Over the past few weeks, there was a flurry of construction along South Main Street where workers dug a trough and buried a natural gas distribution line leading to the College’s service building to provide the campus with a new source of energy. This is the local extension of Vermont Gas’s highly contentious Addison Rutland Natural Gas Project — a 41-mile service extension south from the Burlington area to Middlebury that, despite growing controversy in the state, is now partially in the ground and will soon be operational.
Back in March 2011, the College wrote a public letter of support for the pipeline project along with many other businesses in the area hoping to diversify their energy options and support economic development in the state. These letters, in combination with testimony from the community and many of Vermont’s agencies and departments, were presented to the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB).
In Dec. 2013, the PSB granted a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to phase one of the project, finding that natural gas’s lower cost and cleaner emissions would be benefit the state economically while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions. The project will also create opportunities for biomethane development.
The PSB decision in favor of the pipeline authorized Vermont Gas to establish lease agreements with Vermonters whose land would be affected by the proposed path of the pipeline. Many of these landowners, however, refused to accept Vermont Gas’s offers.
“Landowners objected for a number of reasons,” said Isaac Baker ’14.5, an Environmental Studies major who wrote his senior thesis on the pipeline. “Some felt that they were being bullied into signing a lease they weren’t happy with, some wanted a lawyer present but couldn’t afford one and many environmentalists objected to the idea of investing in fossil fuel infrastructure on principle.
As opposition grew along the path of the pipeline, signs reading “Stop the Fracked Gas Pipeline” began popping up along the roadside throughout Addison County. In 2012, the state banned hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” the extraction process used in Canada to supply much of the energy in Vermont Gas’s pipeline. The towns of Cornwall, Shoreham and Monkton all passed non-binding resolutions against the pipeline, while Vergennes and Middlebury, which will receive more distribution, voted in favor of the pipeline.
At the College, a student group led by Cailey Cron ’13.5 and Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15.5 gathered over 1,000 signatures in a week with their online petition, encouraging the College to revoke its support of the pipeline. Many professors simultaneously signed letters prompting the Administration to reconsider its position.
On May 6, 2014, President Ronald D. Liebowitz wrote an all-school email indicating that the Administration had noted the community’s concerns, particularly around fracking, but remained unchanged in its support for the pipeline.
“Ultimately, we believe the pipeline will contribute to the economic welfare of the region,” wrote Liebowitz, “and that it would be unacceptable for us to stand in the way of real and measurable progress toward goals broadly shared in our community.”
Beyond these broader economic goals, the College also supports the pipeline project because it is tied to the 2016 carbon neutrality goal.
“The gas pipeline will provide a means of storage and conveyance of renewable natural gas that will be produced by a manure digester at the Goodrich Farm in Salisbury, Vt.,” Director of Sustainability Jack Byrne explained in an email. “The College has contracted with the developer of the digester to purchase enough of the gas generated by the digester to eliminate the purchase of 640,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil.”
The College explored other ways of bringing the renewable natural gas to campus, but found that connecting to the Vermont Gas pipeline would significantly reduce costs. The renewable natural gas from the farm will enter the pipeline in Shoreham, and the College will withdraw an equivalent amount at the Service Building, depending on its heating needs on any given day.
“Using the pipeline,” wrote Byrne, “made the digester project economically feasible because the alternative of building a storage system for the gas on campus was not affordable.”
According to Vermont Gas’s website, the College will receive natural gas service by the end of 2014. Over the summer, the College spent $1.7 million to convert its boilers to be able to burn natural gas in the central heating plant. The construction on South Main Street over the past few weeks connects the College with other large, industrial energy users in the area and awaits connection with the main high-pressure line coming south from the Burlington area.
The main pipeline construction north of Middlebury has so far not gone according to plan. Many landowners along the path of the pipeline have continued to refuse to sign Vermont Gas’s leases, which caused the company to threaten to take the land via eminent domain this past summer.
“The power imbalance between Vermont Gas and an individual Vermonter is completely unacceptable,” said Baker. “It is David versus Goliath every time a Vermont Gas lawyer knocks on a door and asks a Vermonter to sign a lease without legal counsel.”
Rising Tide Vermont, a direct action group focused on opposing fossil fuel expansion in the state, is planning a protest in Montpelier on Monday, Oct. 27 with 350 Vermont and the Vermont Workers Center. A small group of students associated with Sunday Night Group, the campus’s environmental organizing student group, are planning to join Vermonters for a mass-protest and sit-in at the state’s capital, calling for the state to reject the pipeline.
“I think the pipeline is the wrong decision for Vermont, and the College is taking the easy way out by using fossil fuel infrastructure to achieve our carbon neutrality goals,” said Baker. “Biomethane is a great energy choice, but not if it means supporting a company like Vermont Gas, which has repeatedly shown its preference for profit over people throughout the review process. I will be at the protest on Monday.”
Other students, however remain undecided. Campus Sustainability Coordinator (CSC) president Teddy Kuo ’15 expressed concern with the environmental impacts associated with fracking, but noted the significant benefits of the pipeline as well.
“It’s hard to determine the benefits of the pipeline,” said Kuo, “because of personal perspectives and what people think creates more benefit, such as a cleaner environment or a more affordable energy source.”
Ultimately, Baker and Kuo each individually expressed a preference for renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, while acknowledging the clear economic benefits of natural gas.
“There’s no denying that natural gas is cheap and will help local businesses in the short term,” said Baker. “But the problem is bigger than that. This pipeline is a 50 to 100 year investment in fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when we are already feeling the negative impacts of climate change. If we can’t bring ourselves to care about the Canadian communities that energy companies are fracking, we should at least consider the long term pricing for natural gas and make efforts to limit our carbon emissions with real investments in renewable fuel sources.”
