Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portsmouth planning board issues favorable advisory opinion on South Coast Wind onshore transmission route
Summary
The Planning Board voted to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board that the Portsmouth onshore portion (underground transmission lines) of South Coast Wind is consistent with elements 8, 11 and 12 of the town comprehensive plan; public commenters raised health and neighborhood concerns.
The Portsmouth Planning Board on Nov. 20 voted to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) that the onshore portion of the South Coast Wind project — primarily two miles of underground transmission cable through Portsmouth roads and under the Montauk Country Club beach access — is consistent with the town’s comprehensive community plan elements on renewable energy, resiliency and land use.
Attorney Michael Mineau, representing South Coast Wind, said the board’s task was limited to determining comprehensive‑plan consistency for the onshore portion and that the project’s larger offshore components and permitting fall under other authorities. “This is a very limited task before the Board tonight... merely to determine and render an advisory opinion as to whether or not the land use associated with the Portsmouth portion of the project is consistent with the town’s comprehensive community plan,” he told the board.
Kelsey Perry (External Affairs Manager) said the project would use horizontal directional drilling to place export cables under roads and the shoreline, that there would be no above‑ground substation or other visible infrastructure in Portsmouth, and that a host community agreement exists to provide funding for town resiliency projects over 30 years. Engineering lead Kelly Smith described onshore construction methods and said target burial depth for the onshore cables would be a minimum three feet of cover.
During public comment, resident Karen Gleason expressed concern about voltage levels and long‑term health effects of high‑voltage transmission near residential streets and asked whether the board’s advisory opinion could be delayed until more information is available. The applicant responded that the board’s review is limited to comp‑plan consistency and that the broader permitting schedule and other forums would address construction timing, noise variances, and technical safety studies. Mineau and Perry also said the EFSB preliminary order imposed a tight advisory‑opinion schedule requiring local reviews within a four‑month window.
A board member moved that the board find the onshore portion consistent with comp‑plan elements 8, 11 and 12; Kathleen seconded and the motion carried.
