Editor’s note: This commentary is by Paul Burns, who is the executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
[T]he news has been nearly all bad for Vermont Gas recently as the company fights for approval to build a massive new pipeline to carry fracked gas through Vermont, under Lake Champlain and over to International Paper in Ticonderoga, New York.
After months of sitting on information the company had about cost overruns, corporate officials ultimately disclosed that “Phase 1” of the project was already 40 percent over budget. That’s more than $35 million off the mark and they’ve just begun to turn over dirt on the project. The cost increase is so big that the Public Service Board has just announced it will essentially reconsider whether the project should be allowed to continue at all. In addition, “Phase 2” of the project, which has not been approved yet, is already 50 percent more expensive than original estimates.
The huge cost overruns are just one more indication that this fossil fuel boondoggle is not in the best interest of Vermonters. In fact, Vermonters have a clean, low-cost alternative to fracked gas that’s available right now. Residential customers who switch from oil to an air-source heat pump for their heating needs will see cost savings equal to or better than those who switch to fracked gas. And they won’t be on the hook for the mounting gas infrastructure costs or the environmental damage and climate pollution associated with fracked gas.
Speaking of harm to the climate, the Agency of Natural Resources’ own expert submitted testimony to the Public Service Board in June noting that it’s quite conceivable that a switch to gas at International Paper would increase climate pollution from the plant, rather than decrease it. Here’s how he put it: “If the switch to natural gas enables IP (via financial savings, operational efficiencies, etc.) to not only replace their existing No. 6 fuel oil consumption, but expand or ramp-up their operations, and thereby increase their overall consumption, then the project would result in additional GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions that may not have occurred otherwise.”
Even absent a ramp-up at IP, the state’s expert concluded that without more data from Vermont Gas about the sources and emissions characteristics of its gas suppliers, “there is no way to say with certainty what the actual emissions rates would be.” So much for the Vermont Gas claim that this project will benefit the climate.
VPIRG agrees with the protesters that the pipeline should be stopped … but we also believe that in taking the protest to Gilbert’s home, at night, the group responsible showed very poor judgment.
It had to hurt company officials in Vermont, and at the parent Gaz Metro corporation in Canada too, when several highly respected state legislators recently identified seven specific concerns they had with the project. Sens. Chris Bray and Claire Ayer, along with Rep. Willem Jewett, all of Addison County, sent a letter to Gov. Shumlin outlining their concerns.
Among the issues they raised was the compelling fact that Phase 2 of this project is designed to “deliver 99 percent of its product not to Vermonters, but to a single, private, out-of-state customer.” This raises important constitutional issues around the meaning of public use and public good. Under any reasonable definition of those terms, it’s difficult to imagine how Phase 2 of this plan, which has Vermonters suffering the burden and one out-of-state company (IP) getting nearly all of the benefit, could ever qualify for a certificate of public good.
Finally, Vermont Gas has also been roundly castigated by homeowners and state officials for the way it has tried to bully property owners in its path into signing easements that would allow the pipeline to cross their land.
Overall, not a good summer for those pinning their hopes on building the biggest fossil fuel infrastructure Vermont has seen in decades.
But while all of that is true, it doesn’t justify the recent nighttime protest at the home of Vermont Gas CEO Don Gilbert. To be clear, VPIRG agrees with the protesters that the pipeline should be stopped for the reasons outlined above. But we also believe that in taking the protest to Gilbert’s home, at night, the group responsible showed very poor judgment.
It’s undeniable that many Vermont property owners are afraid of losing their land by eminent domain in order to “host” fossil fuel infrastructure they don’t want and Vermont doesn’t need. We shouldn’t ignore alarming reports of Vermont Gas representatives or contractors violating no trespass orders and venturing onto private land without permission. But that still doesn’t give any group the right to “seize” Mr. Gilbert’s property or intimidate his family. From VPIRG’s perspective, it’s not the way we ought to make our case or fight for our cause. And ultimately, it’s not the way we’ll win.
