A full environmental review is needed before Vermont Gas Systems digs up wetlands and pollutes the air.

Federal law requires a full review for major projects – like pipelines – that will have significant environmental impacts. The Vermont Gas project should not be exempt from this requirement.

The proposed gas pipeline planned for Addison County would use publicly owned rights of way. Land acquired with federal tax dollars. When federal land is used for a major project, the environmental impacts need to be fully evaluated. That’s the law. And it only makes sense that before we allow our tax dollars to support major projects, we know what the environmental impacts are.

In a letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Conservation Law Foundation is calling on the Agency to undertake this needed review.

The significant wetland, water resource, habitat and air pollution impacts have already been noted in testimony filed with the Public Service Board. Vermont Gas plans to use a right of way that was acquired for the Circ Highway and has already been shown to have significant and valuable wetlands. A full and new review is needed for the gas pipeline.

Before we blindly commit to a pipeline that will have far-reaching impacts for generations, we need a thorough and transparent understanding of what is at stake.

Read CLF’s letter here.

A version of this article first appeared in the Sunday June 23 edition of the Rutland Herald /Times Argus.

Conflicting and confusing information is nothing new when it comes to climate change or big energy projects. The role of natural gas in meeting our energy needs is but the latest guest to this party.

Like most things in life, natural gas itself is neither all good nor all bad. True, natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel with fewer emissions than coal or oil. And currently natural gas prices are lower compared to oil. As a source for electricity, gas can be quickly brought on and off line and so fills a useful niche to balance intermittent renewable sources like solar and wind. But these benefits are only part of the equation.

Relatively clean-burning does not mean clean. 

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. It contributes to climate change in very significant ways. The main component of natural gas is methane, a greenhouse gas 25 to 75 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of its ability to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.

The real damage comes from natural gas leaks.

And they occur. When an average leak rate of 3 percent is taken into account for the full natural gas life cycle — from the time it leaves the ground to the time it burns in your furnace or range — it turns out that increasing the supply of natural gas significantly increases emissions. That is not good for our climate.

Lower cost comes at a high price.

Natural gas prices are now low partly because of abundant supplies from fracking, an extraction method that uses water, sand and chemicals to force gas out of the ground. Vermont banned fracking because of concerns about the impact to water and the environment. But this practice continues elsewhere, and supplies used in Vermont come from fracked sources.

In Vermont, a proposed expansion of natural gas will cut through valuable wetlands and farmland in Addison and Chittenden Counties. Future plans include putting a pipeline across Lake Champlain, a development that would increase greenhouse gas emissions by more than 3 million tons over the life of the project — the equivalent of adding a half-million cars to the road.

One of the biggest problems of increasing our reliance on natural gas is that the pipes we put in place now will still be here to deliver gas in 50 to 100 years. Yet in that timeframe we must solidly break our addiction to fossil fuels — including natural gas.

Regionally across New England, momentum is developing to expand or build new gas pipelines. But rushing to build bigger pipes is not the answer. We can do better than throw up our hands and blindly accept expensive and environmentally damaging new pipelines at a time when we should be moving away from fossil fuels. Recognizing the impacts and providing offsets for any expansions that do occur is a must.

The first step should be to repair leaks and honestly account for and address emissions. It makes no sense to build expensive, bigger pipes while customers needlessly pay for gas and pollution that escape into the air.

The next step is to use gas and all fossil fuels wisely. By dramatically increasing efficiency, most homes and businesses could cut use by 20 to 30 percent. That would significantly reduce the need for more supply.

Finally, let’s make sure any new project helps and doesn’t hurt our climate and environment. We should keep sensitive and valuable environmental resources off the table.

We should limit supplies from fracking, and require offsets to reduce overall emissions for any new pipeline so we don’t add to our climate problems.

Natural gas will play an important role in our energy supply over the next decade, but let’s make sure it is a role that leads to a cleaner and healthier planet.

Vermont is known for its thriving bucolic landscapes, but even in downtown Burlington many people have dirt beneath their fingernails. The Conservation Law Foundation has long supported agriculture in Vermont by helping farmers understand the legal landscape and find funding to grow their operations. More recently, CLF has been playing a significant role in urban agriculture advocacy and policy development in Boston, MA, fostering a resilient regional food system by addressing barriers to urban farming. Now, CLF is supporting the Burlington Food Council’s efforts to shape that city’s agriculture policy landscape through ordinances that will promote environmentally responsible urban agriculture and humane livestock husbandry.

Urban food production is burgeoning in Burlington, as residents aim to localize their diets and connect with the sources of their food. In recognition of this growing trend, the City Council created the Burlington Food Council’s Urban Agriculture Task Force in March 2011. After an 18-month stakeholder engagement process, the Task Force published a report last fall addressing opportunities and issues that arise as Queen City residents become increasingly passionate about growing food in their backyards. In late 2012, the City Council passed an Urban Agriculture Resolution, identifying priorities from the Task Force Report and directing relevant City departments to facilitate implementation of action steps.

CLF is proud to collaborate with the Burlington Food Council, which is “an open community group dedicated to creating and nurturing a healthy, equitable and sustainable food system for all members of the Burlington community.” You can learn more about the Burlington Food Council, read the Task Force Report, and find out how you can support the Food Council’s important work by visiting its web site.

As the City’s professional staff and volunteer boards start digging into the Task Force Report’s priorities, CLF is collaborating with the Burlington Food Council to support the City’s efforts by ensuring a clear and comprehensive framework for urban agriculture outreach, policy, and education. Drawing on its experience supporting the City’s effort to adopt a stormwater pollution control ordinance, CLF is providing the Burlington Food Council with strategic input and technical assistance as it participates in the city processes that will make the Task Force Report recommendations on-the-ground realities. For example, CLF and the Burlington Food Council are serving on the Board of Health’s working group that will devise draft ordinance language for humane, environmentally responsible animal husbandry and small-scale slaughter. This open stakeholder process aims to produce a draft ordinance that balances the concerns and aspirations of all city residents and that can win approval from the City Council and the Mayor.

The time is ripe for urban agriculture. By sowing the seeds of a sensible urban agriculture policy today, we are making our food system stronger, safer, more flexible, and more localized for tomorrow.

For a question as big, complicated and important as what role new imports of Canadian hydropower should play in New England’s energy future, it takes more than two lines in a press release to answer it. Indeed, we at CLF have been working on this issue for years. So, it’s worth explaining in a little more depth how a new initiative announced this week could help the region come up with a sound answer that serves the public interest. The “could” is crucial, because the initiative follows in the wake of a series of poorly conceived transmission (Northern Pass) and subsidy (Connecticut and Rhode Island energy legislation) proposals that ignored key questions and advanced narrow interests.

What we know: the major Canadian utilities want to sell more power into our markets and have been executing plans to build massive new hydropower facilities and to develop new transmission corridors into and through New England.

What we don’t know: are new large-scale hydropower imports the right move for New England? In particular:

• Will new imports supply cost-effective power to the region – i.e., with economic benefits that exceed impacts?
• Will new imports actually help reduce the region’s greenhouse gas emissions?
• Will new imports diminish the impetus for renewable energy projects that are based in New England?
• Will new imports displace the dirtiest power on the regional grid?
• Will new imports drive more and more development of costly and environmentally damaging hydropower projects in Canada?
• How many and what kind of new transmission projects do we need (if any), and are the community and environmental burdens and benefits of those projects shared equitably?
• What are the energy alternatives to new imports and are they a better solution to the region’s energy needs?

On Monday, five New England states announced that they would be initiating a process that could lead to a large procurement of Canadian hydropower. Almost all the details remain to be worked out, with the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) – an organization that represents the shared interests of New England state governments in electric energy policy – managing the effort. NESCOE also is implementing the New England states’ initiative to procure renewable energy from qualifying sources, to satisfy the goals of the states’ Renewable Portfolio Standard programs.

As I indicated in the press release on the initiative, CLF is optimistic that NESCOE’s procurement process could help New England define the right role for new hydropower imports. In fact, if done well, the procurement process could provide a version of the regional assessment and strategic plan for hydropower imports that CLF and others have been advocating for more than two years. What would “done well” mean?

• The process must include, up front, a sound, technical analysis of the region’s long-term need for new hydropower imports in the context of the many alternatives, including renewable energy, distributed generation, and energy efficiency efforts that exist here in New England.
• The process must be carefully structured to assure a level playing field that properly values the most intelligent strategies to meet the states’ climate and economic goals, with no special preferences for particular companies and no ratepayer-financed windfalls.
• The process must honestly, rigorously, and credibly analyze the potential climate benefits of new imports, in light of the unequivocal science that large-scale hydropower projects and especially new facilities result in significant greenhouse gas emissions and that most net reductions will likely be over the long term, not the short term.
• The process must fairly and equitably allocate properly-accounted greenhouse gas emissions impacts among the participating states, as states like Massachusetts and Connecticut look to make good on their legal obligations under their Global Warming Solutions Acts to reduce emissions.
• The process must acknowledge and avoid rewarding the considerable environmental damage associated with large-scale hydropower development in Canada, especially the additional dam projects that new imports may facilitate.
• The process must disavow the early, troubling signs that it could be used as a vehicle specifically to promote Northeast Utilities’ current, fatally flawed Northern Pass proposal through New Hampshire.
• The process needs to bring New Hampshire to the table, as a willing and empowered participant.
• The process must assure that new imports complement, not undermine, renewable energy development in New England, in order to assist in the beneficial development of wind and other renewable projects and to help the states in meeting their existing renewable energy goals and mandates.
• If new transmission solutions are needed, it is essential that the process ensure that developers pursue the lowest-impact technologies and routing options.

As I said, it’s complicated. But there’s a real opportunity to get it right, and CLF is committed to ensuring we make that happen.

photo courtesy of kara newhouse@flickr.com

Expanding natural gas in Vermont moves us in the wrong direction to address climate change. The expansion increases greenhouse gas emissions, compounding Vermont’s contribution to climate change.

In detailed testimony filed with the Vermont Public Service Board, Conservation Law Foundation explained that the simplistic evaluation by Vermont Gas that the expansion will reduce emissions is simply wrong. Testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Stanton shows on pages 18-19 that expanding natural gas increases emissions more than three million tons over 100 years and brings environmental costs of an additional $76,000,000.

This project is not a good deal for Vermont.

Dr. Elizabeth Stanton shows that the emissions from the full life-cycle of the project result in significant increases in global warming pollution. This project will be around for a long time as will its greenhouse gases. Dr. Stanton explains on pg 9:

“The natural gas life cycle is the set of all processes related to the use of natural gas from its extraction, processing, and distribution, to its end-use combustion. Life-cycle analyses are studies that determine the upstream and downstream consequences of a particular product or service used by consumers.”

Its overall emissions include leaks of methane, a gas 25 to 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change.

Testimony by Dr. Jon Erickson, Dean of the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont shows that expanding gas results in locking us in to fossil fuels at a time our climate and energy goals require moving the opposite direction. He states at pg 6:

“Any expansion of the delivery of natural gas to customers in Vermont has the potential to substitute for other nonrenewable, carbon-based fuels (such as fuel oil), but also has the potential to displace current and future uses of renewable energy (such as wood-based home heating or district heating).”

His testimony goes on to state at pg 8:

“Beyond GHG-related risk, the extraction of natural gas supplies is using increasingly environmentally damaging procedures such as hydro-fracking, a practice that Vermont has temporarily banned within State borders. Environmental regulation in other States and Canadian Provinces poses a risk to the long-term stability of natural gas supplies.”

Let’s be honest. Increasing our reliance on fossil fuels, including natural gas, is a bad move.

Photo from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

On June 4, Judge Reiss of the Federal District Court in Burlington, Vermont will take up the latest lawsuit from Vermont Yankee’s owners. Once again, Entergy, the owner and operator of Vermont’s tired old nuclear plant, is asking a federal court to give it a free pass.

Entergy wants to stop Vermont regulators from having any say over its operations.

This latest skirmish involves the building of a back-up diesel generator. Entergy claims the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the generator and that Vermont is getting in its way. It needs the Federal Court to stop any Vermont review of the proposal.

Hold on. Vermont’s regulators already issued a proposal that would approve the generator. The only deadline is one that is self-imposed by Entergy. The current schedule allows a final decision even before Entergy’s self-proclaimed “deadline.”

So what’s this really about? Entergy’s world view seems to suggest that the less oversight it has the better. But that’s not good for Vermont. The federal court should see through Entergy’s antics and allow the Vermont proceedings to continue.

You can read Entergy’s Complaint here and the State’s reply here.

Photo: DWeller88 @ flickr

It is important to build bridges, but we need to make sure they get us where we need to go.

The proposed expansion of the Vermont Gas pipeline may be more a minefield than a bridge, as one recent Vermont weekly  and one recent national energy blog reported.

The project will cut through valuable wetlands and farmland in Addison County. Future plans include crossing Lake Champlain, moving Vermont closer to gas supplies from fracking that is ongoing now in New York and Pennsylvania.

Proponents of the project, including Middlebury College and Vermont Gas advance an overly simplistic evaluation suggesting more natural gas is needed in Vermont because it is cheaper and cleaner than the oil and propane it will replace. Others suggest natural gas is a bridge to cleaner supplies that are in our future.

All bridges are not created equal. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. The proposed gas pipeline will be in place for fifty to a hundred years. In that timeframe we need to solidly break our addiction to fossil fuels – including natural gas.

So what part of the project is in place to make sure natural gas is actually a valuable bridge and not a new addiction? Nothing. And that is sad.

We can do better than throw up our hands and blindly accept expensive and environmentally damaging new pipelines at a time when we should be moving away from fossil fuels.

Here are some ideas to start moving Vermont in a cleaner direction when it comes to new pipelines:

1. Provide a more sophisticated evaluation that answers where this pipeline is taking us in fifty years.
2. Stop providing unqualified support. If this is a cleaner solution, make sure it lives up to its promise. Sensitive and valuable environmental resources should be off the table.
3. Meet climate goals by dramatically increasing efficiency, prohibiting supplies from fracking and limiting the use and lifespan of any new pipeline.

If we build bridges, let’s make sure they get us to a place we want to be.

Can the Vermont Public Service Board determine the meaning of its own orders? The answer would seem to be “Of Course!” But that is the question that Vermont Yankee’s owners are putting before the Vermont Supreme Court.

In two orders the Vermont Public Service Board issued a strong rebuke to Entergy.

The Board refused to amend its prior orders and confirmed that the conditions of Entergy’s permits remain intact. Those conditions include that Entergy will not operate Vermont Yankee past March 2012 without new approval from the Board.

Entergy brought this appeal to challenge those orders.

On Monday Conservation Law Foundation’s brief, filed jointly with New England Coalition and Vermont Public Interest Research Group challenged Entergy’s claims. Our brief noted:

Rather than comply with the conditions … and Board orders that were not appealed, Entergy instead seeks to ignore Vermont law and expand the application of this simple statute to sanction continued operation regardless of the current license requirements and prior commitments that were incorporated into the Board’s Order approving the sale of the plant to Entergy.

The State of Vermont also filed a brief opposing Entergy’s appeal.

It seems obvious that Entergy should be held to its commitments. We gave the Vermont Supreme Court some good arguments to encourage it to agree with us. Entergy will file a reply brief next month and a decision is expected within a year.

This article first appeared in the Sunday May 5 edition of the Rutland Herald /Times Argus.

For over a decade, Vermont’s hardworking cows and farmers have been keeping our lights on, curbing greenhouse gas emissions and helping local businesses grow. The renewable energy produced by cow manure in Vermont now powers 2,990 homes and businesses, including Killington Resort, Long Trail Brewing Company and Vermont Clothing Company.

The greenhouse gas emissions avoided by these projects is equivalent to taking over 9,000 cars off the road each year that would have burned 5.3 million gallons of gasoline.

There is no question — Vermont leads in advancing farm methane projects, and our production of this renewable energy continues to increase. It is a legacy to be proud of, and one that will soon be expanding.

The Cow Power program was started by Central Vermont Public Service in 2002 as a way to meet electric customers’ demand for renewable power. With the merger of CVPS with Green Mountain Power and recent approval from the Vermont Public Service Board, the program is now expanded and available to any customer of Green Mountain Power. That’s a good thing, since farm production of power has outpaced the in-state demand. It is time to close that gap.

The program could be replicated by other utilities or expanded to serve other customers. Perhaps someday it will be available statewide — but for now Cow Power is only available to GMP customers.

GMP customers can sign up for the program and make a voluntary 4 cent per kilowatt hour payment on all or a portion of their electric bill. All the proceeds go to Vermont farmers to produce electricity. And all GMP Cow Power purchases provide customers with 100 percent renewable power. It’s a small investment for a cleaner planet and a healthier future for our children and grandchildren.

Here’s how it works. Manure produced on a farm is put into a digester at the farm. The bacteria in the digester convert the waste into methane gas. The gas fuels an engine that runs an electric generator and creates electricity. Heat generated from this process is used to keep the digester warm. Remaining solids are processed for bedding or soil amendments — and the liquid, which still contains nutrients, is used for fertilizer.

The benefits of GMP Cow Power extend well beyond the supply of electricity. With the volatility of milk prices, the option to produce power provides real economic benefits to farmers in tough times. It also significantly reduces odors, making for happier farmers and neighbors. The gases and compounds that typically produce farm odors and contribute to climate change are captured to produce electricity. The gas keeps lights on — instead of creating a stink.

Vermont businesses have been as creative and hardworking as our farms in turning their use of GMP Cow Power into gold and rightfully expanding Vermont’s solid environmental reputation.

In Woodstock, the trolley that runs through town is operated on Cow Power and features creative posters informing riders about Cow Power and how it helps keep the planet clean.

The Vermont Clothing Company in St. Albans produces Cow Powered T-shirts, which it creatively sells in cardboard milk cartons that describe Cow Power. And as the sole supplier of T-shirts to the Deepak Chopra Foundation, the company enhances the foundation’s commitment to a cleaner and healthier planet.

Killington Resort, a business that depends on snowfall and avoiding a warming climate, is using GMP Cow Power to operate cow-painted gondola cars, while promoting the climate change benefits of Cow Power and its partnership with local dairy farms.

Here’s the real beauty of Cow Power: It’s a 100 percent local program, where 100 percent of the proceeds go to help you and your neighbors create a healthier planet for future generations everywhere. This is a success worth building on and expanding, now that it is available to all 250,000 GMP customers in Vermont.