VCE Weekly Update

How to Build Natural Gas Pipelines in Vermont

by Annette Smith (Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.)

1. Eliminate the Use of Eminent Domain

Two years ago, Commissioner of Public Service Richard Sedano sent a memo to the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources about a proposal to build pipelines and power plants in Vermont. He said:

"This opens the larger question of whether a natural gas pipeline can be built in Vermont [...] We are hearing that it is unreasonably hard to build a pipeline here. We should clarify why we are hearing this and determine if there is anything Vermont can or should do about it." [See Memorandum]

Several responses were included in the state agency papers VCE received through our public records requests. All respondents overlooked the obvious: Vermonters don't like strangers walking on their land, seizing it by eminent domain for their profit, placing a hazardous fuel with substantial safety considerations next to homes, and paying practically nothing for the taking.

Property owners feel violated, used, and stolen from. Until it has happened to you, you cannot imagine the total outrage property owners experience when they are confronted with arrogant pipeline company salesmen informing them that no matter what the property owner says or does, the company intends to take your land, take you to court if necessary, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Several years ago, a coalition of property owners in Illinois fought a proposed oil pipeline. Ultimately the state found in favor of the property owners, siting the lack of "need" for the fuel and therefore denying the use of eminent domain. The pipeline got built anyway. Property owners were offered and accepted real compensation for the use of their land, and the pipeline route was adjusted to avoid property owners who did not want the pipeline.

Eminent domain has no place in the construction of new pipelines. Experience has shown that property owners are willing to allow pipelines on their property, as long as they are paid properly for the use of their land. Offer Vermonters real money to run a pipeline along their land, and the chances of building a pipeline in Vermont improve tremendously.

2. Guarantee Pipeline Safety

Vermont has one pipeline safety inspector for more than 400 miles of pipeline. The state of Vermont did not send the state pipeline safety inspector to any of the public meetings about this natural gas project. Safety was a major concern at public hearings last year, and was the subject of numerous questions. The gas companies gave blanket assurances that everything would be safe. The state agency representatives acknowledged that more inspectors might have to be hired if this project were approved.

Pipelines can be constructed and operated in a safe manner. We know that. But we also know that doing so requires constant vigilance and monitoring, from installation to operation, and that is expensive.

Property owners in other states who have watched pipelines constructed outside their homes know exactly where the pipe is sitting on rocks. They know where huge boulders were used to fill the trench. They know where the pipeline is when the markers are gone, and they know enough to tell heavy trucks to get off the pipeline, or to tell construction operators to stop digging. They are frightened by what they have seen. We would be foolish to think that this pipeline would be constructed any differently from the many accounts we have heard from property owners all the way from Maine to Oregon. From coast to coast, property owners have observed that pipelines are not constructed according to the specifications that were promised by the pipeline salesmen. They have seen bad welding, horrible working conditions, and the rush to complete the job on schedule.

Constructing pipelines in Vermont is environmentally challenging. According to documents VCE has seen about this project, the pipeline companies acknowledge that this is especially difficult terrain. We want guarantees that the pipeline construction will not be rushed to meet a billion-dollar company's bottom line. We want every inch of it constructed according to specifications, so no pipe is sitting on rock, so no rocks are dumped on top of the pipe. We want the rocks that came out of the trench removed or landscaped in a manner that is agreeable to property owners, and we want to know the someone will take responsibility to see that the pipeline company does what it says it is going to do. We want water resource issues handled with extreme vigilance, including wetlands, stream crossings, and water supplies. All this costs more money than pipeline companies have so far been willing to spend. For an industry that makes 22% in profits, they can afford to pay more for the use of private property, and they can spend more time and money constructing pipelines using the best available technology, to exacting specifications.

3. Guarantee Safe Operation

Once the pipeline is in operation, people living in the neighborhood of the pipeline need to know inspection schedules, and that the results of inspections will be shared with their communities. They need to know that if there are bad welds, or if someone has dented the pipe by digging into it, that the pipeline will be dug up and fixed. They need to know that the pipeline operators have been trained. They need to know that someone is going to take responsibility for overseeing the company promising to inspect and maintain the pipeline, and they need to know that if the pipeline company does not comply that they will be held accountable. Citizens need to know that the pipeline industry is regulated by state and federal governments and the pipeline industry needs to know that they will be held accountable. Waiting until leaks and explosions occur and paying minimal fines is no longer acceptable.

IN THE NEWS:

Pipelines
On Friday, June 2, The Office of Pipeline Safety issued a record $3 million fine against Olympic Pipeline Co. for numerous safety violations found in the wake of a fatal accident a year ago in Bellingham, Washington. The fine was the maximum allowed by law. Environmental fines up to $21 million are still possible.

» Olympic Pipe Line hit with record fine - Seattle Times, June 3, 2000
» PIPELINE: OPS issues largest civil penalty vs. pipeline operator for "sustained and multiple" violations - Bellingham Herald, June 3, 2000

Power Plants
Also on Friday, June 2, New York's Department of Environmental Conservation issued a water discharge permit for a 1080 mw natural gas power plant in Athens, New York. However, the decision limits the power plant to the use of "Best Available Technology", restricting the amount of water it can use. The decision necessitates the use of dry cooling, and will likely set a precedent for other power plants proposed for New York state. The final decision by New York's Siting Council is expected later this month.

» DEC gives water permit approval for Hudson River power plant - AP/Boston Globe, June 3, 2000
» Big Power Plant on Hudson Wins Approval - New York Times, June 3, 2000
» Power plant issued permit - Albany Times-Union, June 3, 2000

Fuel Cells
And on a positive note, research into Fuel Cells continues and is anticipated to change the way we think about electricity.

» Fuel Cells May Change the Way We Think about Electricity - Energy.com (Chicago Tribune), June 3, 2000

What can YOU do?
Support VCE in their continuing efforts to keep you appraised of Vermont energy issues.
Send your tax-deductible contributions to the address below.
Thank You