 This is a hearing on the Addison County natural gas pipeline and it's being convened by the Department of Public Service, not the Public Service Board, the Department, it's an important distinction. The handouts describe the difference and one of the speakers will also speak to that. But I just wanted you to be clear that it's being convened by the coalition against the pipeline and the Department of Public Service to hear concerns and for the department to respond to questions that you have regarding the pipeline. So I'm Cindy Cook, I'm a facilitator. We'll do introductions in a little bit. We're going to have some opening remarks and then we'll just check my notes here. So let me just run through the way the course of the evening will go. We'll have some opening remarks by coalition members and the commissioner of the Department of Public Service. We'll then open it up to questions and comments. I've been asked by a number of people to balance the wanting to ensure that all perspectives and all people that come here are heard with also just wanting to avoid having any one person or group dominate the airtime. Any questions or yes? So what if it turns out that there's only 10% of the people here favor of the pipeline and 90% against? I assume you're not going to do a 50-50 balance. I'm just a facilitator, but this is not designed as a referendum of any kind. Well, what you're going to do is you're going to balance it, but there's really virtually nobody here favor of the pipeline and other people want to speak against it. So I'm just going to go back to my subversive. I assume you wouldn't be doing a 50-50 balance because that wouldn't really be balanced. Right. Just to ensure that everybody has equally the same amount of airtime as what I was trying to get at. So the way we're going to proceed from here is Jane Palmer is going to make some comments and then Bruno John and then June Tierney from the, who's the commissioner of the Department of Public Service. So over to you. Where is Jane? Good evening everyone. Public Service, Miss Tierney for granting us the public forum. And congratulations on your new appointment. I hope you find your new commission, your position as a commissioner of the public service department fulfilling and not too stressful. It must be a little strange to switch from a legal position supporting the public service board to ahead of a department. The day to day challenges which used to be more or less finding legal statues to justify decisions made by others to making decisions using your heart that others will now have to scramble to support. I want to start out this forum by pointing out that there has been a pretty significant misunderstanding between the public and the governor's administration. It's an understandable misunderstanding though. The name of your branch of the administration is the Department of Public Service. Being human involves some extent of self-centeredness. And all of us tend to pay more attention when we hear our names in a title. So this is the Department of Public Service. That must mean it's a branch of government designed to serve me. Oh nice. This misunderstanding may also stem from the mission statement that is currently posted on the front page, second paragraph of the DPS website. And I see that's been passed out as well in one of the handouts. This is what it says. The mission of the PSD is to serve all citizens of Vermont through public advocacy, planning programs, and other actions that meet the public's need for least cost, environmentally sound, efficient, reliable, secure, sustainable, and safe energy, telecommunications and regulated utility systems, and the state for the short and long term. That sounds pretty nice, doesn't it? So it doesn't seem like we were being naive or optimistic when we assumed the Department of Public Service was there to serve the public. But that's not really what the Department has been doing, is it? At least that is not what we have witnessed the Department do. I think it was in June of 2013, six months before the PSB decision to grant the Vermont Gas Pipeline Project a certificate of public good. There's that day I'm worried again, public. That previous Commissioner, Rekia, along with then Governor Shumlin, publicly came out in support of building the Vermont Gas Pipeline. At the time, we were still under the impression that the PSB would be the ones making the decision. All the evidence had not yet been submitted or evaluated. Scientific studies were popping up almost weekly about the harms from fracking and the impact methane has on our climate. But none of that mattered. It seemed to us that the DPS would take a stance on something from deciding who should be allowed to intervene to whether or not the pipeline should be built. And with only slight variations, the PSB would issue an order doing essentially everything the DPS told them to do. This was not the way we pictured things would go. DPS was supposed to be working for us. The reality is DPS cannot both be a proponent of a project and do the vetting of a project at the same time. At many points during the past four years, we thought Vermont Gas Pipeline project was surely doomed. There were gigantic cost increases, safety violations, lack of oversight, shoddy oversight of easement procurement and loss of markets. But still, this pipeline seems to be prevailing even at this time of climate crisis, near doubling in construction and permitting costs and a steep competition from low oil prices. Governor Shumlin stated in a radio interview just before he left office that the decision to build this frat gas pipeline was totally based on policy. That was an interesting statement to hear because we had suspected that fact all along. If this was the case, there was no reason for us to dedicate so much of our time, money and energy toward getting the PSB to light and dump this boondoggle. Why did the legislature create the Act 174 Working Group to try to figure out ways for the public to more easily participate in the 248 process if the decisions are made by our governor and others in the administration? It seems like an attempt to placate the public rather than include them in this decision-making process. So, we're all hoping that with the changing of the guard, so to speak, that things will change in this part of our state government. I mean, we're really hoping. The truth is, we need you, Ms. Kearney, to listen to the people, to weigh the facts and sentiments of those who pay your salary and to be brave. Do the right thing. Which is why I brought you this little gift. I'm hoping you can keep it somewhere near where you can work, where you work, so you will often be reminded of those that are depending on you. It's Kermit the Frog. Because it really isn't easy being green. I'm 14. I'm from Trunfield. I'm a musician. I'm part of the green team at my school, which is an environmental advocacy group. I'm pretty concerned about this pipeline because this passion I have, music, this pipeline is really one step closer to destroying that for me. And it's the hypocrisy of the situation and the real... It's kind of... It's really offensive that my future is gambled by the pipeline being built to sort of fuel our humanity rather than sort of the energy needs of our humanity rather than my life and passions. And I really hope that DPS can really help me along in this, in my life, to make sure that we can really make the right decisions and create alternative solutions so that my passions and life can be preserved. Yeah, thank you. Steph is the commissioner of the Department of Public Service and her frog. With a frog in my voice. Thank you. Thank you very much. I really don't know where to begin. I am overwhelmed. I have a brain. I gave you a hug just now. It's been four years. Has it really? I haven't been able to do that in four years. It's a pleasure to do that now. One of the most remarkable things that happened to me after I was asked to take this position by the governor was when I had an email from Mary Martin. Yes, you. And so much to me because it was from my understanding of where the land lay improbable that I would receive congratulations from you. It is one of the indices that gave me confidence to convene this forum this evening. It seemed to me that this was a good moment to not make assumptions about each other. Many of you know me, you think. Jane, I don't mean to quibble with you. I've not spent these years finding statutes to support things. I have spent these years doing my very best to serve in the capacity that I had. And as an attorney, one takes an oath to certain principles. And these principles have never been more important in our nation's life than at this moment. The idea that you owe duties of loyalty, that you owe it to yourself, it to your family, to your fellow citizens, to be a person of integrity. I have always endeavored to do that. My first job, where is Mr. Bruno? Mr. Bruno, where are you? My first job was as a military officer. But my first love has been music. And so you and I have that in common. There's nobody more committed to a future where music can be played than me. My only regret is that I don't have as much time as you do. Meaning left in my life to play. In any event, it has been my experience that there is so much more that connects us, that provides us. I see so many people here of good faith and who are seriously committed to the public life that is possible in Vermont where we meet each other in a place like this. We tell each other hard truths. We assume the other person is listening. And we understand that things are complex. We don't always get what we want. But I have found in my own public life that the best policy comes when people are getting some of what they want, some of what they need. I'm not a magician. But I am a person of good faith. One of the delights of the new position, Jane, is that I am able to work with these people of good faith and integrity who are all part of the department public service. And if you'll indulge me, I'd like to take a moment to introduce them. I have with me tonight Jim Porter who is our director of telecommunications. More importantly to me, I know him to be warmth and he serves on the director's team in my department and helps me with tough decisions. Next to him is Jeff Commins, a man I've been privileged to know many, many years. He is our director, our acting director for public advocacy. He's the top lawyer in the agency. Next to Jeff, more or less, is Carol Flint, the wonderful person who leads the staff that takes every consumer complaint, that takes every public comment and takes them very seriously and makes sure that people like me hear those comments and take them to heart. In the middle is Bill Jordan. He is our chief engineer. Bill works very long hours to make sure that the infrastructure in this state is well supervised and well run. Next to him is Ed McNamara, at this point an indispensable part of my team in that Ed, for the last six weeks, has been serving as the deputy commissioner in our department and also the individual to whom I have had to delegate a variety of decisions because my obligations as an attorney require that I not be substantively involved in matters that I was helping the board with, as you noted, Jane. So Ed has been making some of those decisions under the supervision of the governor. You will see Ed and I tonight passing off questions to each other. It's intended as a gesture of respect to those obligations that I have as an attorney and also a gesture to you folks to make sure that there's somebody here tonight who is able to answer questions when I can't go there because of my prior occupation. Next to Ed is Tim Duggan, many of you know Tim. He was one of the attorneys on the pipeline case. He's a young man with a very bright future. I know him to have a great deal of integrity and to put a lot of effort into sifting for the public good, though I do respect that there are different ways to understand what the public good is between Mary Martin and the Palmer's that's been impressed on me. Next to Mr. Duggan is Louise Porter, a woman of equal capability and talent as an attorney. She too worked on the pipeline case and is here to help answer questions. Next to Ms. Porter is Mr. Wynne, who is a Wynne for the department in the sense that Mr. Wynne was not at the department during the chief case, but rather has joined us more recently. His training is in finance. He helps us understand the rate impacts of things that we are trying to do. I assure you there is nobody more committed to the public interest when it comes to rates than Mr. Wynne. Next to Mr. Wynne is GC, excuse me, I think we're getting a little feedback here. GC is our gas engineer. He is the individual who goes out in the field, inspects the complaints that comes in, is vigilant on your behalf. He calls balls and strikes. He's committed, I've known GC for over 15 years, and have seen him less in the office, more in the field since he's out there every day inspecting gas infrastructure to make sure that you folks are safe. And then last but not least is Ms. Drinkwine, Stacy Drinkwine, who is our administrative director, clerk of the works without whom nothing is possible in the department, let me tell you, and who's made me feel most welcome in my position. I apologize for the length of time it's taken to introduce these people, but I'm under the impression that in past public hearings and meetings, you've not been introduced to the full complement of people who work at the department. If there's one takeaway that I can get across tonight that is not inflammatory, but that helps you think about these issues differently, just as I am trying to think about them differently. It is that the department is not any one person. The department is not just me. It is not just a conceptual warden, a statute. The department is remonters of goodwill and good faith who have every bit as much interest in getting this right as you do. And I'm very privileged to work with them, and I can assure you, one of these people feels very privileged to be working for you. Thank you. So, at this point, I'd like to get a sense of how many people here would like to ask a question at the department or make a comment about the pipeline. Can you just get a show of hands? Okay, so, mercifully enough, I had to pull out a calculator to do this, but if we have two hours, that's 120 minutes, my guess is that there will probably be roughly 60 people or so that want to speak. To ensure that in this limited amount of time, everybody has a chance to be heard. I ask that people keep their comments to a minute and a half. And I understand that there's some coalition members who came with particular questions and comments. Mary, I'm wondering if you want to start out. Are you comfortable doing that? So, over to Mary Martin. You want me to scan it? You can do it however you're most comfortable. You can sit down, you can stand up. But just keep the microphone up. Okay, so I wanted to thank Commissioner Tierney for agreeing to a forum of civil and open process. It's time. As you may have guessed by now, I'm adamantly opposed to this pipeline for many reasons. I'll leave climate change for others better versed. Most important to me is trust, truth, and safety. These three things matter when it comes to the future for our children and grandchildren. Please keep these three things in mind while I'll tell you just one of many occurrences in the construction of this frat gas pipeline. There was an incident on October 7th in Heinsberg, St. George, and Williston. The fire departments had been warned that Vermont gas would be gassing up a section of pipeline with the use of an odorant mercaptan. If you aren't familiar with mercaptan, Chevron Phillips reports that mercaptan is flammable, acutely toxic when inhaled, to avoid release in the environment. If inhaled, remove victim to fresh air and call a poison center. Material may produce a serious, potentially fatal pneumonia. Shit. Sorry. When I read that... Close. Yes. Harry. No, no, no. So, when I read in the Williston Observer that the fire department had been inundated with calls about the smell of gas, I was concerned. Williston Fireman Morton said the blow-off of mercaptan was not what they were prepared for, though. We were aware that they were going to be doing some work there, but we were not aware of a blow-off. I don't know if it was planned or unplanned release. We had no knowledge of a large blow-off or the risk of the work before the utility began the process. I called for my gas and spoke to Beth Parrott. She assured me, and I quote, at no time was there a release of any kind. She stuck to this story. Just like on time and on budget, she repeated this to me in emails also. No release of any kind. The Public Service Board should have been fully aware of this incident since they are the ones responsible for overseeing the safety of this project. They appeared clueless when I asked about the blow-off, though, in their credit, they said they would look into it. Louise Porter later explained that Beth Parrott had misspoken. Hinesburg, St. George, and Williston were all in the path of this release of highly flammable and dangerous mercaptan. The people doing the work were in St. George, not Williston. Those responsible for this accident aren't even aware of the basic geography of the pipeline. Mercaptan is heavier than air. The location of the valve station is on low ground. There is a ridge between it and the town of Williston. The story I was told, and it took a lot of persistence and over a month and a half just doesn't add up. So back to trust, truth, and safety. A score of zero for three. Commissioner Tierney, can you help change the score? Will you help to make it three for the people and zero for a polluting frack gas pipeline? Deepest respect. Thank you, Mary. I know that was not easy for you. I will not do as you ask. What I will do is lead the department in the proper rule that it has, which is to be a place you trust, which is to be a repository of information that you find reliable, you and other remodlers, you who have a certain persuasion and other remodlers who have a different persuasion. I think your government serves you best when it positions itself to serve you in a manner that is trustworthy. Which means I can't be here tonight to tell you I'm going to make it one way or another. What I can do is tell you that this is a vigilant department. It has experts. I think GC knows I'm talking to him. Right? I see Ms. Porter taking notes. She knows what's coming next. What comes next is a course inquiry into the issue that you've raised. But that is all I can promise. Thank you. You're welcome. Great. So, Henry, do you want to say something? Hi, folks. My name is Henry. I know and like a bunch of y'all and we've been working together for a while and I think that's kind of my point. I'm standing up here and asking a question. They're y'all are charged with rubber stamping or approving or being involved with this utility project going forward. There's utility projects like this all over the continent and all over the world. There's pipelines pulling all this gas and material out of the ground and shipping it into international markets which this pipeline is going to eventually connect to international markets no matter what our comprehensive energy plan says about what we're going to do with our share of gas. There's an explosive volatile fracked oil coming down the west shore of Lake Champlain in molasses cars and DOT 111s. Somebody approved that too. So I work with this volunteer group of people out here trying to figure out how to keep this volatile, explosive human society ending material out of our economy. If you're part of that volunteer effort, could you hold up this sign? Okay, so y'all I see the press release that this event is going to happen tonight. I don't see anybody with a sign that says pro pipeline. All I see is no pipeline. And so I don't understand why all of us volunteers have to keep on coming out here and facing off against you educated, salary people year after year and getting nowhere How are we supposed to feel? And I'm addressing this question to the new commissioner because you are the new commissioner and you know you shouldn't be visited with the sins of the fathers here. But how are we supposed to feel that we have to continue to come out here and try and oppose this thing that the biggest scientific consensus in history has said we can have this. We can have this in our communities, we can have this in our world and y'all sit up there and get paid to continue to understand this project. To us. To us. I said don't recall. Does anybody prefer Henry? My friends call me Hambo. Hambo is the work I do. I have lost friends over this work. I miss those friends but I can play music by myself if I have to Mr. Bruno. It's the gift of being a solo guitarist. I can try to speak to you, Henry or Henry or Henry. The question is are we speaking the same language? It's an honest question. I heard what you said that we're getting paid to rubber stamp things. I don't know a single person here who is rubber stamping. I know people here who are working very hard to conduct searching inquiries. What I can hear in your comment is that you're not persuaded of that and I don't think I have it in my power to persuade you of that. What I can say is a genuinely searching process is open. It's not close by and you can be sure that my department will be open in its mind and its heart, its doors. But that's all that I can promise you. My whole career, my whole life has been spent doing things. Listening to different perspectives finding synthesis. I respect the fact that tonight when you raise signs there is overwhelmingly a preponderance of people here who oppose this pipeline. It's very clear. I guess I would ask that somebody here perhaps tonight helped me with the question. How do you go about determining what you believe to be the public's will, the public's view of something? Because I've been doing that for 17 years. I find it changes with every project I work on. I don't have a scientific way of finding out who supports one thing or another. Instead I'm left with the realization that a special trust has been invested in me, especially in this job, the individual who was elected to make those judgments. And so I appreciate that from your perspective alone that you're able to find your neighbors and people of good faith who share your view and that you keep their company and we are privileged to be in their company tonight. But as somebody who spent their career weighing information in search of the public good I cannot concede that this is the only voice in our discussion. I don't know why other voices are not present and quite frankly I don't care. Tonight it's about you. Okay so Richard here is in promise that he would keep to the 90s. Robert I'm sorry to the 90s second from Wilson. Alright here goes Robert Himes I want to speak to a very specific aspect of this project. We went in they went through our park and they're going through our park right now. The original plan we just questioned from the start because they said they were not impacting wetlands we were on the ground we looked they're going right through wetlands and we went to DEC said hey they're going through wetlands anybody looking at this assured us that they looked at it it wasn't until I led a walk with Vermont Gas their consultants VHB for them to actually acknowledge that they're going through wetlands. And we had had DEC confirmation that they had reviewed this. So we decided to look at the other public parcel in Hinesburg and sure enough they were supposed to delineate wetlands clearly they did not delineate wetlands and the state was nowhere to be found on this issue. So this is just one of the technical aspects of this work. I think the takeaway is this project was just way too big for Vermont Gas to manage and way too big for the state to regulate and until you have a mechanism for the state to regulate keeping on projects like this. Thank you Well first thank you to June Tierney for calling this meeting and for the members of the Department of Public Service all of you being here to meet with us and listen to our concerns tonight. I wanted to try to answer the question about how we know about what people in Vermont really stand for and what they want. So Henry and others wearing out my good friends I've made some of my very best friends of my lifetime in this effort. I got to know one of those very very dedicated and wonderful people and I know them as people who are trying to get at the truth trying to understand what is scientifically best, what is legally best what is best for the people in Vermont and I'm thinking about how people from leaders from several organizations AARP Trade for Trimond, Conservation Law Foundation Rising Tide Just Power, Deep Earth and many other organizations that individuals have stood up and talked about this constantly for time and people have come from all over the state and from what I understand they really do know what the story is and they listen to their neighbors and they speak for their neighbors so several hundred people represent I believe a whole lot of Vermonters So I want to say in the conclusion of what I made our beautiful state has set the responsible goal to conserve fuel and develop other energy sources so that we're 90% free of fossil fuels by 2050 so how does it possibly make sense that this pipeline is expected to have a useful life for about 50 years to make it worthwhile and I'm well aware that laying the pipeline extension in the military is nearly complete I still believe it will be best for Shantane Valley and for Vermont if this never throws through it and that is my hope Thanks very much My name is Kevin Lever and I would like to point out that to respond to the cracked gas issues but we're only a minority when we compare us to the balance of life on this planet there are zillions of souls out there that have no voice and they're going to be affected by any leaking cracked gas or the consequences of burning dirty fuel so please remember the rest of the creation My name is Maureen Portas I'm a registered nurse, I live in Lincoln I'm a board member of 350 Vermont and part of the political action committee in the Lincoln area I had the good fortune today to witness a naturalization service for 26 people from 13 countries that became new Americans today they became new Americans because they wanted to live in a country that had a participatory and representative democracy so to your statement about commissioner with due respect about balance of public opinion I do believe that public opinion is against the pipeline but to that point if public opinion is the only thing that you're balancing and I don't think it is how long would slavery have lasted when would women have gotten the vote so it's up to you to listen to us this is the new revolution just like we responded to King George for his overreach we're responding now to the overreach overreach of corporations it's time for our government representatives to listen to us and do the right thing because it is the same for Mars I've been feeling so blessed to live in Vermont in the last few months and to see you beautiful people and all these beautiful people together being able to have a civil conversation I'm sure you all went outside today I was standing like this in Montpelier this is a problem I take this seriously I was thinking when I came in here hey this is a great showing and I thought no everybody in this state should be here today to be here right now we are losing our winter you know we've had like two weeks of cold Vermont winter if this isn't enough to say enough is enough but bringing it fuel out of the ground I don't know what is when are we going to put the water the earth instead of corporations we have got to stop fracked gas is making people sick and it's proving our state doesn't allow fracked gas and yet we are supporting this company to be piping it through our state so I just ask that you guys please take that into consideration this week we are not just having one day of good degrees it's a whole week in the middle of February it's enough so thank you for your consideration and I hope that you take all of this into your hearts hi my name is Jesse I'm a resident of Fletcher Vermont I'm also a member of the select board there so as one public servant another I certainly understand how hard it can be to sometimes get a sense of what the public will is on something we deal with it all the time and we live in a very small town but even then it's hard to gauge what the public will is on something and one rule of thumb that as a select board we've adopted is that one of the things we consider is as we can and then we have to consider of the options on the table of different proposals what is inclusive of taking consideration the most needs what's considering the most people and personally when I look at this pipeline and I've been involved quite recently against it but I'm not a professional activist by any means I'd much rather be eating waffles and watching movies on Saturday morning and you have to ask yourself you know what's what's abundant is it human infrastructure projects or the natural resources and landscape we have around us and the thing is you can replace an infrastructure project with another one create energy create jobs benefit the economy but you're not going to replace the wetlands the way it was and you know you're not going to it was spoken to more eloquently by others but I just want to say it loud and clear the fracked gas that the Vermont Gas Pipeline is bringing in even if you ignore the environmental damage within our own state please consider that the Lubicon Cree Nation where the gas is being fracked has a demonstrated increase in cancer rate due to the fracking that's happening there now we can turn a blind eye to that and say we're for the environment and we're considering what's sustainable environmentally sound for our people but do we not consider ourselves part of the nation of all people and I for one do not want to continue to support that more person here and then I'm going to look around so together but everybody will have a chance I didn't want to speak because it's intimidating my name is Katrina and I'm not going to stand here and try to come up with intellectual reasoning why this pipeline is not okay I'm going to speak for my heart for a moment I'm a mother I also love this earth and I love this life and what I want to say is that I'm actually in shock that we're having this conversation still in 2017 and that there's so much I'm going to shake that there's so much that we know and I want to speak to all of your hearts and say that we have an opportunity in this state to be an example we have an opportunity in this state to say that we are not going to put corporations first we're going to put the environment first we're going to put people first and we know this to be right and I know that in your hearts you know that too that this is our earth this is our responsibility it's our stewardship that's going to make sure that this earth is here for our children and so I'm just speaking from this place of saying that I'm surprised that we're even having this conversation here I'm grateful we are but I also want to say that we know what's right and we know that there's alternatives and I just wanted to share from my heart that we can do something better here and I am praying that this group can be the way to do that please thanks Lindsay Love the gas that will go through this pipeline is being cracked on indigenous land in Alberta today people at Standing Rock were pulled off the land that they were protecting against the pipeline I'm going to know what you think Ms. Tierney about BT banning cracked gas but allowing native people to lose land livelihood fisheries and hunting grounds to supply the gas that's going to go through that pipeline as is happening in Alberta and Alberta Lindsay I think you are one of the individuals who had a hand in organizing tonight am I right about that I wonder if you've done something about it I appreciate that you are interested to know my particular view about the matters you just raised I would submit to you very respectfully my personal views are no more or no less consequent than any view in this room tonight what I did here is I hold a public trust in Vermont and I have to apply the law of Vermont I have to apply the process that governs the law of Vermont I have to do my best to weigh what you folks think about these things and what others think about these things I heard the very eloquent mother who overcame her fear of speaking of fear too but I push myself because I like to think I have something to contribute to this discussion what I think about fracked gas flowing through a pipeline as a commissioner is different from what I think about it as a person I'm glad to explain it I'm glad to give you that view I'm glad to submit to your censure for holding that view but it is the very thing that I put my life on the line for when I put a uniform on as a very young woman and I will never apologize for that the reason why I distinguish between the two is because the one is my private view as a person and like every one of you I have a right to my views I have a right to my privacy you folks have chosen to come here tonight to share your views and I respect that I thank you for it too I honor it I did not come here tonight to share my personal views they belong to me my views as a commissioner are those that I hold as a matter of duty I do my very best to meet that duty with integrity and that duty is necessarily bound by the laws of this great state you have representatives who represent you who write those laws among the things that they write in those laws is the people like me are supposed to apply them in good faith I cannot tell you why our state permits fracked gas to be imported all I can tell you is that is what our law provides I know I have not answered your question but I appreciate your satisfaction I am sorry that we have to have a moment like that tonight I appreciate that you censor me for that I hope at least you can grant that you know I am speaking from a place of integrity and delivering that hard message to you I too am intimidated just as the mother at the other side of the room is it is not hard easy to stand and to speak from this place but it is what I owe you Hi I am Nancy Baker I heard there is someone from the conservation law foundation here tonight I am sorry I was getting feedback who will probably speak in eloquently to this but over two years ago they put a case before you regarding rates that has yet to be forward a little blur here that says that the department of public service is there to meet the public's needs for the least cost environmentally sound reliable all those other things safe energy and I am wondering why the rate payers are going to have to absorb this extraordinarily amount of over cost for a pipeline which is really a trunk line it is not going to distribute a lot of gas to anybody in this state people had their bills added to without even asking their permission to put together the SIRF fund, the slush fund that it was money taken out of people's pockets I am sorry and that is money that should be accounted for and you said you have a great account but I also think you need to listen you need to listen to the case that was put before you over two years ago about the rates, that is your responsibility not a private opinion it is your responsibility so thank you department wants to respond Tim Duggan I am Tim Duggan and I am attorney with the department and thank you for that question we currently do have a rate case pending that I think it is about one year it was filed last February but your point is taken and what I want to say is that we take the amounts the amount that rate pairs will pay for the service they are provided extraordinarily seriously and we have experts like Brian and others who spend way more time than I can fathom doing frankly looking through spreadsheets looking through invoices looking through every part of the company's books to ensure that what is being paid for is just and reasonable so I wish I could speak more eloquently about it it is a lengthy case I grant you that and we have spent a long time working on it it is coming to the final stages right now but it is still an open case I will leave it at that but I do want to assure you the amount of any cost an ordinary expense or a big capital project that is going to be borne by rate pairs is something that we look at extraordinarily seriously and that we have great professional staff working on so we probably spent more time on this particular case than usual because it is such a big project and looking forward to we have had the contribution of CLF in this case as well so it has been a robust look and we anticipated coming to a conclusion in the next few months I am Erin Bailey I am the energy coordinator for Salisbury Vermont I am representing Salisbury Conservation Commission and I am representing and I am representing my grandchildren to the Department of Public Service you state that your duty is to meet the public's need for many things including environmentally sound and safe energy physics doesn't negotiate nature does not negotiate either we stop burning fossil fuels and natural gas is a fossil fuel or we continue its use and see major cities sink under water New York, Brussels Mumbai, Cacada Bangkok, Shanghai Beijing, Hong Kong Tokyo, Dakar, Acura Buenos Aires, San Diego Los Angeles, Portland Seattle, Fulton Miami, Washington DC all of Florida, two-thirds of New Jersey gone slowly under water if we don't, if we continue to burn fossil fuels we will experience unimaginable disruptions and we think that the million refugees from Syria is overwhelming let's think of the millions upon millions of city climate refugees around the world Business Insider reported this October during UK and US researchers have ascertained we burn all the coal, oil and natural resource on the ground it will melt all the land ice including our Antarctic cover it will rise sea level 216 feet climate change is already happening in Miami they're already pumping sea water out of the city if we don't recognize natural gas as a fossil fuel and cease its development the climate will continue to change to face the planet changes that will last for thousands of years if not now then when we only have one planet the risk of redundancy I was going to underscore the salient points in a piece I read this week on the CLF website actually I'm not really concerned about redundancy so many hundreds of us have been bringing these issues to your attention over the years but we don't seem to have been heard so I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read or re-read the entire CLF piece slowly and ask yourself whether this fossil fuel infrastructure at almost twice its original proposed cost which has already taken endangered species has effectively evicted Vermont families from their homes has a frightening record of safety violations and still brings no financial or environmental benefits is still in the best interest of our state and more importantly our planet while writing that last long sentence I was reminded of the very first pipeline hearing that I attended over four years ago it was at the Middlebury municipal gym and the BGS spokesperson was asked will the building of this project require eminent filming I mean similarities replied that BGS did not expect that to be an issue BGS had no experience with eminent filming wow this pipeline is not turning out as expected is it please release Vermont from Shumlin's Fully I'm going to give you that article and hope you'll most of the back of the room I know there are lots of folks here we'll get you hello my name is Laura Simon I'm from the White River junction area and you may be able to leave from your hallway I've been a social worker and a teacher and activist for 40 years because my conscience tells me that's what I need to do I'm going to share with you two facts and a little picture as we know more in this field the gas is temporarily achieved because of limited infrastructure distributed and as pipelines and international shipping terminals are built there will be a gas surplus and prices will go up and this is from the source of OilPrice.com it's an industry publication it says from $2.50 per millimeter BTU it will go up to $4 in 2017 so it's not the cheap source it's expanding in price and it's also dirty methane is a powerful global warming fluid it traps 86 to 105 times more heat in the atmosphere over 20 years carbon dioxide and the spills make it be even less of a feasible fuel source so I'm just going to share this picture but the community TV is going to have it on it basically shows the leaks in the Boston area so it's not ever no one's going to say it is safe these are thousands of lines throughout Boston I live in North Boston earlier from time to time I live in a modern medical area and one of the things is so apparent in any kind of research or any kind of project if you have a control group people who aren't getting to know they're over a new diet they're just going on and then when something special is going on with nutrition or medicine this group goes forward and you send an end date for the study and you can carry out a test along the way it seems to me that the pipeline got started when it very very low was known well things like these leaks in Boston people didn't even know how to see nothing before and now we know that from well head through every pump, through distribution all the way there is just an enormous leakage that information didn't become known until after the pipeline was well underway and from looking at study after study in medicine if they discover halfway through they will stop the medicine or they will stop the whole project rather than go forward which is continuing to damage a particular part of the study my name is Heidi Wilson and I live in Plainfield and I'm a music teacher and a singer and I thought it might be fun to sing but that's really not what we're here for I wanted to ask you a whole question and I'm wondering first who's been a part of this group the public service board of the public service department maybe you can answer this question I'm wondering maybe you could tell us what can we as citizens do to bring an end to this pipeline project from your perspective what influence do we have and how do we do that thank you I wasn't sure I was going to get to talk to them I have been at the department of public service going over 26 years and as a lawyer I have an interesting job because the green books the statutes full of laws that are passed by your representatives tell me that I'm supposed to represent the public of Vermont or the repayers of Vermont but the state of Vermont so I have hundreds of thousands of clients and I wrestle daily with the question that is really that I think is underlying yours which is how do we determine the public interest we go we have public hearings we have meetings like this we have a vote and you have a vote and that is an excellent point you have a vote what I try to do my job is to as Ms. Cheney said follow the laws as written do my best in good faith and as a human being and as an attorney with a job do my best to try to figure that out and people citizens everyone in this room I think probably has the ability to vote that's how you tell me what to do my direction I cannot actually I cannot actually speak to hundreds of thousands of my clients to try to figure out positions to take what I do is I follow the statutes as written we take direction from people who are elected by my clients to do exactly that job of getting direction of choosing commissioners and secretaries and so forth who is judgment they trust and that's the person who my clients the public has trusted to do that so how to affect outcomes be involved on the local level be involved with the AMG committees we've heard from some people tonight locally talk to your representatives elect people to office who reflect your views and those people give direction to the government we are not self directing we are guided by the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box and as expressed in statutes that are passed but not can I ask, talking and I listen to everybody I listen and I take views into consideration as does everyone at the department we certainly do and I will tell you that I don't know if there's any issue that I've confronted in the last 26 years on which all Vermonters would agree there is always difference of opinion and it is it is not feasible I frankly do not know of another system other than the democratic process that we have for for people to express their will and tell their government what they want it to do thank you I want to re-ask Heidi's question which I think was fairly specific one which is what can people in this room who are opposed to the pipeline do to stop do I have that tonight and you spoke to sort of how you go through your deliberative process but this is a question for the department what can those who are opposed to this pipeline what specific actions can they do to affect that outcome thank you so the short answer is the public service forward issued what is called certificate of public good how long ago is this now December 23 2013 so at this point what we are actually seeing is certificate has been granted the only thing left is the Supreme Court I believe is actually still reviewing a condemnation is that one in Hinesford so at this point the permit has been issued we had a discussion about that when we actually talked about the forum of holding this forum it's unclear from a legal perspective the department no longer has an advocacy role we advocate in front of the public service board we would advocate in front of the Supreme Court that's been done and the decision has been made by the public service board so in terms of what can you do to actually stop the particular project at this point the process is essentially complete and now what we are trying to do is figure out how do you move forward how do we learn from the past process and how do we so essentially to me this forum is more looking forward how do we go forward on this how do we take into how do we take into consideration the issues and what do we think about the next time a project comes up and that's there's a pipeline project there's a lot of different projects out there and instead we need to look at how the section 248 process works how we need to behave, how we need to take into account public input as well I'm sorry that's not the answer anybody wanted to hear Ed I'm sorry is that true for phase 3 as well there is no my understanding is there's no nothing in front of the public service board at this point except for one by five why are we here because a group of folks actually wanted to have this public forum and we agreed to have the public forum so you all have a chance to comment if there's a person I'm Susan Abbott I live in Marshfield that I'm a little full of words after that statement I just heard I am one of the people who for the last four years has been asleep thinking that oh we had an administration under Governor Sheldon who was watching after the environment in Vermont big mistake I was awakened by the Trump nightmare I got at my pens and made a my first picket sign in about 30 years over there tonight and I want to thank the people who got us this forum which is the people who sat this and forced the issue and going forward that's what we're going to have to do more because it seems as though this is being considered a done deal I was shocked given Sheldon's environmental record to see that he had been a proponent of a pipeline that's going to push fracked gas fracked gas through our state we can't do any better than that and I'm really kind of confused about what I'm hearing tonight it seems to me like what basis do you make decisions if it's not on content, if it's not on cost if it's not on public feeling really it's very disingenuous to say that you don't know how the public feels about this I don't see a room full of people supporting this pipeline tonight and I think you know we're just going to have to figure out where to go from here but you can do more I think than you're doing and I think you have the moral you have a moral obligation to do more than you're doing and I hope that you feel that within yourselves when you stand up for what's right in this situation because it's very very clear what the moral thing to do is here questions for the commissioner you you've been speaking about the two different persuasions a lot and I'm wondering how you're treating the persuasions as if they are equally valid when the scientific consensus is that one of the persuasions is literally going to cause the extinction of life on earth so how can we treat that as valid I forgot to mention earlier this evening that my academic training was in journalism and there are two reasons why I study journalism one was because it would allow me to study everything that my college had to offer I was a very curious person I remained a curious person I am curious and I know I'm curious to many people one of the tenets of journalism that I think have regrettably been neglected in our public discourse in recent time is the creation of false parity you hear one side I'm sorry Mr. Paul Amos I don't mean to offend you it's easy enough to under oh he's always listening under deadline it is very easy to simply go looking for the other view and then you feel I'm really sorry and then you feel like you have told the story as if it were truly captured by just two views in your question or irrespectively you are characterizing my views as being the two things that I'm balancing I don't mean to be insolent I don't think there's anybody who knows me who would recognize me as somebody who just balances two things my mind is often characterized as being the sort of crazy marble cake thing or I've got many things that come into play as I think about something that arrive at an opinion or a decision so what I can say to you in good faith is I don't take any one thing at face value and I don't believe or engage in the creation of false parity I respect your view point that there for you is an absolute data point that's a very important thing and there are many people who agree with you as the public policy person here I factor many view points in and that there are other things that have to be considered besides the view that you've espoused very articulately I'm afraid I don't have more than I can say to your point my crazy marble mind doesn't allow me to hold on to the point that long so the best I can do tonight is to convey to you that the process whereby we provide that advocacy as Mr. Comments tried to tell you is a searching one it's a product of reflection and certainly for the folks here tonight who are wondering how can you affect this process the second takeaway that I would urge you to go home with is the questions that you folks are struggling with are much bigger than what is at stake in any one public service board case I respect that this is an example of false parity I'm up here with a microphone you folks don't have one I don't want to abuse my prerogative with the microphone I simply want to say that there are so many venues by which Americans can make their views known so many venues by which Vermonters can make their views known and why don't you make your views known please tell me now aren't you elected to be transcarrying to be clear young lady I'm sorry that's my fear talking I'm not elected I'm appointed I'm appointed by a gentleman who is elected and that was the point Mr. Commons was making there are many places for you to make your views known and ladies and gentlemen if you disagree with that proposition then this country is in much bigger trouble than we realize you just found out it's my role tonight to be the trans I see that you're wearing an army sweatshirt yeah because you served I did serve I've known that for a very long time that there are some people who put their lives on the line to bring the opportunity to vote on the community and if you lost faith in that power then we have a bigger problem I wanted to stand up and say that there are a lot of opinions of the people that want to express their opinions talking over and his thing is that it's going to lead to a less rich dialogue than if you can respect that when somebody is speaking that they have the floor and I'm seeing lots of hands we're going to keep moving the gentleman has a microphone here so so I want to speak to all of you up here I know what it's like to have to have a work opinion and not a work opinion I was 19 months in Afghanistan having a work opinion and not work opinion watching my friends die watching other people who were I was taught to hate die that my government made legal to do so what I can tell you is having those two simultaneous opinions tore a hole in me and I couldn't look myself in the eye I literally couldn't I would go over there and I would try to look at myself I couldn't and until I started to actually understand why and I stopped saying it's like legal so it's right I stopped accepting that point of view before I could start looking myself in the eyes so I don't think I'm going to change your mind here I don't think we're going to have some miracle here tonight but what I want to ask you is that two years from now or three years from now in that picture of Boston that was shown to you is happening in Vermont and the wetlands are being destroyed and you're hearing about cancer here in Vermont this moment right now and I want you to look yourself in the mirror and ask do you think that it was really over at this moment was there something that none of you was there anything out there that you could have done because I don't believe that statements that you serve in Afghanistan I was in a civilian contractor supporting the Marine Corps which is a regrettable development in our military management in this country but nonetheless sir I thank you for your service so I'm going to speak to some of the voices that are in the room today and my question at the end of this is you had said that you don't care about why there aren't anyone here holding a sign that says please put this pipeline in Vermont so at the end of what I say I'd love to hear your answer there are golden wing warblers that are a friend and they only go to Vermont in the northeast there's a very small population of them and this park where the pipeline is going through is one of their sweet spots to be and grow a family and I'm just curious to them and also to all of the creatures that live in the habitat of the ecosystem of a wetland which is like really important for the health of the planet they filter and provide a lot of habitat for mycelium this is a high water table and it's rippling through the microbial community there are in one teaspoon of soil many more creatures than there are in this town and there's a responsibility when you talk about the public the question I ask my students and what we're exploring as part of Vermont State Standards is is this the ecozoic era or the anthrozoic era we are part of a community that is far beyond humans and there are many other creatures that actually provide a regenerative that we rely on and this project is a microcosm of a macrocosm it's actually very relevant it's if you look at succession and you study it and you see a tiny rock with lichen growing on it and then moss and then like a podium and then you see trees the planet is like that it's a small little version of the evolution of like you believe in western science so this situation here in Vermont with this pipeline is a little example of a very sick problem with our species where we're feeling like it's all about us and there's actually a debate going on trying to the community they're trying to name this time period in geologic time and it should be called the anthrozoic era or ecozoic era and I feel like you'll have the opportunity to change that and even though you said this might be a dumb deal because it's out of your jurisdiction I'm going to challenge you to realize that these human systems are very young which is a speck of time and they're very they can change you have the ability, you're a living part of the ecosystem you can change your role and entropocasca is a concept where everything we do affects everything else so there's so many creatures that are really excited for you all to be able to do what's right for the greater good of all beings on the planet thank you and I'd love to hear your answers to that question about why does it not matter to you if this is a public forum then there's no one in the room with a sign that says please put this pipeline in Vermont I'm quite sure that I've expressed myself in artfully I think in the moment when I said I don't care that there's anybody that there's not anybody here who's for the pipeline I was speaking from a place of integrity that was constant with my feeling which is that tonight is about the people who came to my office and who put themselves on the line to ask for this meeting and that is why we're here tonight and they've troubled themselves to bring out tonight people who have very similar views the people who are for this pipeline are not here I think was it Hamburg Henry Henry very correctly pointed out there was a press release that the folks who came to my office asked that we put out and the response that press release has been the people of good faith who opposed the pipeline are here tonight if you look at the press release as an invitation to this forum the invitation went out to everybody but not everybody chose to come and so what I honor tonight are the people who chose to come and they are the people who have my ear tonight they are the people I care about I'm not here to discuss people who are not here to speculate about what they think or feel I'm here to give you my heart and my attention tonight and I apologize if that is not adequate but it is what I have to give the rest of the state just called and they are with us back in these 40 years is your humor oh no I meant humor can get truthful excuse me now I'm sorry I'm Dottie Kyle I am president and managing officer of the man river community solar farm in whitefield we had an interesting time with the public service board we were issued a certificate of public good and then all of a sudden they told us you can't build there because it's wetlands and we couldn't build there we had to find a different spot which we did now my question is if this is an essentially a done deal why are they building through wetlands with a community solar farm couldn't put a couple of posts into the ground where it's there so so I can't really speak exactly with the wetlands agency and natural resources issue I'm not trying to I'm not a wetland scientist I do know however that there's wetland mitigation rules that happen I don't know your specific solar project I do know that I've seen this with electric transmission lines I've worked on a fair number of those I've worked on other projects as well haven't been involved with the pipeline up until folks showed up in the hallway a couple weeks ago but there are mitigation rules that allow somebody to build through wetland as long as they mitigate other wetlands it happens with electric it happens a lot of different situations and I'd love to follow up afterwards and find out your specific project and why that was I hadn't heard about that so I'd love to follow up thanks my name is Sam I know you've been here about the Hunts but I came here as a refugee from southern New Hampshire where in the end we stopped the NED pipeline to help a bit here and the first piece of advice I'd give you is you're not going to get anywhere when talking to these people the only thing that will work is to take away the money from the people who want to do this you have to persuade all the potential customers that this is not what they want to do if you can do that you'll stop it thank you I live in Heinsberg and when I found out that the pipeline was coming through our public park I stepped into this fray after people had been fighting it already for three years or so I've been a climate activist for over a decade and I'm mostly very scared when I walk out the door in the middle of February and find that it's 60 degrees and there are bloopers flying around I think that's pretty frightening but what is actually more frightening to me about this pipeline project is what I have learned about the construction and the lack of oversight the Department of Public Service is supposed to oversee the safe construction of this pipeline yet there was a notice of probable violation across on the 16th of August when I went back and looked through that it turned out it was based on observations that the inspector had made in June of 2016 he noticed some things were out of line eventually the notice of probable violation came in August and then the Department of Public Service granted an extension and then they granted another extension and then they granted a third extension and construction continued they never addressed the probable violation they never addressed the problems with the construction which were very serious problems seems like we don't have any really specifications we don't have any electrical expert on site these are serious problems that leave us now okay construction continued from June through November okay we're done now we have a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Public Service and the Vermont Gas Systems saying we made some compromises and we've come to an agreement and in the future we'll try to do a better job what I would like you to do is go back and dig up everything that you buried in the ground from June of last year through November and redo it all according to the minimum federal specifications for safe construction okay it's not okay with me to just ignore and say it's a done deal and it's all done it was not done properly and I think you know that and I would like for each of you to look into your hearts and ask yourself if you had a family living right on the pipeline with an easement right in your yard and children there would you be comfortable knowing what you know about the construction of this pipeline I have dug and dug and dug through what I can find I have filed public records requests waited weeks and weeks for tiny little dribbling bits of information which indicates to me that either the records weren't kept the oversight wasn't done or there's something being withheld okay those are the only two logical possibilities you either didn't do the oversight of the inspections or you're withholding information from the public records request do you honestly feel okay to have your children living on this pipeline my name is Bill Jordan your comment the notice of probable violation that we issued in last summer yes the notice of probable violation that we issued last summer was for electrical safety for the workers working on the pipeline that wasn't yet in the ground and it was not related to issues or integrity of the pipeline once in the ground the incidents that we noted in the notice of probable violation occurred in June of 2016 and we were working with from on gas daily we had two inspectors on site nearly every day and as soon as they found something the issues we noticed in the notice of probable violation we brought it to their attention and worked with them in parallel we were drafting a parallel compliance action for the issues that we did find and so the exceptions that we granted were for negotiations for the NOPV in the field we were working with from on gas to bring to their attention what we found and try to correct it the issues in the NOPV I want to stress were not related to the integrity of the pipeline in the ground it was more the induced voltage on the pipeline that was up on the supports before it went in the ground they could be a hazard to a worker that was working in that area and that induced voltage was from the nearby transmission lines so I just wanted to clear that up it was also the question of whether you would be comfortable with your family living near the pipeline yes I would the rules could be suspended so that Rachel could be a dialogue maybe just 10 seconds first of all induced voltage is a leading cause of pipeline corrosion and a cause of pipeline explosions and accidents it's not just a safety problem for the worker so it is relevant to the integrity of the pipeline second of all that was only one of the notices of probable violation there was one earlier and that was relative to weldings and coatings I've gone through every record I've possibly been able to get my hands on weldings electrical safety failure to bury the pipeline properly there's the issue of the worker captain we can make a long long list of issues that have come up we the public have a very hard time finding the right information to know but I think it's ingenuous to stand up there and say that the problem with electric induced current has nothing to do with the integrity and let's face it the prior notices of probable violations those problems were never addressed either they were left pending through construction thank you for clarifying that I should have been more clear there are two different issues there's cathodic protection which is the term used for protection of pipeline once it's in the ground and there's also when you're near power line you need to do something called AC mitigation because you do have induced voltage on the pipeline once it's in the ground we were not citing them for the AC mitigation we inspected that and didn't find violations with respect to the AC mitigation we did find violations with respect to the worker safety the electrical safety of the workers in the right of way and so we did look at the AC mitigation for the pipeline once it's put in the ground so when I'm walking along here I want to give a sense of the group and whether it would be helpful to take a short break after this next question or do you want to keep going and have people just cycle out if you want to get used to the restrooms what's your point keep going and I hope you understand if any of the panelists need to step out to do some rest don't please don't take that to be anything other than just their argument as well thanks I'm done loudly from East Palace this question is for the engineers as well yesterday Duke University published a new study in the journal of environmental science and technology and they did the study because they saw that states do not have a standardized way of reporting pipeline problems and spills and what they found was that in four states, only four states over ten years there were more than 6,600 spills so I'm asking you what do you think of this if we must have these things how can they be so cheap and have you ever been in a situation where you saw something and you thought to yourself I have a shadow of doubt and you're in a unique position to be a whistleblower and I just don't understand how this can be such a shawty operation hi I'm Miguel Andrew Harris I was a former student actually a year not too long ago I'm concerned with this pipeline due to the fact that I'm one of the next incoming to this great nation of ours right it just seems odd to me that you would just kind of pass off us just like me as a human being I'm just like appalled by the fact that you would just kind of cast this aside and not even consider the fact that there's people here who are going to be living past your life span and not just like I don't know it seems odd to me that you would just say yeah let's spend another 50 years doing something that we know is wrong rather than going to an alternative the fact that we know it's able to be done considering which is 100% all natural fuel that's what I'd say I think Shelburne speaking of the future I wanted to just ask a question real quick about the comprehensive energy plan and it's my understanding the Department of Public Service has a new comprehensive energy plan that's you know it's written every five years the last one was completed in December 2016 and from my reading I see at least in several places that it is a priority for the state of Vermont to connect with the federal gas pipeline so when I read about the attorney general of Massachusetts who says that Kinder Morgan is not going to be putting their gas pipeline through Massachusetts they may be looking to Vermont so I would like to just get a sense of what the future is going to look like in Vermont and with the comprehensive energy plan that says it's a priority to connect with the federal pipeline what can we all expect in our future thanks so as you noted we do update the comprehensive energy plan at least every six years last time December 2016 and there's a short section on natural gas there's the vast majority that is looking at total energy transportation thermal efficiency and renewables there's a small section towards the end which is petroleum products basically oil gasoline and then also talks about natural gas pipelines I reviewed that particular section on natural gas a couple days ago and there is a piece in there you're correct about potentially connecting to probably through New York or something along those lines and this is not when I say it's a this is what we are going to do comprehensive energy plan is looking at different options this is the 90% renewable by 2050 for all sectors electric transportation and thermal so natural gas is considered one option of fuel on a going forward basis it's not saying this is under comprehensive energy plan sorry being specific here so in terms of what can we expect it's a planning tool, we'll look at it there's already natural gas in the state from a planning perspective you have to think how is this going to fit in with the increased renewables that the plan is trying to get at how does this work towards the 90% by 2050 renewable goal and part of me was looking at that why is it 90% by 2050 why isn't it 100% and I think part of it is simply the fact that we already have the infrastructure in place we already have a longer term plan recognizing that natural gas throughout the country people are planning for that I'm not saying that's a good thing I'm just saying that's how it's been planned so in our plan what we're looking at is to what extent natural gas is a component in Vermont I can't stand up here right now and say there's no further we will never ever allow any public service board will never permit another gas pipeline natural gas should be a relatively small component of total energy going forward that's to me to take away from the comprehensive energy plan it does not however say that there's no it's not a component at all that's the answers my point was it's disturbing to me that it's a priority for the state to connect with the federal gas pipeline that I believe takes us in the wrong direction Miss Cook I hope we're not violating the rules of the forum tonight and proceeding this manner but I think there's a little lack of it has brought out an issue that I think is of central interest to the people here tonight and it is also one where I have a map how's this alright it is an issue that is of equal interest to me in terms of a message that my colleagues here and I tonight would like to get across to you folks your specific question was what can we expect and you've heard Mr. McAdara's answer another answer is I imagine we can expect that all of you will be involved and that all of you will be involved in the future iterations of the comprehensive energy plan and that you will understand that that involvement is not an act of futility that involvement is the way in which the viewpoints that you've had very strongly expressed tonight make their ways into the planning process just to underscore the point for you the pipeline that brought us here tonight it is the product of a plan it is the product of a plan that was designed many years ago at a time when we were not thinking the way we do today about the need for energy transformation planning has a certain lag built into it we try our best today to envision what is needed tomorrow and as the young man back there who was recently at Montpelier High very articulately put it you know how dare we that's what we call in our field a question of intergenerational equity I do that sort of thing with the greatest of trepidation because I have people like you in mind all the time this is not my way of excuse it's just the point that I would ask you to consider when I was your age there were people making those plans that brought the pipeline here today this is a baton that we pass on from generation to generation I am terribly sorry if our generation is failing yours we are doing our very best you must allow I'm not saying we're doing well I'm saying we are doing our very best and I hear many of you tonight saying we could be doing better and being very clear about that but here is my ask of you please do it please be involved we already will please do something more than coming to my office and occupying the halls because I think you know by now that we're interested in engagement you will get the engagement for what you need is involvement that can actually be reflective of what it is you seek and that involvement means learning about these plans learning how to involve yourself in creating those plans learning about your legislators learning who is voting which way involving yourself in town committees in your energy committees and towns do have those things here in Vermont that is where you need to make your presence felt as well I am being cut off my apologies hi I would just like to talk about information I think one of the things that we've heard several times from the panel tonight is that we don't have a good way to discern what the public will is and I'd like to disagree with that I'd like to disagree with it first because as far as I know the Department of Public Service has done no empirical research about public priorities for energy for the survey and the same you could do polling you could actually ask people what their priorities are I have heard Jeff Commons who I think really has the public's interest in heart but I've heard him say that he's been around the state and talked to people and people want two things they want cheap energy and they want reliable energy other states have already added clean energy I encourage you to ask people because I think you might find that in Vermont particularly among the 50 states people balance the first two priorities with clean energy as well secondly the market would tell you as you know I sat very much of the great news because I'd like to say that I think there are a lot of people in this room who are engaged who do show up, who do the research and I think it's actually frankly what patronizes to suggest that are the only advocates pushing the envelope to draw attention and somebody doing the research at the other end somebody mitigating somebody working on influencers and policy makers we can't stop and do one thing because that's the best seemingly the best way to get something done we have to do all of it but I'd like to point out that the comprehensive energy plan is a policy it is not legislated the fact that it has to be done is and this I believe June and everybody else on that panel that's where your whole comes in because I have encouraged Phil Scott say he's for more expansion of pipelines I have encouraged him to say he supports this pipeline no matter what whether it's safe or not and so I encourage you if you really believe that's true you have to listen to the people who do show up only as far as I know there are only two comments at your hearings for the comprehensive energy plan in favor of further gas pipeline expansion yet you are expanding so if you need empirical data then you need to go out and find it and let me just say one last thing which is that if you need empirical data look at the market I watched the rape case I did not see your department question or push Vermont gas on how many customers they have in Middlebury in fact your attorneys was very good at avoiding that question and your lawyers didn't follow up that's not to say your lawyers are bad but to say that when you do things like give extensions for the integrated resource plan so that you can't tell everybody in this room what Vermont gas's plans are because you've given them two extensions I believe we're up to 18 months now you have given change the deadline for the FERC annual reports so that they're not due until April the fiscal year ended on September 30th if you had that information you would have been more able to verify and audit the cost I can tell you that because I looked into 2016 so many things that your expert witnesses said were true were true but they didn't know why they had the information they had but they didn't have the information from three years ago or the information they needed now that they should have had in order to do the job that rate payers are not paying an extra penny for the pipeline than you were asking them to that's an economic issue I promise you if you truly believe that the way you're going to do your job better is to have information to stop laying into Vermont gas's and other utilities' heads and get that information we deserve it for those of you who have done military service I did want to thank you for that and for those of you who have done service and are going out on the line and given service every day I want to thank you too and I don't think we should be demeaning anybody's service and deciding that some service is higher than others now the field given service I'm not asking for any congratulations on is my grad school research and there's a lot of things I learned about research there's two basic tenets to research one is look at the source the other is look at the date if you look at the date you can get the most up to date research I know that there are usually many sides to the same subject but if you look back 50 years you're going to find even more so let's look at the recent literature let's look at the recent research and let's look at who is funding it now recent points here are that reading climate scientists are saying that it's got to be too late even to the 2050 and on top of that there's a lot of new research out there and I don't see any new research to the contrary saying that natural gas is if not as almost as harmful from a carbon emission standpoint as coal with 80 to 100 times the amount of of effect we're talking about leakages at the site of drilling and we're talking about on both ends now I would challenge you or ask you here's my question do you have any one shred of research that wasn't done by a major wasn't funded by a major corporation that actually suggests that we're not in a burning building right now we're we're just adding more fuel to this fire and saying well we'll pour a little bit more water on the sea we'll put a little bit of water on this and in 50 years we'll have a little bit more water it is too late to be falling behind thinking about policy and worrying about all these slow processes we need to put the fire out and I see the room full of people here I recognize most of these spaces there's people who have been on the front lines fighting in many ways and please don't disrespect their service and please give me one example or a recent study that shows to the contrary of what I'm saying and at least in the last five years department is sort of conferring as to who wants to respond to that I understand which is in your deliberations have you been do you have evidence that climate change is not a deal in present no natural gas is at all a valid mandate to our climate change issue where's some of the big visit given that considering all our Republican candidates for governor actually admitted the climate change existence is a problem but does natural gas a legitimate mandate and can you do your research for a reason so at least in my mind that is actually a policy question in terms of yes it contributes to climate change natural gas does the same way that gasoline the same way that fuel oil does the same way a lot of other factors do the question is how quickly, how fast do you do that do you ban all cars to me it's a policy choice it's not a research choice it becomes what is the appropriate phase out over time and what's the time scale of dealing with it we looked at the gas pipeline case what we were trying to balance is the affordability aspect for some of the for some particular customers including some of the large industrial customers we're looking at also over a long time period how do you actually phase out basically the only answer I can really give you is that there is no specific study out there at all that says natural gas is or is not an appropriate bandaid that becomes a policy choice yes climate change is an issue we all accept that we all move forward it's how you eventually how you address natural gas in your fuel mix the same way you address every other fossil fuel that's in there so you're looking at policy not at research that's really that's disgusting my name is Jeffrey Gardner I live in Bradford until about a year and a half ago I lived in West Fairleigh where I was on both the planning board and the planning commission I don't think it's a matter of phasing out in this case it's a matter of phasing in and I think there are a few questions of integrity to come up here we have a bunch of lawyers, accountants we do have an engineer that's getting close where are the environmental too where are the environmentalist environmental scientists the greatest impact of these projects is an environmental impact of climate change it should go to people who are expert in that first four the first permit if it crosses that area which none of these projects would then you can go on to what really is your business which is rate setting and rate regulation how a rate regulatory board gets to make the most momentous environmental decision is absolutely beyond me how do you justify that it goes to integrity June this isn't a matter of decisions that people made 50 years ago about planning it's about decisions that free people with your advice made between June of 2013 and December 23 of 2013 a man who I don't know whether he works for DPS any longer or not came to the board and testified for DPS his name was TJ was he an environmentalist no was he a scientist no he was an economic utilities analyst and he brought to the board research not policy research by Richard Howard his first paper the first paper that said in fact natural gas methane leaks like mad from the well head actually from the drill point all the way through to the consumer and he even said a number on that he said it leaks at a rate of 3.8% on average for every well I gotta say more important stuff and he was straight about it he was honest about it he said oh here's the EPA and they're saying it's way less than that well the EPA information both about methane as a driver of climate change and about how much actually leaks was just about 13 years behind they were way behind with in that period from June to December the EPA's own administrators said we gotta do this research over again something is not right here in fact the research that it had been based on was all done using facts and figures that came from where from industry not too good by April of 2014 Howard had his second paper all the numbers went up because by then he could use the IPCC's numbers about how much of a driver of methane what driver of climate change methane was where was TJ4 where was Chris Wreckia they followed the when following the research in 2013 in June where were they in 2014 in April did they come back no why my sense is the certificate of public good was issued that's all we needed we put it against the EPA's pretty large research at that point and we decided oh we can't really say whether this is a problem or not because there are two different this will seem familiar to you methodology involved well one methodology was to do research methodology was to talk to industry I think what you people really have to take to heart is this your public officials all of you and that means you've got to follow the constitution and the constitution says among other things that among your first duties is to protect in every way you can the public welfare to add to climate change the way you do these other problems of health and safety and expense and so on getting involved in people's property and dealing with the corporation that lies consistently you are not protecting people's welfare the mission statement that Jane read earlier lays out a whole bunch of things as if they were equal and and and and a big part of your job is to decide which of those things is most important is it saving money for rate payers that's not the whole public rate payers don't exhaust the public interest is it protecting the profits of VGS or any other corporation that comes to you I don't think so public interest first public welfare first and in fact the rate payers and the corporate executives are part of the public and if you add the way you have already to climate change you are making trouble and putting everyone in jeopardy and you also have established a precedent to do more of the same terrible thing think of that I want to make a couple points as quickly as I can the first one is I think you know all the information people are sharing with you about the deleterious effects on the climate on the cost benefit ratios I think you know a lot of the science in the end it's not about any of that in the end this is a moral issue we cannot continue as everybody's been saying in one way or another tonight to earn more fossil fuel to create more fossil fuel infrastructure that our kids are going to have to pay the price for I want to say something else about this though we've also talked a little bit about public service and your role I spent 29 years in the state government I served three governors I was commissioner of two departments and the deputy secretary of one I know exactly where you go through commissioner in your deliberations and your decision making I know exactly what it's like to make a very difficult decision when both sides are at your part at some point it becomes a moral choice for everybody there are people leaving the Trump administration today because they cannot go long with what's being done my point is that there's a lot of I've said to a lot of people who agree with me that we are very cynical about the process that we've gone through over the past four years or so having been in government as long as I have had in stat rooms with the governors, various governors I know the role that politics plays in decision making and I know that very good people which I assume every single one of you is I know how you can be compromised by those politics and that's where you have to push back because I believe that this gas pipeline was a done deal back in 2012 done deal signed, sealed, delivered and the only people that were pushing it obviously we're going to make a lot of money from it gas metro and Vermont gas and so we're very cynical and my closing point is we don't want to be cynical we want to believe that you are in fact acting in our best interest we want to believe that you are taking into consideration what is really in the public good and it's not more fossil fuels so I give you a credit commission for having this meeting tonight it's a very difficult thing to do I've done it many times but I gotta say that Mayor is at your name he mentioned going forward and there's a question about what's going to happen next I think we expect a forthright, honest, open, transparent government from all of you that we can rely on to do the right thing you have a question but if you want your fellow people to be heard, please be as cynical as you can be, thanks hi I'm reading this for Terrence Cuneo he couldn't be here tonight I'm a landowner and now former resident of Welleson whose family was to put it very mildly deeply affected by this pipeline I'd like to say three things briefly first, if there's anyone present who is likely to be directly affected by this pipeline saying because it's likely to run through your property I'd be happy to talk to to with him or her you can find my contact information easily on the UVM website second the BGS pipeline is a disaster in nearly every respect families such as ours were forced to have a pipeline run through our property against our will anyone who cares about property rights and is alarmed by the willingness of the state of Vermont to travel on them so that huge fossil fuel companies can profit on the stand with the firmest resolve against this pipeline third, it is of the utmost importance that you educate yourselves about pipelines their safety what sort of gas they transport and the companies behind them gas companies present fracked gas as a safe and clean alternative to oil we have overwhelming empirical evidence that this is just false and it is not an innocuous falsehood fracked gas is a nightmare for our world we now have much better energy alternatives that do not require families to have their property seized I do not release enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere thanks from Terrence Cuneo you're asking some coffee so I'm going to come back up here when I come Hi, my name is Hannah Morgan from Plainfield, Vermont and thank you for the opportunity to speak today I work locally for an ambulance service as an EMT so I work for a fire department and also I'm a volunteer on a local fast squad in Plainfield so because of that experience I know firsthand that as a state we are absolutely not prepared at all for the sort of emergency that could happen a disaster that could happen from a pipeline such as this and I think that it's not a question of if it will happen when and so I'm very concerned about the lack of safety taking into consideration around this project and what it will mean for the people who will be directly impacted when that will happen and the fact that there aren't people prepared to deal with the aftermath of that thank you yes thank you all for the opportunity to speak just looking through this timeline I couldn't help but think about some issues of trust and wondering really what is it in Vermont Gas that you as the department trust over the people and if we were to draw some simple analogy like we the people are paying to have a construction project done and you all are helping us maybe you're the general contractor and helping negotiate prices and we hire we're paying money and there's someone who comes and says we want to do all the plumbing for you and we say okay we sign a contract and we don't really want that I just lose my money we don't really want the plumbing because we want composting toilet anyways but you guys say no well it's policy it goes along with the comprehensive energy plan and all of a sudden millions of dollars later after you guys have signed the contract with the plumbing company you say well we're still going to push through the project and this is going to cost us and I'm just not sure not sure why you trust Vermont Gas that they're doing what's in the best interest for the people and there's a lot of money behind the people who work for Vermont Gas and if you look around this room these people have been working really hard for a number of years out of this coffee can out of the coffee can and there's not a lot of money behind us and the intentions of the people in here are not just to be paid people like Shumlin said but are to to fight up and stand stand for real change against corporations and so I just say you know it's what matters is the public interest really in this and not corporate interest and before I get totally cut off here I just have two last pictures that I want you to pass down and you take one and you can take one and so you don't need to spend too much time looking at them but they're relevant pictures the one coming this way is a picture of the pipeline in Hinesburg and that's supposed to be 36 inches deep 36 inches deep I just say ask yourself as a department are they doing their job does that look like 36 inches deep the second picture is a really devastating picture and it's from Pakistan and it looks like a pipeline trench and it's not it's a trench for mass graves following the heat wave last year last summer in Pakistan as a result of climate change so I would just ask the department to really think about what is in the public interest and what's in the corporate interest and what is it your responsibility to protect everybody is playing you said that your private opinion is not necessarily what you do at work and I just want to point out that ultimately all decisions are based on emotions on emotional priorities for us all it is really important that's why we are here instead of being at home doing all kinds of things which are waiting for us for us all it is important and many more more people will get here to present this that the environment gets protected that the environment comes first then I would like to point out that when we struggle for how could the future be and what would be next and what should have been done differently the whole country has decided 12 years ago already with not an article which I found in the library of the Montpellier-Calafel Library the YES newspaper that the whole country by 2020 would be totally fossil free from 12 years ago they invested government and local and nationwide everything they could into the direction of renewable energy only the best all the time and I have as a teacher hope that everybody learns constantly but also you don't have to look and say well you young people would take over and do it maybe better I have hope and I believe that if you find something good you will go for it so if you see an all of our comments today really positive and future beautiful visions and concerns about where I might go wrong you will rather go in the progressive and the positive direction and you will be spontaneous and say yes this sounds right we should do whatever we can to put it in the right direction on something which is wrong which we decided maybe because of lack of information maybe because of too much push from the wrong direction we decided a few years ago wrongly correct mistakes has to be done we can't just let the train go down the wrong path and I know you have more power than me or any single person here probably so that's why we are here because you want to appeal to your power and to your health but also you have grandchildren and you must also have concerns about the future I know I'm a recovery lawyer I make a lot of people happy when I say that I've been a prosecutor I've been a public defender and what I know and what you guys all know is that there are choices about where you put your state where you put your efforts what you push and what you don't push there are choices and what I hear and I'm not expert about this I followed this sort of unimportant and I came tonight because I heard on the radio station that there was this form is that you have a very serious credibility gas and I know you've walked into that commissioner training and it sounds like you may be a little responsible in your role as a prior role as an attorney for part of that I don't know that I'm just speculating but here in the areas that I see you have a really serious credibility problem one is we heard from the person in Hinesburg that the Vermont gas lied about wetlands lied I don't care with the agency natural resources I would hope that your experts would be reviewing that independently there are maps out there this is not a big game but that apparently did not happen before you got there there's also the cost if the cost has gone skyrocketed and what it sounds to me like what didn't happen with the prior public service department was not a strong an advocate to say stand their feet and scream and yell and feel if they can or do whatever they could to say this is unacceptable that there should be this expansion of cost that this is a fraud on the public service board on the right of the department of Vermont and we'd like to do something about it thirdly there's the issue of safety violations there are ways to stop things one of the ways is to look at some little thing that they're doing wrong and go after them and what I hear from people here I don't know this myself is that safety violations have not been followed aggressively you see a safety violation in june you can issue something in june you don't have to and I understand there is this thing that happens in Vermont where we try to work with people but when you find that you're working with a deceptive unreliable entity on the other side from my limited knowledge of where my gas is then I would hope that every single one of you including you commissioner charity would be looking to say looks like we made some bad mistakes what can we do now with the information we have to make sure this doesn't continue whether it's financial information here whether it's engineering information whatever it is you have some real prediability gaps to heal and so far what I keep hearing from the other attorneys they're not recovered yet so they maybe don't have it together well we're at a done deal we really can't do anything and I know and they know and you know as an attorney that's not the case large crowds are to be my name is Ulika Mrs. Timmy let me invite you for a moment to leave this room putting all argumentation aside and to take you over to mountain where Sam Jessup the man in his 30's is sitting in a tree way up high on a small platform it's June of last year he's been sitting there for over a week withstanding all kinds of weather why below BGS's construction company Michael's is felling tree after tree around him to clear the path for the frag gas pipeline and let me take you from here to a pipeline station in North Dakota where in October Sam joins four other people to turn the bubbles in together five states where the tar sands flow from Canada into the United States immediately after they do this they each call the company so no one gets hunged they are not young hotheads they are clear-sighted men and women who have fought for many years all kinds of legal and political battles to protect our planet's future for more extreme climate disaster they also act in solidarity with the suit tribes of position to the North Dakota access pipeline they are threatening the tribes lives and rights these valve turners have come to realize that as no help is coming from government we have to take things into our own hands with direct action we have to have a chance to bring about change at the last minute they are facing heavy charges with many years possibly up to 30-40 years in prison for one of them can war in his 60s it could mean the rest of his life they are not contending the illegality of their actions on the contrary they make videos of them to show to the prosecution and the jury together with scientific evidence of the climate change impacts we are already and will be experiencing they are doing these acts out of the sense of urgency and they are doing them for all of us as we are all in it together including our children and grandchildren I have heard you several times speak of your heart tonight and I would ask you to take these actions these courageous actions of these people into your heart the opportunity to speak my name is Gwendolyn Hosnith and I am here as a citizen and as a volunteer with Vermont for a new economy we are currently working on getting the state tax dollars out of TD Bank which funds pipelines all over the country but I am here regulator and permit grantor so I know something about the job that you are doing and I know that you do have choices regulation and permits do not work like a machine they work with real clear human choices in every step along the way and I agree wholehearted with the people here who have said that ultimately as regulators you are faced with a moral choice your views of what you are doing on a macro level and a large scale do play a role in that permits also aren't indelible rights written into law forever they are permissions and privileges granted with conditions and those conditions usually require that the permitee performs in a particular way now one question I have for you that I also had about the North Dakota access pipeline and have the happenstance to be able to question who was the person at the Army Corps of Engineers responsible for those permits back in November I asked him lots of questions about what alternatives had been looked at for that pipeline why was a pipeline going under a mile lake that served the drinking water needs of 17 million people downstream when alternatives that were a lot less harmful were available I asked the same question about in Vermont is going under a wetland in a public park that was set aside for wildlife what alternatives were ever looked at as available now it turned out that an EIS had never been done on the Dakota access pipeline and he actually went back to Washington and ordered that EIS be done was an EIS ever done on this were alternatives ever looked at that would have taken this pipeline first of all eliminating it and second of all not putting it under critical wildlife habitat thank you the question was whether an environmental impact assessment was done on the project and an environmental impact analysis wasn't done in the sense of the federal requirement because that's required for federal actions but in the review in the 248 process the process in the state where we look at these issues we did look at alternatives and our analysts that sponsored expert testimony in the case looked at the baseline scenario of the Vermont gas pipelines and what benefits that would provide and looked at what if you have the pipeline and expanded and enhanced efficiency that could be delivered by Vermont gas which is an efficiency utility at this point what kind of benefits do those bring and then it also looked at what if you serve just larger industrial customers with compressed natural gas or with liquefied natural gas and they ran economic analyses through an economic modeling tool that we use at the department and came up with a result that showed clear economic benefits from the not economic not economic I'm sorry about that that part of the analysis also took into account the greenhouse gas impacts associated is that he asked about the pipeline where it went through a public park through a wet land was there any any environmental impact study done on the environmental aspects not the broad ones on the ground ones there were all alternatives and they admitted in testimony that they never BTS ever examined going around the park they never asked for easements of any property owners around the park more economical to go right through the wetlands and they lied as to where the wetlands were because they thought they could have just bullied their way through and they chose horizontal drilling so that they didn't have to get a wetland permit which is really disturbing because it's leaking already so I apologize because I think I misunderstood your question initially and was thinking about the broader cost benefits that are associated with projects so I apologize for that environmental benefits one thing is that until TJ4 whoever he is introduced Howard's work in June of 2013 all that was ever considered was CO2 emissions at the Plain Tim that was the environmental determination that was made about methane that was it nothing about leaking and once they said oh that's a different methodology we'll run with the EPA never looked at it again that question of methane leaks and the methane contribution as a driver of climate change was never looked at again real failure I want to try and be responsive and I apologize because I think I'm doing a terrible job of this but I'm going to give you my best shot if that's okay with respect to the route I understand that the focus of the comments I've been hearing has to do with Trax Park my understanding is during the time that there was not an alternative looked in the CBG proceeding around that particular parcel that did not come up in that case it was reviewed by our environmental agency ANR and the wetlands issues were addressed by and they were evaluated and they were reviewed by ANR with respect to other parts of the of the route alternatives were looked at there were CBG proceedings after the initial one that looked at re-routes around the old stage road portion of the pipeline so I think where there were concerns raised at the time where they were found there were alternatives reviewed to those specific parcels but I do not think with respect to Trax Park at the time of the initial certificate there at least within the case there were alternatives looked at I hope that's helpful I just have a quick follow up question I've heard a lot and I haven't been following this particular case myself for all these years like the people here have which is why I waited to ask but I've heard a lot tonight about things that have happened since the initial certificate of public good was granted that may well be enough to open it up again wait one minute and look at it and I would hope that that would be the case here tonight that you would go away from this hearing thinking that maybe it's worth reopening and the only other quick follow up question is there are no federal permits involved in this pipeline when it goes across state lines this is an interstate pipeline so take these again most pipelines get their licenses or their certificates from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and that's because they deliver gas in interstate commerce so the licensing authority is spurred and as part of that process they have to follow NEPA which is the federal law that requires an environmental assessment and EIS in the case of Vermont Gas this is an intrastate pipeline that operates wholly within Vermont and for that reason the certificate comes from the state hi my name is Joseph Gaines I live in Marshfield Vermont and I want to thank you all for being here I know this isn't easy and I want to thank all of you you folks are absolutely amazing you are great I am so proud of all of you so I just want to express the concern that I have in the way you might be looking at your job are you looking at it broadly are you looking at it narrowly you've had enough information here to know that we're thinking when we think about public we're thinking about non-human life we're thinking about generations in front of us we're thinking about a much broader public that includes people in Pakistan all around the world that's how we define public the other thing I would ask you to think about is how do you define cost are you talking about money cost or are you talking about the cost of civilization and life on this planet and all the cities that were enumerated before that will be underwater if we continue the way we're going so I want you to think about how do you construe your job is it narrow, is it broad and that's one other thing I want to ask you good people and I do believe you are good people I want you to think about how I'm doing my job I'm doing my duty has resonated throughout history in very terrible ways I just wanted to respond to the statement that it's a done deal and we don't have any impact and I would like to know do we get a vote can we vote on this kind of thing going forward how would we impact something that's coming down the pike you're looking for input that would be representative and voting would give you an idea of what that would be Mrs. Go, thank you I appreciate your comments with regard to the questions that were asked about alternate routes and significant public good I'd like to beg you a moment to answer that gentleman's question about the methane tests that were used to determine in your study of the CPQ pardon, I've got two things that I wanted to say the first is a specific question I'll do with the inspecting while I say it the second is something that you have to say to everybody in the room so let me get to the first one I may arrest to take this photograph I'll give it to you let me compare this for you how deep is this pipeline supposed to be one barrier I'm not sure where this is I'll take I'll listen to later your information the rest of my information is a statement to the entire room where is the pipeline now can you answer your question it's in that 41 mile pipeline that is under discussion tonight and I'll be glad to take you there and why you've answered my questions how deep is this supposed to be a minimum, just a minimum well I'm afraid I'll have to say it depends so the federal code minimum code for pipeline safety is that transmission lines are buried three feet unless they have provisions to provide the same protection from damage as three feet would be now in this pipeline there were agreements made in several areas agricultural areas, wetland areas and such that designate deaths other than three feet including an agreement with Velco for when they want to utilize heavy equipment facilities sure I'm afraid it depends which is a deeper requirement it's the one for Velco so on a deeper requirement for three feet or less it's an agreement between Velco and more or less the agreement was four feet rather than three feet maybe four or five feet but it's not always the minimum if you can provide the same protection meaning the safety codes allow you to do that this particular pipe is coated with concrete this section here at least recognize that physical fact so this is different than the majority of the pipe that is in that 41 miles I do have one additional piece of information I'd like to give you and that is it is my understanding that there was an agreement across this property that that pipe was supposed to be buried five feet that was the agreement how deep you think that is I don't know how deep this is the pipe looks larger than you would expect I mean the pipe is a 12 inch pipe and when it's covered with concrete it's going to look larger so I'm not sure what that is I would assert that measuring from the center of the pipe which I think the way you do it right from the top of the pipe okay you just gave me another it's more stringent than what you just assumed right from the top of that pipe it's it's not a foot below great it hasn't been regraded I'm not sure of all the facts isn't something that could be followed up after tonight absolutely absolutely and the other thing that I wanted to say to the assembled group I've heard some intelligent answers from this side I've been amazed at what's been said on this side I came into this fight from my grandchildren grandchildren and I'm sorry we didn't make it if this is the best the little state of Vermont I moved here 15 years ago because I thought this was a place that would be a good place to survive and I think of what we've got here is the best that democracy can produce and if this is it we're doomed goodnight I'm Karen Bixler you said your personal opinion would be put to the side there's a buzz word around these things and I think there's a buzz word around these things it's called world view we see the world through our lenses and we see them very differently depending upon where we come from what our background is a lot of us are grasping very hard to try to change our world views because we realize that we grew up in an exploited racist society and that we've kind of been on the taking side of that and we're trying to turn that around and I want to say to you that your decisions your world view is going to influence those decisions and I don't care how hard you try to be the good soldier and as Joseph said sometimes being the good soldier is not the right decision thank you this is Magna Fried I live in south Burlington I'm the director of 350 Vermont but that's not how I'm speaking to you today I want to talk to you today actually as a person of faith deep faith because and following very closely on what Joseph and Karen and others have said and that is I really want I want you all to look at me and ask yourselves whoever is your God whoever is your higher power whoever you whatever thing above you that you answer to what would that it he she them do because you know this strange things are happening right now and it's just getting stranger right it's great it's I totally hear you June when you say I gotta follow my oath and I gotta follow my job description that's when democracy works democracy isn't working right now and if you don't think that's the case you gotta open your eyes it's not working in Vermont working in this nation you know when you're presented in your daily job to do something that is putting someone at risk that you know morally is wrong think about I've been struck by these customs officials right who have put a five year old in handcuffs now that's a real obvious one right and some of us can say oh no I wouldn't be that person but those are everyday people just like you and probably just like me too what's what Trump is doing for us though it's giving us a vision into what we're gonna be dealing with the climate real soon and the same decisions that might seem really obvious when we're up against a fascist authoritative leader we are up against those same questions but this time it's physics with chemistry and there's no turning back either there's turning back with Trump thank you two questions can you talk about some of the benefits that the pipeline provides that you balance against can you talk about some of the benefits the pipeline provides that you balance against these other considerations and is natural gas according to your understanding any cleaner or less likely to lead to global warming than would heat or you know can you identify yourself please I'm Mike Paul Heyness I'm a reporter with Vermont Air I am at a loss as to how to deal with your question because as I've said more than once tonight I am here and the folks I work with are here to hear from people who have very clear views about this pipeline I'm happy to be schooled by people present I appreciate that you're doing your job if you want visiting retribution upon me because I said scandalous things about journalism I apologize my sense of integrity says it's not appropriate for us to go there answer the question I just said what I believe to be the case which is it's not appropriate for me to be discussing the benefits of the project it's so many of you because so many of you tonight have spoken so clearly in your views about this pipeline project and this evening is about you what brought us here tonight that is what brought me there tonight it was the people who came to my office who spoke to me about the need for this forum and we've been listening very carefully and very intensively to the views of people who feel very strongly about this pipeline this is not a forum tonight in my view to debate problems and cons and to create false parity about position so Mike I don't think I'm going to answer those questions here so where is the debate if it's not here it's obviously not at the public service board unless you're a millionaire you can afford enough lawyers to go up against Vermont gas which is really amperage so where is the debate I mean you're not, we don't vote for you we vote for a governor that's already one step removed what about the public service board they make rules at the level of legislation why? because the legislature doesn't take responsibility it says you make the rules three people who aren't elected where is the debate and where is the part that the public can play in making decisions I'm done they're not going either though answering questions my name is Barry and I'm also cursed with possession of an eternities license and there were four words that are often used in the legal context that I think really can help focus this discussion two of them have to do with how decisions are made is ministerial and is discretionary a ministerial decision is what a zoning administrator does is the setback actually 25 feet to take a measure if it's 25 feet he gets the permit if it's 24 feet it has to go to the conditional review board which has the discretion to consider public good and things like that your job if your job is to determine if the mission of the department is to serve all citizens of Vermont through public advocacy planning and other actions that meets the public needs etc that certainly is not ministerial but it is discretionary you have the right you have the obligation to make decisions as what you think is in the public interest and the public interest is not just rates nobody defines themselves as rate payers we are citizens bravo applause but the question concerns all the citizens of Vermont and all the citizens of the world are citizens of global warming and the other two words are citizen and rate payer every rate payer is a citizen not every citizen is a rate payer and being a rate payer is not part of who anybody thinks of themselves as you know it's a minor part of their life but it's how you both department and the public service board define citizens it's as you know is this going to benefit them by costing a little bit more a little bit less and not looking at the whole citizen and the whole citizen cares about a lot more than rates payer my name is Rick Barstow from Advance and I just want to say that we are at a time in history like no one we are this is a time to think about things different think out of the box in terms of how we make decisions regarding this pipeline and this is this applies to decisions being made all over this planet right now the science is you know the physics of what's going on right now doesn't care about what's happening in this room it doesn't care about anything it's going full steam ahead just give it five minutes of patience and let's not dwindle out of here if anybody can stay let's all leave when we're quick we are in a race against time and we're we're all fiddling around the planet is burning I think that's the situation right now so we better figure out how to put this fire out quick good evening thank you for the forum I'm the energy coordinator from Plainfield as a volunteer I'm an employee of the state of Vermont as a paid employee I realize every day when I get up that I pay my taxes and essentially I'm paying my own salary so therefore I'm accountable to myself number one I think that you June and your board and advisors have the choice to make the right decision we elected the person who appointed you so we have a little bit of vestiture in what you do the impact on the planet is in our face we have to leave this in the ground every little bit that we do or avoid doing is a nail either in the coffin or averted from the coffin we're killing the planet it's within all our morality to do something about it we have shaky engineering going on what the heck is an inadvertent release it's a freaking spill you Mr. Engineer you Mr. Environmental Person to be out there in your boots, in your hard hat in your vest and looking at that all this shaky stuff if I was flying a car and the first day I did it I don't think I'm going to drive in that car anymore so look into your heart look into your minds look into your education look into the faces of the people in here and those of your grandchildren and shut this down you don't have to shut it down completely you can wake up through the morning and say stop, enough already we need to look again I live in Essex and I have one thing to say you've got a lot of people in your back if you make the right decision so don't feel as though you're out there when you make the right decision everyone in this group including myself we've got your back I was pretty much like sent to going here looking mostly for things for going forward so I have a suggestion for that I won't have time to say but if you wanted a question for you following up on Heidi's question you said that you don't have jurisdiction going forward so I was wondering if there was any sort of body or anything that does have the ability right now to stop the pipeline so the question is is there any entity that has the authority to shut down the pipeline on a legal basis at this point the CPG was appealed to the Supreme Court and that appeal was ultimately withdrawn in addition to that CLF had filed a petition with the Board much like I believe it was a speaker over here asked to reopen the CPG and that proceeding is still pending before the Board good boy my law school from my law school I said pending no no conservation law foundation so there have been several issues been drawn up here law we should divide the law I studied law for a great moment one of the things I learned I never forgot that the nature we've been talking about nature here law is that it comes after reality and the reality is that a lot of laws that we started 100 years ago with industrial revolution we have to end them and we are like a ship that is moving to a waterfall and we don't want to get off because we know the ship but I think we have to turn around and the other thing you are the Department of Public Service and this has been said you have a very important position now because you have to have the guts to turn around not knowing where you're going but you have to I'm from Essex Junction and I think what's important is we recognize we're an occupied land in saying that I'm not a lawyer I had my shots I want to thank the custodian for allowing us to be here I want to thank the court being present and offering the opportunity for the community to actually speak the question is whether they're heard as a storyteller I do know the difference some valuable information is giving to you tonight and I want to just highlight a few of those as a storyteller one is that you have choice nothing in life is a done deal if that were the case we're all doomed the other piece here is the fact that they've mentioned some choices that we make that are moral or amoral and I don't want to lecture anybody on the wrong spiritual path it is each of our own path but it leads to where we're all going to be and I think what's equally important is that we tell a good story in the time frame we're here we make good choices that serve beyond ourselves mentioned service I've been with the state of Vermont for over 20 years I was at Standing Rock twice helping veterans who were immobile move to that front line I saw things there that were un-American I'm seeing things happen in our community today that are un-American and I suggest that if you do one thing for yourself tonight that asking you to open up your eyes, your ears your mouths open up your heart the only thing that's going to save us all is prayer it's been the foundation of what's going on at Standing Rock we have a new movement in this country and everyone in this room I want to thank you for your service each and every one thank you tonight this is a result of direct action direct action gets the goods what we have heard from these folks tonight is that there's no recourse that this is a done deal the pipeline is going to go through I think I would be interested to see some proof that there's no way to reopen the CPG consider phase three today as we speak tonight the tents at Standing Rock are on fire and the people are being removed from camp by by law enforcement this is the world that we're in law or no law, I think the questions of ethics or morality are all of ours personally like Arthur said thank you so much for all of that I think that if it is true that there's no recourse here with the Department of Public Service and the Public Service Board then our only options are to try and overwhelm the legislature by taking it to the streets continuing with direct action and continuing by trying to change the job descriptions of these folks up here to mirror what it is that we need from them well we're all clear that we need from them the agreements that have been made tonight include us going to the spot where that picture was taken and being able to tell with the inspector whether or not that pipe was buried substandard I think that we also want to hear whether or not OSHA was ever called around the AC issue with the current going through the pipeline if that was the big health issue we never heard back from that question but I think that tonight was a really amazing experience to actually be able to speak truth to power even if no transactional result could come from it and we really appreciate all being here we know we've seen that your office is an adversarial one thank you very much and thank you very much so I'd like to the rest of the closing statements from the coalition we'll go to Rachel Smoker who's been one of our hardest working advocates and agitators in recent months I didn't anticipate coming up here and making closing statements on this event I do thank you for taking the time to listen to us I guess you were sort of forced into it and I think what we've learned is that that's the lesson that we take we have to force these things in order to make them happen I would like to suggest some follow-up statements wait a second you're going to get your closing statements no I'm not we're already way over the agreement well Rachel's going to finish okay I just want to in one sex point you could have asked for a meeting and I would have given you one okay okay fine that's very important to me okay well I think people have been asking and asking and asking it's very frustrating as your public servant and I would ask in the future would you simply ask okay we will ask but I hope you can understand how frustrating this is for people who have been fighting and fighting and fighting I would like to suggest some follow-up steps which is from my perception it's very clear that what we need to do is to reopen the certificate of public good you are already as well as possible I would like to ask that you really lay out for us why it is that that isn't possible if it is possible as was said earlier we have your back okay there is new information that has come out about the environmental impacts of Ramon gas and about this pipeline and we know that Ramon gas has failed in many respects in terms of living up to the conditions of the certificate of public good and they should have been challenged and their feet should have been held to the fire but they weren't so my follow-up step is I would really like us to be able to sit down I'm asking that we sit down and have a serious discussion about how we can reopen the certificate of public good and revisit this whole thing so that we can have a good deal thank you for being treating each other as respectfully and respectfully as you did what you can expect from here is that I will try to gather people's notes put together a summary in draft form an email to anyone who signed up on the sheet back there that's why we had to sign up sheets so that you could get a draft copy of the summary so we want to make sure that it's reflective of what was said and so if you would like to be a part of that process please to sign up if you haven't already and please again thank you for coming but if you could we could get out of here quickly that would be great because the Port Castilian is on overtime so thanks for respecting me