This commentary is by Catherine Bock and Jud Lawrie. She’s been a naturopathic physician for 35 years, is associated with 350Vermont.org, and is an intervenor in the Vermont Gas case. Lawrie is a professional in public transportation, a co-founder of Elders for Climate Justice and the current leader of the Climate Action Team at Third Act Vermont.
Vermont Gas Systems has submitted a proposal to the Public Utility Commission for a 14.5-year contract to buy “renewable natural gas” from the Seneca Meadows landfill near Waterloo, New York.
There are a number of reasons we think this proposal is not a good idea. Also, the PUC recently indicated it will approve the contract, which concerns us; we believe it should concern all Vermonters as well.
Our concerns are based on the following problems with the contract:
1. The Vermont Gas proposal markets its project as contributing to Vermont’s emission reduction goals, yet the evidentiary hearing showed there would be a minimal effect.
2. Very little of the purchased renewable natural gas will actually end up in Vermont. Most of the gas will be sold on the transportation market so Vermont Gas will get so-called “environmental attributes” for buying renewable natural gas. Customers will be paying more for gas that is still mostly the same fracked gas they used before, but it will be sold as renewable because it has environmental attributes attached.
3. The Vermont Gas proposal will not help meet the requirements of Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act, a climate-action accountability framework that creates a planning process and framework to ensure stepped, strategic and required action on climate change.
4. The Vermont Gas proposal will support the toxic Seneca Meadows Landfill. (According to New York Focus, Seneca Meadows is slated to stop accepting new trash in 2025, but the landfill’s operator is petitioning the state Department of Environmental Conservation to extend that date until as late as 2040 and expand the landfill by about 50 acres.) Do Vermonters want our energy needs to be met by polluting someone else’s neighborhood?
5. “Renewable natural gas” is expensive, so the proposal poses financial risk that could harm low or fixed-income Vermonters.
6. Vermont needs to transition away from burning fuel of any kind to filling our energy needs with truly renewable electricity. The Vermont Gas contract does not do that.
We suggest that Vermonters who are concerned about this case leave a comment on the ePUC site.
We are asking the PUC commissioners, Anthony Roisman, Margaret Cheney and Riley Allen, to reject this proposal.
