The following interview was posted on energy.com. Energy.com no longer exists.

[photo] Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment. The mountain in the background is the home of Killington Ski Area. The site for the 1080 megawatt power plant is in the field above and to the left of Smith's head.

12 May 2000

Power to the People
Normal Citizens Fight the Power
By Wm. Amurgis
Energy.com Editor

How would you react if a new power plant or natural gas pipeline was scheduled to be built in your neighborhood?

Before reacting, you might weigh the potential advantages and disadvantages of the project:

Advantages: additional jobs, tax revenue, and even enhanced power reliability, providing a boost to the local economy (and perhaps attracting other employers).

Disadvantages: the impact on personal property, water, air, public health, and the possibility that the power will benefit others (in a different state, perhaps), not the local community.

For Annette Smith of Vermont, her reaction led to the formation of a grass-roots organization called Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE). http://www.vtce.org

In a recent interview with Energy.com, Smith explains how normal citizens (such as her) can make their voices heard and help shape energy policy within their communities. She provides answers to the following questions:
What prompted you to form your organization?

What do you hope to accomplish?

What are the arguments in favor of these energy projects? Can you concede that some of the advantages are worthwhile? For example, could reliability be enhanced?

Is this just an ultra-example of NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") behavior, or something more?

What makes Vermont special? Would your organization tend to be more successful in a state (like yours) which has a strong ethic of participatory citizenship? Would it have a harder time in another state?

What tips do you have for concerned citizens in other states who wish to form similar organizations?

How is your organization funded, and how did you go about raising those funds?

How effective have you been to date?

What advice would you have for energy consumers nationwide (or worldwide)?
Throughout the interview, Smith offers practical tips for concerned citizens everywhere.

The full text of the interview appears below.

Energy.com: What prompted you to form your organization?

Smith: After a billion dollar proposal to build two merchant natural gas power plants fueled by two high pressure natural gas pipelines in Southwestern Vermont was announced in September, 1998, I started researching energy issues. At the end of March, 1999 I learned that one of the pipeline companies, New York State Electric Gas (NYSEG), had asked all the Town Selectboards along the pipeline route for letters of support to include with their filing. I thought it was premature to be asking for support when there had been no filing and very few people were even aware of this massive project. So I asked the Selectboards, "If you are going to consider a letter of support, would you hear my arguments in opposition?" By the end of April, I had addressed six Selectboards, and one of them had signed my Resolution in Opposition. An editorial in The Bennington Banner called me "a one-woman wrecking crew."

Although it was initially reported that the pipeline route would run in the highway right-of-way, it turned out that two-thirds of the route was through private property. The pipeline company summoned property owners to private, closed-door meetings (no press allowed) in mid-May in an effort to obtain permission to conduct surveys prior to filing a formal application. The day after the meetings, property owners called me saying "I went in with an open mind and came out very concerned." They had read about my efforts in the newspapers and wanted to know what they could do to get involved. The following week we held a Press Conference and announced the formation of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Energy.com: What do you hope to accomplish?

Smith: Initially, our goal was to stop this ill-conceived project that is larger than the General Fund of the small state of Vermont. It was on an expedited time schedule and the power plants were to be up and running by Nov. 1, 200.

However we quickly learned that hardly anybody knew about it, and because of the complexity of the issues -- merchant power plants, high pressure pipelines, electricity transmission lines, deregulation, and restructuring -- our efforts turned towards education and information. We have found that, given the facts, people are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

In the case of this particular project, it is so big, there is something in it for everybody to hate.

Energy.com: What are the arguments in favor of the power plants? Can you concede that some of the advantages are worthwhile? For example, could reliability be enhanced?

Smith: This country needs new electric generation to replace older power plants such as those fueled by coal, oil, or nuclear that are going off-line due to age or more stringent environmental regulations. The issue is Appropriate Siting versus Chaotic Siting. Right now we have chaotic siting. Appropriate sites are existing brownfields, and specifically, sites that already host coal, oil, or nuclear power plants.

The main argument we hear in favor of the Vermont power plants is that there is a chance that they will result in shutting down dirtier-burning coal or oil power plants. Since Vermont does not have any coal or oil power plants to shut down, we wonder why we should bear the burden of hosting a polluting power plant to sell the electricity to surrounding states, not Vermont (because we haven't deregulated and cannot buy the power), when those surrounding states do have coal and oil plants that are continuing to operate despite new natural gas power plants that are now operating. Right now, there is no mechanism to require shutting down older, dirtier power plants when a new natural gas power plant comes online.

So the answer is no, I am not able to concede that some of the arguments are worthwhile. There is ample evidence that the future of electricity generation and distribution in this country will be much more localized, requiring fewer large power plants and transmission lines. Merchant power plants are, in my opinion, a "mad dash for cash" on the part of multi-billion dollar companies who will make enormous profits with rapid depreciation schedules so that by the time this technology is replaced in a few years with cleaner, less environmentally damaging technology that is generated and distributed locally, the investors will have taken their money and be promoting something else, leaving giant dinosaurs with tall smokestacks in their wake.

Energy.com: Is this just an ultra-example of NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") behavior, or something more?

Smith: We have been called NIMBY's because we want to protect Vermont from hosting huge power plants that burn large quantities of fossil fuels. All the states around us have fossil fuel-burning plants, and there are some people who suggest we are not consuming our fair share of pollution, that we need to share the burden. However we have become informed enough about all the issues to be able to intelligently address the arguments that we are just a bunch of NIMBY's.

The fact is the power plants proposed for Vermont would evaporate more water in one day than the Killington Ski Resort uses in one year. The fact is they would add 1000 tons of new pollution. The fact is Vermonters can't purchase the electricity. The fact is our state's energy plans, through legislation, planning and policy, call for a long-term focus on renewable energy, energy conservation, and energy efficiency. The state of Vermont has an average load of 650 megawatts and a peak load of 1100 megawatts, and we believe that it is technologically possible for us to be responsible for our own power needs.

Vermont has a tradition of independence, not dependence, and VCE is encouraging the people of our state to be empowered by participating in our energy future.

Energy.com: What makes Vermont special? Would your organization tend to be more successful in a state (like yours) which has a strong ethic of participatory citizenship? Would it have a harder time in another state?

Smith: Vermonters do have a strong ethic of citizen participation. And we have a connection to the land that is apparently stronger than in just about any other state, based on my conversations with people in other states dealing with property rights issues. Our land is so rocky and it is so difficult to scratch out a living that the idea of some New York 5 billion dollar utility coming in and taking our land so they can make a profit on it generating electricity to sell out-of-state, and leasing out our land for fiber-optic cable so they make the money, not us, really strikes at the heart of our fierce independence.

But there are still many Vermonters who would not normally participate in an organization that is focused on energy issues, and we have seen widespread participation so I think it is quite possible for people in other states to crawl out of their cocoons and get involved. If something threatens your air, your land, your water, and the people who are your friends and neighbors, you might be surprised by how many people wake up.

Energy.com: What tips do you have for concerned citizens in other states who wish to form similar organizations?

Smith: VCE is a people's organization, made up of people who have come together for a common cause. An organization like this works best when people cooperate, share information, and work together for the common good. Failures appear to occur when ego overtakes those in charge.

If your community is faced with a merchant power plant or pipeline, the most important thing is to learn as much as possible about all aspects of it and convey that information in a way that does not turn people off. Maintaining credibility in the face of multi-billion dollar corporations is a challenge.

Energy.com: How is your organization funded, and how did you go about raising those funds?

Smith: VCE is funded by contributions from individuals. The 63-mile pipeline route crosses all income strata, from very wealthy to poor, from native Vermonter to flatlander. We receive large and small donations, both from property owners and from citizens who are concerned about the power plants. From time to time we send out pleas for more funds, and we have someone actively doing fund-raising on a part-time basis.

Energy.com: How effective have you been to date?

Smith: A year after the founding of VCE, the power plant and pipeline project has not yet filed an application.
Eight of the thirteen Selectboards of the towns along the pipeline route have formally opposed or not supported the project.

Four towns have held votes against it, 3 of them unanimous.

The Sierra Club and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group have joined us in opposing it.

In March, 2000, the Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, said "I give up. The pipeline route is dead. At some point you have to listen to the voters."
In response, the pipeline company indicated they are disappointed in the governor's statement but do not intend to give up on the route through private property. Power plant developers say the reason they have not filed is because they have not lined up the financing. They are still looking for $800,000,000, and say they plan to file by the fall of 2000, or perhaps in 12 to 18 months. It is likely that investors have seen the opposition and are putting their money into projects that are not so strenuously opposed.

Another newspaper editor told me I was the most effective citizen activist he had ever seen. If I had not come on the scene when I did, this project would most likely be well underway. We have been very effective.

Energy.com: What advice would you have for energy consumers nationwide (or worldwide)?

Smith: This is an exciting time in the energy marketplace. The issues are complex. Changes are happening rapidly. Although industry trends are currently dominating the marketplace, there are genuine opportunities for citizens to get involved and make smart choices.

VCE was formed in reaction to a particular project, but it has clearly filled a void that is the result of the change from utility monopolies to the so-called "competitive" energy market. Citizens have historically relied on their state regulators to look out for their interests, but that role is no longer clear. What is clear is that the consumers are at the end of the line, after the utility industry, large industrial and commercial users. Market forces are being allowed to dictate energy policy, which is really an abandonment of planning and policy. The utility industry will always make decisions in the interest of their bottom line.

If consumers want to see their interests protected, get involved.