Astronomy Picture of the Day

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

#fracking Gaz updates or how Vermont gave away the lands

The latest updates

I would be lying if I said this is good news, for anybody,

all I can do is post links to local press, and what our Stop the Pipeline group sends.
================================================

Recchia “I’m sorry they didn’t get the result they want but that doesn’t mean the process is broken,” he said.

Since 2013, Vermont Gas System's planned 41-mile pipeline from Chittenden County to Middlebury has seen its price tag increase from $86 million to ...
Ok, let's back up...
Thanks, Meredith Angwin for clarifying, The "New, New, New Energy Plan"



Thanks for wading through the imprecise ramblings of a clearly superior race. Attorneys without boundaries. Someone profits. No doubt.
Everyone everywhere must comment.
New Hampshire under seige from the south.
If there ever is a shift in policy, all the dissenting comments will be transparent as glass.
Unlike the muddy, ever shifty rationalizations of the psb.
Mary Gerdt


On January 16, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Barbara Wilson wrote:

Hi all:
I haven't read the entire report - I jumped to the "Recommendations and Conclusion" sections only:

"While we do not recommend specific structural changes, we do believe that internal
changes could be implemented to provide greater transparency to the public of why the
Department takes specific positions."

"As this report makes clear, there is no one structural model that is optimal, and each model
has tradeoffs. We have not proposed specific reforms as we do not believe that there is an
inherently better model for Vermont ratepayers. This does not mean that there is not room for
improvement; while some of the comments received stem largely from the particular positions
that the Department takes in Board proceedings, there is also a clear indication that the
Department should do better in conveying the rationale for why the Department has taken a
particular position. In the complexities of weighing the "public interest" in a given proceeding,
we believe any advocate should be accountable to the elected officials and the legislative body,
and we believe the Department structure as it exists can and should accomplish this
responsibility in an informed and transparent manner, which, while not pleasing to everyone all
of the time, can stand on its analysis and relate credibly to all those who express interest."

No surprises here. The bottom line: We (the DPS) know better than the public what is good for Vermont and possibly we need to educate people better on why we are making the decisions that we (the DPS) do. I am thinking that they only way to respond to this is for a lot of Vermonters to send letters to their state representatives. Providing comments to DPS is useless in my mind. Thoughts?

Barb

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Report on Ratepayer Advocate Structures
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:24:32 +0000
From: Valentinetti, Angela
To: Jortner, Wayne


For your information, the draft report has been completed and can be found on our website at: http://publicservice.vermont.gov/publications/advocate_report.
Angela Valentinetti | Legal Assistant
Vermont Public Service Department
Public Advocacy Division
112 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2601
=====================================================================

Note especially the 3rd paragraph.
"Dear Barbara,
Thank you for writing to me about Vermont Gas Systems' natural gas expansion project in Addison County.
I believe that climate change is one of, if not the, greatest challenges we face as a society, and it is crucial that Vermont continue our leadership on this issue. To this end, Vermont recently signed an agreement with five other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic to work together to develop market-based policies to further the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions we have already seen from the success of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Furthermore, in my State of the State address, I urged the Legislature to send me a bill that divests state funds from coal companies and ExxonMobil. Owning stock in these companies is not a business Vermont, should be in any longer.
I also believe we also need more smartly-sited renewables to power Vermont and help secure our energy future. I believe we should continue to build renewables on a Vermont scale, and we should give an economic advantage for locating solar on rooftops, brownfields, landfills, and other already developed lands where we currently have transmission capacity. Homegrown is Vermont's energy future.
With regards to the expansion of natural gas service to Addison County, the Public Service Board has extensively reviewed the environmental and economic aspects of the project and determined that it should go forward. I agree with the Board's decision and appreciate their thorough review and analysis.
Thank you again for your message. I believe that if we work together, we can effect meaningful change on climate issues, and I will keep your letter in mind as I work with the Legislature to achieve our energy goals. Please don't hesitate to reach out if I can be of assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Peter ShumlinGovernor109 State Street, PavilionMontpelier, Vermont 05609"
========================================================================

This was a damn sad day for the fracking, pipeline opponent.
=====================================================================
My brave neighbor submitted this letter in response:
Ms. Hollenbeck implies that only landowners and environmental activists agree it’s irrational to continue unnecessary pipeline expansion. The PSB received thousands of public comments on VGS’ application. 95% were negative. Last year, International Paper, for whom the pipe was upgraded at significant cost to consumers, balked at VGS’s new price; the project no longer made business sense. Last summer, 500 ratepayers wrote to DPS saying they couldn’t afford higher heating bills to pay for new pipelines. On 12/17/15, 150 prominent Vermonters from business, faith, farm, and academic circles wrote Governor Shumlin saying market and climate developments led to one conclusion: Construction must stop now. By 1/8/16, 1350 more leaders, ratepayers, and average Vermonters had signed.

Expect rate shock when temporary drops in fuel prices and an unseasonably warm 2015-2016 give way to 31-32 years of sustained rate increases (“hypothetically” 12% per VGS) for expansion to Middlebury. For construction to Rutland, customers will see 1% added to rates and 1-2 more years of payments for every $10 million VGS spends. Some might see rate reductions, but many of the 17% in VGS territory over 65 will never see rates come down again. They’ll only catch the pipeline’s damage to Vermont’s farmlands, natural resources, and climate. Just before the holidays, the cashier at a Williston retailer asked me whether I lived in the area. I told her I was back home helping my Mom deal with Vermont Gas. Her response: “Oh. The pipeline. Everyone’s fighting that around here. No one wants it.”
========================================================================
Finally,
the unique geology of the Champlain Valley, once the Champlain Sea bottom,

1 comment:

  1. All the regulations that restrict our use of our property. Then Canadians come down, spin a yarn and Selectboard, PSB, governor invites them in. SNAFU

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to leave comments. Have a great day in the Universe!