|
|
|
Understanding the Proposed Billion Dollar Natural Gas Project For Southwestern Vermont
|
|
The push to bring natural gas into Vermont must be viewed in the context of what is happening throughout the world regarding energy policy. Natural gas is being embraced as the potential savior of the planet. Replacing supposedly dirtier-burning fossil fuels -- coal and oil -- with the relatively cleaner-burning fossil fuel -- natural gas -- is the present strategy of governments worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow global warming. The business of natural gas exploration, drilling, extraction, processing, distribution, and power plant construction is booming.This project will make large profits for its investors. In fact, natural gas is just as dirty and destructive as oil, it is neither benign nor abundant, and switching from oil to gas will not slow climate change. Natural gas is 80 to 95% methane. Methane is a global warming gas 20 times worse than CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Because natural gas combustion emits less CO2 than either coal or oil, its advocates argue that it can mitigate global warming if used as a replacement fuel for transportation and electrical generation. However, most studies suggest that there is a 3% leakage rate from natural gas systems and extraction. At that rate, there will be no net benefit in terms of global warming to be gained by switching to natural gas. Natural gas reserves are 36 to 55 years depending on whose estimate you believe. There is less than a decade of proven natural gas reserves in the United States. Most of the natural gas for this Vermont project would be imported from the Gulf Coast, Canada and from increasingly remote and environmentally sensitive areas. Substituting natural gas for coal and oil will deplete the remaining supply faster. This natural gas project will indefinitely delay an efficient and renewable energy policy in Vermont while contributing to global warming and polluting our environment. Natural Gas vs. Oil Proponents of natural gas say it is cleaner and cheaper than oil. Oil burners available today and now used in most homes are very clean burning and emit smoke and soot levels that are comparable to natural gas burners. A comparison of the cost of residential heating oil and natural gas in Maine from 1983 through 1997 shows that for 14 out of 15 years, oil prices were lower than natural gas for the same heat content, and the 15 year average price of natural gas is 22% higher than oil. Natural gas salesmen say natural gas is the fuel of choice when consumers are given the option. Natural gas has been available in Portland, Maine for 40 years, yet only 1 in 10 consumers choose natural gas. The choice of fuel suppliers currently available in Vermont means that we can shop around and choose from the dozens of local businesses run by people who live here. The residential natural gas being promoted would be available from only one supplier, NYSEG, a $5 billion dollar publicly held New York utility. Switching from oil to natural gas can result in expensive new equipment costs, reduced efficiency of converted furnaces, and increased safety risks from carbon monoxide and distribution pipe accidents that can cause explosions. Natural gas is a pollutant chemical that can worsen allergy and chemical sensitivity in homes and areas where there are fugitive emissions from venting or leakage. Vermont can reduce dependence on fossil fuels through energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy. Economic Development The natural gas industry claims that pipelines and power plants will bring economic development to the area. Currently no new businesses are anticipating coming to Vermont once we have natural gas. The New England region has high energy costs and high taxes, neither of which will decline as a result of this project. Industry goes where costs are lower. Natural gas has been sold in Lewiston, Maine for more than 30 years, yet between 1980 and 1995, Lewiston lost 3,500 manufacturing jobs. The power plants will detract from Vermont's image as a clean environment state and negatively impact the tourist industry and more likely will hurt our economy. There is no evidence to support the idea that natural gas will be cheaper than currently available fuels. The price for natural gas in the region has historically been higher than oil, and natural gas prices sometimes triple in winter. Short supplies cause large users to be cut off and they enter the markets for other fuels which drives up prices for consumers of all fuels. The natural gas pipeline will not contribute substantially to the tax base of our towns. Under Act 60 most of that tax money will go to the State. The power plants will add to the tax bases of Bennington and Rutland Town, perhaps not at all to Rutland City, but will in no way offset the costs that may be associated with the decline in air quality and aesthetics of the area and increased health risks. Residential Natural Gas Last on the list of priorities is serving residential customers. 85% of the natural gas intended to flow through the 2' pipe will be burned at the power plants. The remaining 15% is available for all the industrial, commercial, and residential customers between Bennington and, eventually, Middlebury and Killington. Serving the power plants is the first priority. Second is serving the largest industrial users. Third is signing up businesses, schools, and hospitals. Residential service is 7 to 10 years in the future, at best. No one along more than half the length of the pipeline route will ever get natural gas. At the Arlington, Vermont Selectboard meeting June 1, 1999 a board member asked Bruce Roloson of NYSEG, "is that 15% that's left enough to serve all the rest of the region, and what happens if it's not?" The answer was, "if a big new user comes in, it may not be enough. In that case, we would put in another pipeline." The Power Plants Deregulation of the power industry has led to an explosion in proposals to construct power plants. Former Public Service Board Chairman Richard Cowart compares the number of natural gas power plant proposals to the Oklahoma Land Rush. There are 58 natural gas power plants proposed for New England with the potential to produce more than 30,000 mw., all by the year 2001. 12 more plants are proposed for New York. Peak load for the region is 20,000 mw. Vermont Commissioner of Public Service Richard Sedano says there is a need for 4000 - 8000 mw to replace older plants that will go off line. It is a "mad dash" for cash to see who can get theirs built first. Not all these plants will be built. 10 have already been withdrawn. State and town resources are going to be consumed by this risky project for the next 2 years even though there may not be room for the power from these Vermont plants on the New England power grid. The theory is that new natural gas power plants will operate more efficiently and thereby produce electricity at a lower cost than older, less efficient coal and oil plants. The reality is that since deregulation, generation of electricity from coal-fired plants is up 1% over last year. Receipts of petroleum at electric utilities were at the highest level since 1991 due to the decrease in the price of petroleum. Many electric plants burn either oil or natural gas and the lower cost of oil resulted in fuel switching from natural gas to oil. Last year natural gas and hydroelectric generating decreased, while nuclear generation increased 26% in New England. There is no mechanism to force a coal, oil, or nuclear plant to shut down when a natural gas plant comes on line, and there are no coal or oil plants in Vermont to replace. Vermont Yankee Nuclear plant has 12 years left on its license. Older plants are being purchased and run for less than the cost of building new plants, and the theory that natural gas plants will produce cheaper electricity is in dispute. Electricity from the proposed Vermont power plants cannot be sold in Vermont. The present system is a regulated monopoly. It will be several years after the passage of deregulation legislation before Vermonters can choose their electricity source. Vermont's peak usage of 1000 mw and average of 650 mw can be met through conservation and renewable energy. Large transmission lines will emanate from the power plants, greatly increasing electromagnetic fields with their controversial health effects. This is of special concern in Bennington where the site is located next to the high school and a trailer park. Power Plant Emissions Tom Macaulay says these plants will make our air cleaner. Together, these two power plants will emit 1000 tons of pollutants. That is 2 million pounds. These huge plants will produce large quantities of Carbon Dioxide which is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Emissions will also include Sulfur Oxides-SO2, Particulate Matter-PM-10, Carbon Monoxide-CO, Volatile Organic Compounds-VOCs, Methane- CH4, Nitrous Oxides-N20 and Nitrogen Oxides NOx. Vermont ranks 2nd lowest in the nation in Nitrogen Oxides and we have some of the cleanest air in the nation. Vt.'s Department of Public Service says "natural gas electric utility uses produce one of the highest amounts of Nitrogen Oxides per unit of energy used compared to other fossil fuel sources." Nitrogen Oxides combine with water vapor to cause acid rain, and mix with Volatile Organic Compounds to cause ground-level ozone. Bennington has had several days each year since 1994 that have exceeded healthy ozone levels. Natural gas contains radon which causes radioactive contamination of equipment, the pipeline, and leads to low-level radioactive emissions. Natural gas contains toxic contaminants that are released through system leakage & venting. Vt.'s DPS says that natural gas power plants will cause emission impacts to worsen considerably and carbon dioxide emissions will worsen dramatically. With only 15% of the natural gas in the pipe available to replace all the oil in the region, the huge volume of natural gas to be burned at the power plants will result in a net gain in pollutants leading to more smog and toxic emissions. The site plan for the Rutland plant shows oil tanks to be used for back-up fuel. There will be costs to decommission the plants when they are shut down. Waste heat from the plants will cause temperature inversions, trapping unhealthy air in the cities. Water Resources The proponents intend to use water from the Rutland Sewage Treatment plant for cooling. But the discrepancy in available water from the treatment plant and power plant requirements could deplete the region's water supplies. The proposed Rutland plant could require as much as 7.5 million gallons of water a day; while the sewage treatment plant has a low of 2.5 million. The list of potential water sources to deplete includes an on-site well, the city water supply, the Otter Creek, the Chittenden reservoir, the Cold River, an Old Reservoir, or a new Reservoir could be built. If water supplies are low, will the plant shut down? Aesthetics & the Image of Vermont A large industrial site containing huge, ugly power plants spewing smog will be the first thing visitors see upon entering Rutland from the south and west. During winter months, a white plume will hang over the cooling towers of the plant; it may appear brown to people who know where the water comes from. To tourists entering Vermont, this scene will be a new image and very different from the Vermont Life Magazine covers which they are used to seeing. Safety Natural Gas pipeline accidents caused $47,350,836 worth of property damage nationwide in 1998. There were 17 fatalities. The Pipelines A 2' natural gas high pressure (1400 psi) pipeline is a very large pipeline. This is a huge project and the potential for damage is enormous. Crossing rivers, wetlands, going up over mountains and through ledge, the preferred route will disturb fish habitat, wildlife, farmland, sensitive ecological areas, and forested areas. To get through Danby with all its ledge will take many tons of dynamite. Public and private water supplies all along the route will be impacted. Venting degrades air quality and increases health risks such as asthma, allergy and chemical sensitivity. This pipeline route will become a "utility corridor". Other companies are already expressing an interest in burying other pipes and wires in the trench. The power lines to be used as routes do not currently connect up to the New England power grid. Once the pipeline route is established, power line upgrades are not out of the question, and a new pipe can be added at any time in the future. The corridor will become a snowmobile highway. Loggers will face severe restrictions about crossings. Residents and their privacy will be negatively impacted. People are already talking about moving away. Property Rights Affected property owners have very few rights, but they can deny pipeline and State officials access to their land. NYSEG employees who need access to private property in order to find a route have summoned property owners to private meetings. State agency officials and NYSEG employees want to walk the route even before anything has been filed. Serving state agencies and gas companies with Notices Against Trespass denies them legal access to private property. Property owners will be offered a one-time payment of a few hundred dollars for easements. If they refuse, once the State issues a Certificate of Public Good, the land will be taken by eminent domain. The tactics of NYSEG, asking for waivers from Planning Commissions, private meetings with property owners, and letters of support from Selectboards before any public discussion, have undermined any trust they might otherwise have earned. Property owners will not be compensated for the devaluation of their land or the disruption to their lives. NYSEG & Iroquois will not acknowledge any responsibility for potential damage to property and will not be required to post bond. Property owners will still be responsible for all property taxes. The Alternative Vermonters for a Clean Environment recognizes that people look to Vermont for leadership on environmental issues. We believe that Vermont should lead the nation in clean, renewable energy independence. This project will destroy that chance for Vermont to pursue an energy policy that serves as an example and truly benefits Vermont and Vermonters in the 21st century.
The Legacy of this Project -- the Price of "Progress" |
|
Copyright © 1999 by Vermonters for a Clean Environment |
Text of a speech presented by Annette Smith to the Tinmouth Planning
Commission on June 7, 1999. Subsequently revised on July 23, 1999.