Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jane Palmer, of Monkton, who is a business owner in Addison County. The Addison natural gas pipeline was slated to run through the middle of her and her husband’s farm before the design was changed.
[M]y husband Nate and I testified before the Public Service Board Proceedings Act 174 Working Group committee on Oct. 6 in Montpelier.
The Vermont Public Service Board website has this information about the working group:
Pursuant to Act 174, the Vermont Legislature has directed the formation of a working group to review the current processes for citizen participation in Vermont Public Service Board proceedings. The mission of the Act 174 Working Group is to make recommendations to promote increased ease of citizen participation in those proceedings. As part of this review, the Act 174 Working Group will prepare and submit written recommendations in December of 2016 to the House and Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy, the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Joint Energy Committee.
The Act 174 Working Group is comprised of the following members:
Senator Virginia Lyons, Working Group Chair, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy
Representative Tony Klein, House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy
Superior Court Judge Robert Mello
Commissioner Christopher Recchia, Vermont Department of Public Service
Board Member Margaret Cheney, Vermont Public Service Board
A video clip of our testimony and the questions and reactions from the group can be found here.
Our testimony relied on our experience over the last three and a half years with the Public Service Board and the Department of Public Service during the Section 248 proceedings in Docket 7970 regarding the gas pipeline Vermont Gas had proposed and is now attempting to finish construction on.
We understand the mission of this working group committee is to “to make recommendations to promote increased ease of citizen participation in those [Vermont Public Service Board] proceedings.”
Our first concern is that this working group does not include any members of the public. Instead, it includes a member of the PSB, the commissioner of the DPS, a senator, a representative, and a superior court judge. None of the above have experienced what it is like to attempt to navigate and argue for their cause before the PSB. Instead, a small handful of select members of the public were invited to speak for approximately five minutes (and answer questions for 15) about their experience and suggestions on how to make the process more “user friendly” for regular citizens. Omitting the subject of the mission from the committee makes no sense.
None of us had any delusions that we were going to be able to “negotiate” with that pistol sitting on the table. The outcome of any “negotiation” was already determined.
Our main criticism of the PSB 248 process is that it is apparent that decisions are already made before the PSB has a chance to weigh the evidence and release the order and the certificate of public good. Rep. Tony Klein made the statement that once a project is applied for, unless there are some extraordinary circumstances that can’t be met, the permit is going to be issued. This is in direct conflict to what Chairman James Volz of the PSB told us during the first technical hearing on Docket 7970 for the gas pipeline in September 2013. We asked Eileen Simollardes, vice president of Vermont Gas Systems, if she thought this project was a “done deal.” Under oath, she answered no. Then Volz vehemently stated this was NOT a done deal indicating there was a possibility the project would not receive a certificate of public good. Gov. Peter Shumlin had assured many Vermonters that the decision to permit the gas pipeline would be a fair decision.
On the other hand, the utility, Vermont Gas Systems, from the beginning, had always implied the certificate of public good would eventually be granted and that any landowner that didn’t sign an easement would be subject to condemnation or seizure of the easement using eminent domain once the certificate of public good was granted,and that if the PSB decided the compensation, it would be much much less than the gas company was offering. This is why we asked the question at the technical hearing. If we hadn’t been assured it was not a “done deal” by the chairman of the PSB, we probably wouldn’t have pursued our attempts to prove the project was NOT in the public good. Because we would have realized our efforts would be futile.
At the Oct. 6 meeting, Judge Robert Mello asked us if we approached the DPS for help in the process. Contacting the DPS was one of the first things we and many other landowners did. Commissioner Chris Recchia’s response was that the DPS is charged with representing the ratepayers. If the ratepayers were to be on the winning end of this transaction, we, the landowners would be on the losing end. Recchia and DPS counsel Louise Porter made several trips to Monkton to “deal” with the landowners and none of us ever felt support from the department. DPS sided with Vermont Gas every step of the way. The scenario was more like the description Nate used at the meeting on Oct. 6. The eminent domain “pistol” was placed on the table before any of the “negotiations” started and we were told the “pistol” would only be used as a last resort. None of us had any delusions that we were going to be able to “negotiate” with that pistol sitting on the table. The outcome of any “negotiation” was already determined.
At the Oct. 6 meeting, Recchia got pretty agitated at the suggestion that the DPS does the governor’s bidding (see video recording). It has been our observation that this is the case … and we have been told that by numerous people in state government including one in the DPS. The DPS has, on a number of occasions, even supported Vermont Gas in suppression of information available to the public. Recchia stated at the meeting on Oct. 6, “Of course we [DPS] have to take a position BEFORE the board decides!”
If the DPS takes a position before the board makes a decision, why do we need a PSB at all? If the parties that submit testimony are heavily weighted in FAVOR of a project, and the DPS spells out the policy decisions based on facts they have gathered to support their forgone conclusion and none from those that may have legitimate reasons to oppose the project, isn’t the board just a formality?
One of the goals we had as individuals against a large corporation was to illuminate the issues landowners are faced with during the siting and construction of a project. We were partially successful in convincing the PSB that the construction of a pipeline through our farm would damage our soil and change the flow of subsurface water. What was surprising to us, is that these acknowledgments did not translate to OTHER prime farmland that belonged to other landowners who had not intervened in the docket. This is deplorable. To avoid our soil only to damage our neighbors is not justifiable. We naively thought that once knowledge of the amount of destruction these type of projects produce, sensitive siting on other farmland would follow. Not the case. The Department of Agriculture was obviously in support of the project and ignored the detriment to the soil and water flow. This situation only discourages people from trying to influence the PSB decision because they seemingly have to start from zero in their attempts to protect their land.
So the prospect that any project will receive a certificate of public good regardless of what any private citizen does or says, indicates that it really doesn’t matter what kind of illusion of participation the public is granted or if it is made more “accessible” … it won’t make a lick of difference in the end unless the process is just and fair and the decisions are not based on policy.
There was a “public hearing” on Oct. 11 where members of the public were allowed two minutes to testify about their opinions about the subject. Public hearings are not generally well advertised, but in the past, those who felt it important that the public weigh in were diligent in getting the word out in order to bolster attendance. Those individuals are no longer of the mind that any public comment will have any effect on the decisions of our government so I would be surprised to hear it if the hearing was well attended by the public.
