[V]ermont’s lone natural gas utility has announced that it is halting plans to expand service to Bristol.
In a letter to the state’s Public Utility Commission in December, Eileen Simollardes, Vermont Gas Systems’ vice president of regulatory affairs, states that the utility has “paused its permitting efforts” due to a pending lawsuit.
“Whether permitting efforts resume will depend on several factors including the legal and permitting challenges surrounding the Bristol expansion,” she wrote.
Vermont Gas sought approval from the town earlier this year to connect Bristol residents to the natural gas pipeline that runs from Colchester to Middlebury. A proposed spur would run along Route 116 into Bristol, with offshoot distribution lines along downtown streets. The company needs to obtain permits from the town and go through Act 250 review for the expansion.
A group of 37 Bristol residents sued the selectboard and Vermont Gas last summer for not holding a town vote, or providing public notice of residents’ right to petition for a vote, before signing a license agreement.
The opponents’ attorney, James Dumont, said the issue is whether “a right given to a gas company in perpetuity” to install and maintain gas lines in the town right of way is subject to a Vermont law that requires municipalities to provide notice of proposed property transfers — and of residents’ right to petition for a town vote on the matter.
The statute in question, 24 V.S.A. § 1061, has not previously been tested in court, he added.
Dumont said that he was “not surprised to see that letter” from Vermont Gas because he had recently searched for an Act 250 permit application for the project and had not found one.
Whether the gas company will apply for an Act 250 permit for the Bristol expansion depends on the outcome of the lawsuit, said Beth Parent, communications manager for Vermont Gas.
“We’ve been very excited to move into the town of Bristol, but we ran into some challenges,” she said in an interview Wednesday.
Both Vermont Gas and the town have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.
The town and selectboard members do not agree with Dumont’s interpretation of the municipal real estate transfer statute, said Valerie Capels, town administrator.
Kevin Brown, attorney for the town and selectboard, wrote in a motion to dismiss that the agreement between the town and Vermont Gas did not in itself grant any rights to construct in the town right of way. The company still has to apply for permits from the town to build the gas distribution lines, he said.
Vermont Gas also argues that the lawsuit should be thrown out because gaining permission to use the right of way does not constitute a transfer of real estate interest.
Dumont disagreed and has called the agreement a “risk.”
“An agreement such as this exposes the public to enormous risk,” he writes, citing the danger posed by natural gas explosions if pipes are damaged.
Sally Burrell, a Bristol resident and plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she was happy to see that Vermont Gas was putting a pause on the Bristol expansion. She feels the town should hold a vote on whether or not to allow the utility to build the gas distribution lines.
“I just think it’s bad timing to be putting in a pipeline,” she said in an interview Wednesday. “And I hope Vermont Gas respects many of the people in Bristol who believe that and don’t come here.”
Vermont Gas is also dealing with an ongoing Public Utility Commission investigation into the pipeline’s construction after Dumont alleged that the process did not comply with state guidelines, and that the pipeline poses safety risks. Both Dumont and the state’s Department of Public Service recently asked the state’s Public Utility Commission to expand the investigation.
Dumont said in a filing with the PUC that Vermont Gas did not obtain the signature of a professional engineer on its construction plans for the pipeline, and alleges that by failing to do so, the utility broke state law.
Vermont Gas opposes the expansion of the investigation, saying in a PUC filing that the investigation already requires “a review of all construction related documents.” The utility’s attorney Debra Bouffard wrote that Vermont Gas was not aware of a provision required a stamp and seal by a professional engineer.
