility.

The first floor of the facility will include a lobby, large dining room, private dining area, living room, craft/exercise area, and a “wellness” room, according to architectural plans filed. The second floor will have its own living room, salon, cafe, card and activities rooms, lounge and media room, as well as a separate dining area.

A sample menu from another Columbia Pacific Advisors facility in Lake Worth, Fla., filed with other town document suggests residents might be able to enjoy dishes like: croissant club, chilled shrimp, fresh salmon and “The Chef’s Daily Special.” Site plans show capacity to serve 136 meals— enough for all the beds— three times a day.

During a Board of Finance meeting Wednesday, officials discussed the impact of the new facility on the town’s emergency medical services, with Dunn noting that it’s arrival could result in about 3.4 EMS calls per week, increasing the town’s total calls by about 180 a year. Dunn said those numbers were just estimates for now.

But senior living centers have been known to have an impact on the town’s emergency medical services in the past.

Fire Chief Andrew Ellis said that when The Village at Brookfield Common arrived, calls increased significantly, causing the town to pivot from a fully volunteer ambulance corp to the blended career and volunteer paramedic team they now have.

“It was just way too busy for us,” Ellis said.

Ellis also expects an increase of about 200 calls annually once Brookfield Senior Living is up and running.

A proposal for the new facility was first raised in 2018 and approved in 2019. The increase in calls to fire and police were also a concern at that time.

Still, Dunn feels confident the town will be able to handle the increase in calls.

Since beginning construction in the fall of 2020, the site has faced problems with the state related to contractor misclassifications of out-of-state workers as independent contractors who were then not paid overtime. Construction has since continued and the stop work order did not delay the projected Oct. 1 completion date, said Fran Lollie, a Brookfield zoning enforcement officer.

“I think they’re prepared and ready to help people wherever they are in that process of aging,” Dunn said. “And that’s a good thing because people don’t like moving.”

Costco breaks ground for South Windsor store

Olivia Regen JI

Construction has begun on a new 163,404 square-foot Costco wholesale retail store in South Windsor's Buckland Road Gateway development area.

State Sen. M. Saud Anwar (D-South Windsor) said Costco would become an anchor store for the entire region.

Anwar added that Costco is already known for its $16 per hour salaries, which is well above the $12 minimum wage.

The store will be located at 1220 Tamarack Ave., neighboring a group of medical buildings and offices, west of LA Fitness and Evergreen Way and north of a senior living facility. The Costco store was first proposed for the Evergreen Walk area, also known as the Buckland Road Gateway development zone, in 2017.

Mayor Andrew Paterna praised the project.

“It has taken a lot of work and effort by the people, the Town Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Inland Wetlands Commission,” he said. “This has been such a team effort.”

Paterna said that Costco treats its employees fairly, and that he was excited to welcome them to South Windsor.

The PZC approved the site plan for the store on Nov. 10, 2020.