Residents and environmental groups have questions and concerns about a proposal to build a biogas facility in Lyndon that would generate electricity through a technology new to the United States. They are asking the state’s energy regulators to slow the approval process down.
The technology, called high-temperature fast pyrolysis, involves heating organic woody material to temperatures higher than 800 degrees Celsius (about 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit) in a chamber without oxygen. Two products result from the process: biochar, which can be used to enhance agricultural soil, and biogas, which would be burned on site to create electricity.
The developer, Vermont Renewable Gas LLC, is looking to build the 8,000 square-foot facility on a 3-acre parcel of land in the St. Johnsbury-Lyndon Industrial Park, owned by the Northeastern Vermont Development Association. The company, which was established to create the project, is co-owned by Synergy Bioproducts and Clean Energy Technologies.
While other pyrolysis facilities exist around the country, this one would use higher temperatures to achieve a “cleaner fuel gas” and produce “a higher carbon content” in the biochar, said Evan Dell’Olio, a shareholder in Vermont Renewable Gas and a leader of the project, in an interview.
In this case, project developers plan to use a technology called selective catalytic reduction to reduce levels of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide in emissions from the plant.
Dell’Olio has pitched the project as a way to create a closed loop system in which local farmers contribute agricultural waste and material from the production of fiber, maple syrup or Christmas trees, and then use the biochar to enhance their soils and store carbon. At least 51% of the material would come from agriculture, according to the company’s application with the Public Utility Commission.
“The overarching principle of this project is environmental sustainability, climate action and integrating a business in the circular economy within Vermont’s long standing, working-lands-based economy,” he said.
Currently, concerns about the project are focused mostly on its permitting process within the Public Utility Commission, the independent, three-member panel that regulates the siting of energy projects in the state.
In August, Vermont Renewable Gas filed for a permit from the commission, the independent, three-member panel that regulates the siting of energy projects in the state. (It already holds an air quality permit from Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation, according to Dell’Olio.)
Because the facility is relatively small at 2.2 megawatts, it was eligible to be fast-tracked through the commission, which has resulted in fewer opportunities for public hearings and input. Public comments on the project are due on Oct. 7.
But community members and environmental organizations are advocating for a more extensive process due to the newness of the technology, so they can understand more about its potential impacts.
A petition organized by 350 Vermont, a climate advocacy organization, calls for the Public Utility Commission to expand the permitting process for the facility to include more public input and scrutiny from the commission. On Friday, it had more than 420 signatures, according to Vanessa Rule, co-director of 350 Vermont.
Attorneys with the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmentally-focused law firm based in New England with a chapter in Vermont, do not outright oppose the project, but “want more answers to the questions that we have,” said Adam Aguirre, an associate attorney with the firm.
For example, Aguirre wonders whether the facility would add a new market for wood in the area, which he worries could contribute to deforestation locally.
“In theory, the whole process is supposed to be more environmentally friendly than a strict biomass — like, we're not talking like a McNeil Station here,” Aguirre said. “It's supposed to be a better technology that doesn't really end up with a ton of emissions out into the air.”
Given its relatively small size, “the emissions may not be substantial,” he said, but he wonders whether the project’s approval could serve as an invitation to those who want to develop similar facilities in the area.
“If there's one facility, if this is successful, could they cite five or six more facilities in the nearby area, and what is that going to do to the forest?” he said. “We don’t have answers to those questions.”
Tim Sturm, a St. Johnsbury resident, lives two miles from the industrial park. He said he’s concerned about a daycare center near the facility’s proposed location where around 100 children attend each day.
“I'm just very concerned about the location of this facility,” he told VTDigger. “I'm also concerned about the technology itself, which is described as a new technology, and often described as a win-win proposition for everyone, and I just don't think it is.”
Dell’Olio noted the daycare center “is not located even within vantage point of the front of the property where the VRG facility will be located, or even within immediate proximity” and that trucks would not be passing it.
“Our team does welcome conversation, of course, with those at the daycare or others that may have questions,” he said.
Both Sturm and Greg MacDonald, a St. Johnsbury resident whose property overlooks the industrial park, noted that a distrust exists between some Northeast Kingdom residents and project developers, in part because of the EB-5 fraud case that played out in the area, and also because of the existence of other facilities, such as the Ryegate biomass plant and the state’s only operating landfill, owned by Casella Waste Systems.
“There's a climate justice issue here for me, also, in regards to the poorest part of the state, once again, getting dumped on,” MacDonald said.
Some have also expressed concerns about whether the project, which would be developed within Vermont’s Standard Offer program, could increase the price of electricity locally. Jonathan Elwell, manager of the Lyndon Electric Department, told VTDigger the project would not raise rates for its customers.
“There is a financial impact to our bottom line, but it's very minimal, and certainly would not cause a rate increase on its own,” he said.
Dell’Olio said his team has made an effort to engage members of the public and that “public opinion is important.”
While he noted there has been some misinformation in comments from the public about emissions from the plant, he said the commenters’ “right to an opinion, and conversation about that opinion, is valid.”
