This commentary is by Rachel Smolker of Hinesburg. She is co-director of Biofuelwatch and has worked on climate, land use and energy issues locally, nationally and internationally for two decades.
April 22 was Earth Day and we are in serious trouble: Winter is disappearing, the poles are melting, and it is already 85 degrees in Vermont.
What to do? Let’s not put a fracked gas company in charge of designing our climate policies!
Along with many others, I have been fighting the Vermont Gas Systems transmission pipeline through Vermont now for more than six years. At first it was because of the well-known climate impacts of methane and fracking. But along the way we uncovered a multitude of alarming problems with the way the pipeline was being constructed that raise serious questions about its integrity.
I have dear friends and acquaintances who live directly alongside this pipeline — in the blast zone.
Vermont Gas was required to obtain a permit from the state (a certificate of public good), which was granted by the Public Utility Commission on the basis that construction would meet a variety of stipulated safety and environmental protections and standards. That permit was violated on multiple counts, which I and my colleagues, with help of a lawyer, revealed after reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and observing and documenting what we were seeing with our own eyes.
Even the PUC’s own hearing officer agreed with us that there were multiple substantial violations, and recommended to the PUC board that Vermont Gas be required to apply for an amended permit (as required by law) along with paying various fines.
That amended permit process would have granted the public an opportunity to understand what the problems were/are and provided a chance to weigh in on how best to proceed with a pipeline that, for many people, lies quite close to home.
But last month the PUC, after so many years, issued a final order in the case, in which it sidelined any further public engagement, claiming that the amended permit be granted without further ado. Its reasoning? That nothing further could be gained from undertaking a new permit process.
What has the public brought to light for the PUC in this case? Among other serious problems with the pipeline construction, consider that Vermont Gas failed to engage a licensed engineer to review and sign off on construction plans. Doing so is required by law in Vermont and is meant to provide a sensible system for ensuring that someone with expertise is providing due diligence and oversight.
If you built an accessory dwelling in your home, you would need a licensed engineer to sign off on your wastewater system design. But Vermont Gas built an entire transmission pipeline carrying highly flammable/explosive fracked gas through the state, across public roadways, through parks, alongside homes and under streams, all without any such a review.
Meanwhile, during construction, inspectors repeatedly stated that they could not keep up, given the rush to get the pipe in the ground following a litany of delays and cost overruns. Will the pipeline leak, rupture or explode? If there is an incident that results in loss of property and even loss of life, will Vermont Gas be held responsible?
The PUC has decided there is no need for any further public hearings, no opportunity for people to even question whether such an amended permit should be granted at all under the circumstances. Not only did the PUC members render the public mute, they also rendered themselves irrelevant by sending a message that there is actually no need for companies like Vermont Gas to bother complying with the state’s regulations and requirements. Permits, shmermits! Why bother? A miniscule fine is part of the well-known “cost of business.”
Meanwhile, Vermont Gas is rebranding itself as a company in the business of renewable energy under new leadership with new signs on its vehicles hyping “renewable natural gas.” State legislators and the PUC are embracing this rebranding with open arms. What most people don’t realize is that Vermont Gas will never provide more than a few molecules of actual renewable natural gas to Vermonters. This Vermont Gas does not deny, even though it is not made obvious to customers.
Vermont Gas is promoting policies like the “Affordable Heat Act” — a policy proposal it essentially designed. The act is a baroque shell game wherein it would purchase “attributes” from promises of methane capture from facilities like the Seneca landfill in New York, or a wastewater treatment plant in Iowa. Actual “renewable” gas is not expected to make it to Vermont, but well-intentioned Vermonters will pay more for their plain old fracked gas under the assumption that they are doing something good. And they will pay, given the very high cost of renewable natural gas or attributes.
This shell game is a win-win for Vermont Gas, which gains PR about saving us from climate change and manages to salvage its otherwise stranded pipeline asset.
Unfortunately, many of our legislators and even environmental groups in the state appear willing to support whatever policies Vermont Gas advises.
Vermont Gas is in the business of selling gas. It is not a Vermont-owned mom-and-pop company but is owned largely by the major fracked gas multinationals based in Canada.
Do we really trust Vermont Gas to design and implement our climate policies, especially given its abominable mismanagement of the transmission pipeline construction?
