 But I just wanted you to be clear that it's a meeting that's 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. Good evening, everyone. Public Service, Ms. 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. This is the Department of Public Service. That must mean it's a branch of government designed to serve me. Oh, nice. 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. 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 damn word 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 steep competition from low oil prices. Governor Shumlin stated in a radio interview just before he left office that the decision to build this fracked 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 see the 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. Truth is, we need you, Ms. Curie, 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 hope you can keep it somewhere near where you can work, where you work, so you won't be often reminded of those that are depending on you. It's Kermit the Frog, because it really isn't easy being green. 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. I really hope that DPS can really help me along 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. It seems 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 those principles have never been more important in our nation's life than at this moment. 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. I called Vermont gas and spoke to Beth Parrott. She assured me, 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. Heinsberg, 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. The parties 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 took a lot of persistence and over a month and a half just doesn't add up. So back to our 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? With the 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 role 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 remoders. You who have a certain persuasion and other remoders 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 and 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 Miss Porter taking notes. She knows what's coming next. What comes next is a course in inquiry into the issue that you've raised. But that is all I can promise. There's utility projects like this all over the continent, all over the world. There's pipelines, pulling all this gas and material out of the ground and shifting it into international markets. 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 the gas. There's explosive, volatile, fracked oil coming down the west shore of Lake Champlain in molasses cars, in DOT 111s. Somebody approved that too. 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 issued a press release that this event was going to happen tonight. I don't see anybody with this sign that says pro pipeline. All I see is no pipeline. 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't have this. We can't have this in our communities. We can't have this in our world. And y'all sit up there and get paid to continue to rubber stamp this project. Speak to us. Speak to us. 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 only searching process is open. It's not closed by that 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. 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? But as somebody who spends an entire career weighing information in search of the public good, I cannot concede that this is the only voice in our discussion. You know 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 DDC. He said, hey, they're going through wetlands. Anybody looking at this? And they assured us that they had 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 DDC 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. Okay. So I think the takeaway is that this job, 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, they should not be taking on projects like this. Thank you. There are zillions of souls out there that have no voice. And they're going to be affected by any leaking of cracked gas or the consequences of burning dirty fuel. So please, remember the rest of the creation. 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. 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 to what is, when are we going to put the water, the earth, instead of corporations? The frat 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 demonstrated increased 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? 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 the 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. 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 fracked 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 other places. 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 heard there's someone from the Conservation Law Foundation here tonight. I'm 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 heard. And I'm reading your little blurb 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'm wondering why the ratepayers are going to have to absorb this extraordinarily amount of over cost for a pipeline, which is really a trunk line. It's not going to distribute a lot of gas to anybody in this state. They still had their bills added to without even asking their permission to put together the surf fund, the slush fund, that it was money taken out of people's pockets. I'm sorry, and that's money that should be accounted for. I know you said you have a great accountant. 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 issue of rates. That's your responsibility. Not a private opinion, it's your responsibility. So thank you. Thank you for that question. We currently do have a rate case pending. What I want to say is that we take the amount that ratepayers will pay for the service they are provided extraordinarily seriously. The amount of any cost, be it an ordinary expense or a big capital project that is going to be borne by ratepayers, 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've had the contribution of CLF in this case as well. So it's been a robust look and we anticipate it coming to a conclusion in the next few months. Gas is temporarily achieved because of the 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 to you, 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 polluted. It traps 86 to 105 times more heat in the atmosphere over 20 years than does carbon dioxide. And the spills make it be even less of a feasible fuel source. So I'm just going to share this picture with you. But the community TV is going to have it on. It basically shows the leaks in the Boston area. So you've not ever, no one's going to say it is safe. These are thousands of lines throughout Boston. I've seen nothing before. And now we know that from well head through every pump, through distribution all the way, there is just enormous leakage. That information didn't become known until after the pipeline was well underway. And looking at study after study and medicine, if they discover halfway through, they will stop the medicine or they will stop the whole project rather than go forward. 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? Well, I have an interesting job because the green books, the statutes that are passed by, full of laws that are passed by your representatives tell me that I'm supposed to represent the public of Vermont or the replayers of Vermont or the state of Vermont. So I have hundreds of thousands of clients. And everyone in this room, I think, probably has the ability to vote. That's how you tell me what to do. How to affect outcomes, be involved on the local level, be involved with AMG committees, we've heard from some people tonight who are involved 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. 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? The short answer is the public service board issued what's called Certificate of Public Good December 23, 2013. So at this point, what we're actually seeing is certificate has been granted. The only thing left is the Supreme Court, I believe, is actually still reviewing a condemnation. One in Hinesford. So at this point, the permit's been issued. We had a discussion about that when we actually talked about the forum of holding this forum. And 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're trying to do is figure out how do you move forward? How do we learn from the past process? So essentially to me this forum is more looking forward. How do we go forward on this? How do we take into consideration the issues and what do we think about the next time a project comes up? There's a pipeline project, there's wind projects. 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 why are we here? We're here because a group of folks actually wanted to have this public forum and we agreed to have the public forum. So Ed was shocked given Shumlin's environmental record to see that he had been a proponent of a pipeline. It's going to push fracked gas through our state. We can't do any better than that. 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. You can do more, I think, than you're doing. And I think you have the 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. 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? The questions that you folks are struggling with are much bigger than what is at stake in any one public service board case. It is. I respect that. Aren't you elected to be transcarried? No, I'm not elected. I'm appointed. I am appointed by a gentleman who is elected and that was the point Mr. Collins 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? So I'm going to speak to all of you up here. I know what it's like to have to have a work opinion and a non-work opinion. I spent 19 months in Afghanistan having a work opinion and a non-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. I want to ask you is that two years from now or three years from now 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. I want you to remember 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 think it was real. 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 speak spots to be and grow a family to them and also to all of the creatures that live in the habitat of the ecosystem of a wetland which is 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 we are part of a community that is far beyond humans and there are many other creatures that actually provide a regenerative community that we rely on and this project is a microcosm of a macrocosm. It's actually very relevant and so this situation here in Vermont, this pipeline is a little example of a very sick problem with our species where we're feeling like it's all about us. Even though you said this might get done 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 living part of the ecosystem. You can change your role and in Tropicasca is a concept where everything we do affects everything else. The people who are for this pipeline are not here. 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 to 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. 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 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? There are mitigation rules that allow somebody to build through wetland as long as they mitigate other wetlands. It's what 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. If you're not going to get anywhere, I'm talking to these people. No. 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'm a climate activist. 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 that came 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 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. And guess what? 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 something being withheld. Okay? Those are the only two logical possibilities. You either didn't do the oversight and inspections or you're withholding information from the public records request. Do you honestly feel okay to have your children living on this pipeline? The issues in the OOPV 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. It was closer 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. 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, coatings, electrical safety, failure to bury the pipeline properly. There's the issue of the worker capped in. 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 ingenious 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 notice of probable violation, 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 a 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. 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 10 years, there were more than 6,600 spills. So I'm asking you, what do you think of this? How, if we must have these things, how can it be so cheap? And have you ever been in a situation where you saw something and you thought to yourself, I have a shadow put out and you're in a unique position to be a whistleblower and I just don't understand how this can be such a shoddy operation? Kind of appalled by the fact that you were just kind of cast aside and not even consider the fact that there's people here who are going to be living past your lifespan 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 to the fact that we know is able to be done considering virulence, which is 100% all natural fuel. It's my understanding that 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 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? 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 and like 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 answer. 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. 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 have very strongly expressed tonight make their ways into the planning process. It is the product of a plan that was designed many years ago. 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. First, because as far as I know the Department of Public Service has done no empirical research about public priorities for energy. You could survey and the same. You could do polling. You could actually ask people what their priorities are. I have heard Jeff Cummings, 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 to the mix on the basis of surveys and polling. 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. 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 up on that panel, that's where your goal comes in. Because I have encouraged Bill 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 raid case. I did not see your department question or push Vermont Gas on how many customers they have in Middlebury. In fact, I mean, similarities 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' plans are. Because you've given them two extensions, I believe you'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 costs. I can tell you that because I looked into 2016, because your expert witnesses said were true or 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. 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, points here are that all leading climate scientists are saying that it's going to be too late moving even to the 2050 date. And on top of that, there's a lot of new research out there and I haven't heard any new research to the contrary saying that natural gas is, if not as almost as harmful from a carbon emission standpoint as coal. 80 to 100 times the amount 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 corporation that actually suggests that we're not in a burning building right now. We're just adding more fuel to this fire and saying, well, we'll pour a little bit more water on. See, we'll put in 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 and 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 as 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 us the contrary of what I'm saying. And the reason I need the last five years. 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. And this is something that when we looked at a gas pipeline case, what we were trying to balance is the affordability aspect 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 mandate. That becomes a policy choice. Yes, it's 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. Jeffrey Gartner, my name is Jeffrey Gartner. 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 environmentalists, 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 barrier 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 behind me. How do you justify that? That also 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 23rd of 2013. A man, if 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 Cord. 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've got to say more. This is important stuff. When TJ Cord presented this, 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. In that period from June to December, the EPA's own administrator said, we've got to 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 TJ Cord? Where was Chris Rechia? They followed the advice, or they were 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 glassy 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, methodologies involved. Well, one methodology was to do research, and the other 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, and all of these other problems of health and safety and expense and so on, and getting involved in people's property, and dealing with corporations 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 a big part of your job is to decide which of those things is most important. Is it saving money for ratepayers? That's not the whole public. Ratepayers 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 ratepayers and the corporate executives are part of the public whose interest you have to protect. And if you add the way you have already to climate change, you're making trouble and putting everyone in jeopardy, and you also have established a precedent to do more of the same terrible thing. Thank the man. I think you know all the information people are sharing with you about the military's effects on the climate. I think you know 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 state government. I served three governors. I was commissioner of two departments and the deputy secretary of one. I know exactly what you go through as 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 on with what's being done. I'm not suggesting you do that. No, I'm not. My point is that there's a lot of... I've said to a lot of people in the room 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 they 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 seal delivered. And the only people that were pushing it, obviously, were going to make a lot of money from it. Gas metro and Vermont gas. Done deal. 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 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 credit, Commissioner, for having this meeting tonight. It's a very difficult thing to do a ton of many times. But I got to say, going forward, I think it was Mr. McNamara, is that your name? He mentioned going forward. And then there's a question about what's going to happen next. I think we expect forthright, honest, open, transparent government from all of you that we can rely on to do the right thing.