A state land-use regulator reaffirmed this week that if the Portland Pipe Line Corp. wants to pump oil from Alberta’s tar sands region through Vermont, the company needs a state permit.
Kirsten Sultan is the Act 250 coordinator for the Northeast Kingdom, and Act 250 is the state’s land-use law. In April, she issued a jurisdictional opinion that said Portland Pipe Line would need an Act 250 permit, if it wished to reverse the flow of its pipeline to pump this oil. The company then appealed, saying the decision was based on “misleading” and “incorrect” information.
Portland Pipe Line owns the Portland-Montreal pipeline, which runs through the northeast corner of Vermont and can connect Montreal oil refineries to Portland, Maine. Although the company is currently pumping oil from Portland to Montreal, its CEO, Larry Wilson, has expressed a strong interest in piping tar sands oil to Portland, although there are no contracts in place to do so.
Canada’s Enbridge Oil has applied to the Canadian National Energy Board to reverse the flow of oil along a stretch of pipeline between Ontario and Montreal. Enbridge wants to pump oil from Alberta tar sands to Montreal refineries, and this development has piqued Portland Pipe Line’s interest.
But the Portland Pipe Line isn’t the only one following this development. Sultan’s initial jurisdictional opinion was a response to a request by a coalition of environmental groups and residents in the Northeast Kingdom. The coalition sought to verify that if the Portland Pipe Line Corp. was prepared to pump tar sands oil along its Portland-Montreal pipeline, it must first receive the approval of an Act 250 land-use commission.
Sultan has now verified the group’s request twice.
“Act 250 provides important safeguards to protect Vermont’s clean water and clean air,” said Sandra Levine, senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. “This ruling assures Vermont’s resources and communities will be protected in the face of a proposal to move destructive tar sands through Vermont.”
Sultan concluded that the development would cause a “cognizable change” to the pipeline and that it would pose the threat of a “significant adverse impact” under Act 250 criteria. Those are two key indicators for triggering review by an Act 250 board.
Sultan also addressed the notion of federal preemption.
“Federal law does not wholly preempt a state’s regulation of pipelines,” she wrote. “A state retains general authority to regulate a pipeline’s environmental and land-use impacts.”
No one from Portland Pipe Line responded to a request for comment. The company has a 30-day window to respond to appeal the decision to the Natural Resources Board.
