For a project that most people seem to think is dead, it is amazing how this billion-dollar gas project continues to disrupt our region and rumble through our state.

Last week's events included:

• News that the Manchester Select Board failed to ratify the unanimous vote to oppose the pipeline at Town Meeting. The March 24 issue of the Manchester Journal contains two articles, two letters to the editor, a cartoon and an editorial on the subject. The issue will be brought up again at the Manchester Select Board meeting on April 4.
• Efforts by the Rutland Regional Planning Commission to change the Energy section of the Regional Plan to remove some important environmental principles contained in the plan that would affect any proposed generators. This effort was defeated, and the plan remains intact.
• A hearing on the NOx waiver petition that was filed in May, 1996. The hearing took place in Montpelier before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. A second hearing has been scheduled for March 30 at 9 a.m. in Room 8 of the Vermont Statehouse.

What happened at the NOx waiver hearing?

Present were Senator Elizabeth Ready (D, Addison County), Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, and Senator Helen Riehle (R, Chittenden County). Senator Jeb Spauling (D, Washington County) was there for a short time. Representative Mary Sullivan (D, Chittenden-7-1), Chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, and Representative Betty Nuovo (D, Addison-4-2) were present for some of the meeting, while Representative Henrietta Jordan (D, Washington-Lamoille-1-1) stayed for the entire meeting.

Speaking before the committee were:

John Kassel - Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), with staff from the Air Pollution Control Division: Richard Valentinetti, Paul Wishinski, and Conrad Smith, Attorney, and Chris Recchia, Deputy Commissioner of ANR

Mark Sinclair - senior attorney and Director of the Vermont Advocacy Center of the Conservation Law Foundation

David Rappaport - Executive Director of Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Job Heintz - staff attorney for Vermont Natural Resources Council

Annette Smith - Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment

Two citizens who are members of the Sierra Club

John Irving - Plant Manger of Burlington Electric Department's McNeil plant

Secretary Kassel gave an example of how the waiver might work. He said that a new major stationary source of NOx might locate in Vermont that would also bring an infrastructure for alternative fuels, such as natural gas. The waiver would allow the state to give an economic incentive to the new entity that would be causing more than 100 tons of new NOx so that they would not have to purchase expensive offsets. The alternative fuel would be used to offset that 100+ new tons, or even decrease the amount of NOx by, for instance, setting up natural gas filling stations to fuel cars. Kassel says that the hope is this will result in cleaner air, but admitted there was some "fuzzy thinking" surrounding all this.

The power plant project proposed for Rutland and Bennington counties fits the description of how the waiver might be used. Secretary Kassel offered assurances that his Agency is committed to overall reduction of NOx, and the waiver would give the state some control over new large sources of NOx.

He pointed out that there is no cap on NOx, and because NOx offsets can be purchased out-of-state, Vermont has no control over new large stationary sources if they can meet all other requirements. Theoretically we could see thousands of tons of new NOx from stationary sources in Vermont with no ability to control it. In effect, the state is throwing up its hands and saying "there's nothing we can do about it", but the waiver will give us a tool to require reductions of NOx from other, non-stationary sources in Vermont, probably.

Senator Ready is uncomfortable with the "promise" of reductions of NOx, without any requirements or ways to substantiate that there will be a net reduction in NOx. She has scheduled another hearing to try to craft some legislation to "close the loop" and write some language to assure that major new sources of NOx will be offset by, for instance, a reduction in mobile sources that are equal or greater to the new pollution from stationary sources. (See statement.)

If you think this is complicated, you are not alone. Vermonters for a Clean Environment takes the position that the state and the EPA have not worked in the best interests of Vermonters by failing to act on the petition since 1996. Because there has been no public knowledge of or input on this waiver, and because it is such a complex and important subject area, VCE suggests that the state withdraw its request and start from scratch. We are not prepared to oppose or support the waiver request until we have had a chance to understand how it will result in cleaner air.

The contibution of NOx emissions to acid rain are discussed in the article "Acid rain problem remains in region" in the Rutland Herald, reprinted from the front page of the New York Times, March 27. On Sunday, March 26, the Associated Press ran an article on the effects of acid rain on sugar maples: "Researchers: Acid rain may harm sugar maples".

Vermonters for a Clean Environment would like to express our thanks to Senator Elizabeth Ready for providing the opportunity for the Agency of Natural Resources, the state's environmental organizations, and the people to get together and listen to each other's concerns. VCE has a much clearer understanding of the Agency's approach to the NOx waiver and the power plants.