►
Description
From the organizer:
Please vote no on Ballot Item No 2. in order to reject incentives for polluting, destructive and false climate solutions.
The question asks voters to allow the City to impose a fee on new buildings and large, existing commercial and industrial buildings that install fossil fuel rather than renewable heating for the stated purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The question does not inform voters that the City considers renewable heating to include systems fueled by wood, including wood burned in the McNeil plant which the City proposes to retrofit to supply steam heat to the University of Vermont Medical Center, the UVM campus and the Intervale Center. The question also does not inform voters that the City considers renewable heating systems to include systems fueled by "renewable" gas and biodiesel. Because all three of these "renewable" fuel sources would not be subject to the fee, imposing a fee on fossil fuel heating systems would incentivize them. Incentivizing these types of carbon-intensive, polluting "renewable" fuel sources would increase greenhouse gas emissions, adversely impact public health, and impair forest biodiversity.
Proponents of this question will tell you that this project has nothing to do with the McNeil Generating Station, but the carbon impact fee as written represents a last ditch effort to make the proposed district energy project economically viable after repeated attempts to advance the project have been rejected due to a lack of financial viability. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than burning fossil fuels, emits other air pollutants harmful to human health, and causes destruction and impairment of the biodiversity of our forests. The McNeil plant is the largest stationary source of greenhouse gas and other harmful air pollutants in Vermont. Rather than prop-up the plant, the City should begin planning for the retirement of the aging, polluting plant.
2/19/2023
https://linktr.ee/townmeetingtv
Town Meeting TV is a free speech forum and the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Town Meeting TV trustees and staff. If you have a different perspective to share, we invite you to join the conversation! Create your own program or cover a community meeting or event. Contact maketv@cctv.org or call 862-3966.
Thank you for tuning into Town Meeting TV! Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and visit our website for more videos and information about how we open the doors to local government using community media. www.Ch17.TV
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
coming
I'm,
Nick
per
sampieri
I
live
in
Burlington's
Old,
North,
End
and
I've
worked
on
climate
and
air
pollution.
If
issues
in
the
government
and
non-profit
sectors
for
many
years
and
I
want
to
share
with
you
my
concerns
about
a
ballot
question
number
two
ballot.
Question
number
two
asks
Burlington
voters
to
allow
the
city
council
to
impose
a
so-called
carbon
pollution
impact
fee
on
fossil
fuel
heating
systems.
A
However,
the
ballot
question
gives
voters
no
indication
whatsoever
as
to
what
the
city
considers
to
be
renewable
types
of
heating
systems.
So
we're
really
concerned
because
when
you
read
the
question,
I
mean
it
sounds
like
a
great
thing.
You
know
who
doesn't
want
to
impose
a
fee
on
fossil
fuel
heating
systems,
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
sounds
great.
Doesn't
it
the
problem?
Is
the
city
defines
renewable
systems
which
will
not
be
subject
to
the
fee
to
include
heat
generated
from
from
three
different
types
of
carbon
intensive
polluting
fuels?
A
A
The
other
type
of
biomass
burning
that
would
not
be
subject
to
the
fee
would
be
wood
and
pellet
stoves
in
people's
homes
and
again
like
burning
wood
and
McNeil
that
generates
more
carbon
dioxide
emissions
than
burning
coal
and,
in
addition,
it's
a
very
bad
idea
to
be
incentivizing
wooden
pellet
stoves.
In
a
city
like
Burlington
from
a
public
health
standpoint,
the
American
Lung
Association
recommends
that
people
try
to
avoid
using
wood
to
heat
their
homes
because
of
the
the
emissions
of
particulate
matter
and
other
hazardous
air
pollutants.
A
A
So
the
fee
will
not
apply
to
biomass.
The
fee
will
also
not
apply
to
renewable
natural
gas.
I
should
say
so-called
renewable
natural
gas.
How
many
people
know
what
renewable
natural
gas
is?
Just
the
show
of
hands
yeah
a
few
of
you
do,
but
some
of
you
don't
so
I
think
I
probably
ought
to
tell
you
what
it
is.
A
Renewable
natural
gas
is
essentially
the
same
thing
as
natural
gas.
It's
methane
when
you
burn
it,
it
emits
CO2
just
like
when
you
burn
Natural
Gas,
it
emits
CO2,
but
renewable
natural
gas,
rather
than
being
taken
out
of
the
ground,
is,
is
generated
by
landfills
when
organic
matter
decomposes
in
a
landfill
it
generates.
Methane
and
landfills
are
required
by
federal
law
to
collect
their
methane.
A
A
A
But
the
problem
is,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
easily
fix
the
fee
when
they're
developing
the
ordinance.
We
couldn't
fix
it
by
adding
those
carbon
intensive
types
of
Renewables
to
the
fee,
because
the
charter
change
legislation
that
allows
the
city
to
regulate
thermal
heating
requires
that
any
fee,
that's
going
to
be
assessed,
be
approved
by
voters,
and
so
with
voters
approve
the
fee
on
fossil
fuels.
A
A
Finally,
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
couple
things
about
the
McNeil
plant
number
one.
This
fee
is
definitely
designed
to
incentivize
and
improve
the
economics
of
the
proposed
District
heating
system
back
in
2018,
our
mayor
spoke
and
support
of
a
different
carbon
impact
fee.
This
was
a
proposal
for
a
Statewide
impact
fee
and
he
was
quoted
as
saying
and
I'm
paraphrasing
a
little
bit,
but
he
was
quoted
as
saying
a
Statewide.
Carbon
impact
fee
would
make
the
economics
of
the
McNeil
District
heating
system
a
slam
dunk.
A
C
A
The
methane
go
off,
which
is
what
it's
going
to
do.
Well,
yeah,
well,
I,
I'm,
not
sure
I
could
give
you
the
math
you're
asking
for,
but
we
agree
that
that
methane
ought
to
be
captured
from
the
landfills
and
not
allowed
to
go
off
into
the
atmosphere.
In
fact,
Federal
Law
requires
that
landfills
of
any
size
collect
that
they're,
extensive
regulations
governing
landfill
gas
collection
systems
and-
and
you
know
that
nothing
more
efficient
to
use
it
locally
near
the
source,
rather
than
put
it
in
the
district
pipeline
for
use
in
a
district
City.
B
I
could
speak
just
a
tiny
bit
to
that,
too.
Is
that
there's
every
study
you
see
about
renewable
natural
gas
says
you
should
burn
it
at
the
site
and
the
moment
you
try
to
transport
it.
It's
a
disaster
for
the
climate,
there's
tons
of
fugitive
emissions
from
pipelines
and
processing
Etc
so
that
if
you're
going
to
do
anything
with
it,
you
should
burn
it
right
there.
Okay,
rather
than
the
contract,
that
vgs
has
with
Seneca
Meadows
landfill
in
New
York.
B
D
E
D
When
the
gas
is
collected
at
the
farm
or
at
the
landfill,
it's
called
biogas
and
it's
unrefined
to
some
extent
and
you
can
use
it.
But
if
you
want
to
put
it
in
a
pipeline,
then
you're
going
to
process
it
and
the
processing
consumes
a
lot
of
energy
and
waste
resources.
That's
the
step
that
you
shouldn't
bother
with
just
do
something
with
it
at
the
site.
C
A
F
B
G
A
D
A
G
A
I
A
A
J
A
K
What
folks
have
been
saying
about
the
economics
of
District
heating
for
UVM?
Can
you
speak
to
that
math
because
I'm
confused
about
the
economics
first?
Why
does
it
have
to
be
economically
viable
if
we
want
to
do
the
right
thing,
I'm,
not
saying
I'm,
not
advocating
that
this
is
the
right
thing,
I'm
just
saying.
If
we
want
to
do
the
right
thing
for
the
planet,
then
why
does
it
have
to
be
economically
viable
you?
K
H
H
These
are
the
people
that
are
leading
us
and
doing
these
projects.
That's
the
way
they've
chosen
to
do
it,
I'm
saying
that's
right:
it's
their
values!
That's
how
they've
done
it.
I
have
to
show
that
it
works
economically
because
they
don't
work
to
do
something
with
other
monies.
They
haven't
just
build
it.
They
want
to
show
this
thing
by
itself.
K
L
L
C
C
C
C
C
would
be
to
all
of
us
live
with
less
carbon
imprint,
but
B
in
between
there
McNeil
would
be
better
if
we
burnt
gas
because
we
wouldn't
be
cutting
down
trees
and
those
trees
would
continue
to
absorb
carbon
correct
and
we
would
be
saving
our
land
and
we
don't
we'd,
be
honest
about
what
we're
doing,
which
is
we're
putting
carbon
in
the
atmosphere,
and
if
we
burn
natural
gas,
we
have
to
admit
it.
So,
in
a
sense,
what
we're
saying
is
it
would
be
better
if
we
went
back
to
natural
gas
at
McNeil.
G
G
C
G
C
A
M
G
B
H
I,
don't
know
how
much
of
this
I'll
actually
read,
but
just
that
one's
the
only
yeah
there
we
go
I'm
Steve,
Goodkind
I
am
the
happily
retired
former
public
works
director
and
city
engineer
for
the
City
of
Burlington
and
I.
Try
to
think
about
to
keep
what
I'm
going
to
say,
simple
and
and
focus
I
thought
the
movie
was
pretty
good.
Both
movies
were
pretty
good.
H
H
You'll
find
there's
no
shortage
of
hypocrisy
at
every
political
level
in
this
country
and
state.
When
it
comes
to
how
we're
approaching
climate
change
Burlington
in
2019
adopted
a
climate
emergency
act,
it
says
we'll
be
net
carbon
neutral
by
2050.
and
I'll
go
through,
and
some
of
the
stuff
comes
actually
from
the
movie.
Also
that
it's
not
possible
it's
just
it's
a
fraud.
What
they're
doing-
and
we
might
be
better
off
to
do
something
different,
almost
anything
different.
H
It
turns
out
the
McNeil
plant
and
you
saw
it
even
12
years
ago
and
they
made
that
second
clip
Burns
400
000
tons
of
wood
a
year
and
the
state
of
Vermont
put
together
a
spreadsheet
because
they
don't
report
this.
They
put
together
a
spreadsheet
on
how
much
CO2
they
thought
the
plant
would
produce
and
what
they
did
was
they
it's
a
long
spreadsheet
lots
of
different
calculations.
It
depends
on
the
type
of
wood
the
facility,
and
this
specialty
was
specific
to
McNeil
plant
anyway.
After
this
long
spreadsheet,
you
go
through
all
these
calculations.
H
What
it
turns
out
is
for
every
pound
of
wood.
You
burn
at
McNeil,
you
get
a
pound
of
CO2,
so
when
you
see
400,
000
tons
of
water
burned,
400
000
tons
of
CO2
were
created
and
it's
a
one-to-one
ratio.
So
if
the
future,
if
McNeil
burns
more
wood,
it's
easy
to
figure
out
how
much
it
is,
but
you'll
find
that
wherever
you
look,
look
at
the
internet
scour
it,
you
will
not
find
anywhere
where
BDS
CO2
production
is
found.
Stated-
and
they
never
talk
about
it-
they
never
mention
it.
H
They
do
make
a
brief
reference
to
tons
of
wood
being
burned.
400
tons
of
year,
76
tons
an
hour
when
it
actually
operates,
does
not
break
full
time,
but
it's
400,
000
plus
and
almost
anything.
The
city
is
planning
on
doing,
to
convert
fossil
fuels,
to
electricity
and
to
have
electric
vehicles
and
to
use
waste
heat.
It
all
involves
McNeil.
That
is
our
one
source
of
power
that
we
really
control
and
it's
useful
at
anything
increased
So.
H
H
Seeing
now-
and
you
talk
about
the
the
source
of
the
fuel
and
they
like
to
say,
they're,
using
the
tops
of
the
trees,
the
junk
and
whatever,
but
the
truth
is,
if
there
wasn't,
logging
going
on
they'd
have
no
fuel,
so
they
can't
they're
not
really
separated
from
that.
It's
just
the
flip
side
of
the
same
coin,
where
they're
taking
the
whole
trees
are
part
of
it.
They
rely
on
lots
of
forest
destruction
to
get
their
fuel
and
there's
no
doubt
about
it.
H
And
again
you
can
say
it's
just
the
tops,
but
there'll
be
no
tops
without
the
bottoms
and
I.
Don't
know
if
it's
better
if
they
take
whole
trees
or
do
what
they're
doing
but
to
create
all
that
little
stuff
off.
The
top
takes
a
lot
more
logging
to
be
done
than
if
you
just
log
the
whole
tree
ironically,
so
I
don't
think
it's
a
better
way
to
go.
It's
probably
a
worse
way
to
go,
but
they're
both
bad,
because
I
think
the
the
film
is
set
in
Nick
said
it
burning.
H
H
H
Of
it,
this
thing
gets
a
third
of
that.
Maybe
so
it's
not
even
a
good
idea
to
burn
wood
industrial
plant,
but
if
you
think
about
trees-
and
they
mentioned
74
years,
I-
think
in
Vermont,
it's
more
like
80
years
roughly
for
a
tree
to
grow
back
to
maturity,
that's
just
to
absorb
the
carbon.
When
the
tree
was
cut
down,
it
was
removed,
then
you
might
have
to
actually
theoretically
go
another
80
years
to
catch
up
with
what
you
missed.
But
if
you
look
at
it,
trees
grow
if
you're
any
kind
of
a
math
person.
H
You
know
what
exponential
growth
would
be
it
grows
slowly
then
it
grows
faster
and
faster
and
faster
until
it
gets
to
maturity.
So
a
young
Tree
in
its
first
years
of
growth
doesn't
grow
as
fast
doesn't
create
as
much
new
mass
as
a
large
tree
and
the
same
thing.
With
this
carbon
uptake,
the
old
trees
do
the
work.
The
new
trees
do
much
less
forget
about
exponents
for
a
minute,
though
assume
A
Tree
Grows,
and
this
is
giving
them
a
lot
of
credit
tree
grows
in
a
straight
line.
H
Little
tree
just
keeps
growing
the
same
rate
up
and
up.
If
you
just
took
a
straight
line,
growth
rate
and
you
took
how
many
the
trees
that
are
cut
down
today
through
2050.
that's
the
year,
we've
declared
our
carbon
emergency
we're
going
to
be
carbon
neutral.
She
took
those
trees
and
you
measured
the
average
tree
how
much
it
would
have
grown
back
in
27
years.
It's
about
15
percent,
so
it
doesn't
grow
in
this
early.
H
That's
that's
what
the
average
treats
some
trees
will
have
grown
more
some
will
let
some
less
the
ones
that
are
cut
closer
to
20
50
will
grow
less.
The
ones
cut
today
will
grow
a
little
more,
but
the
average
tree
or
an
average
Grove
of
trees
goes
back
about
15
percent,
not
even
close
to
being
renewed
by
our
carbon
emergency
deadline
and,
in
that
same
time,
the
McNeil
plant,
if
it
doesn't
increase
its
output,
an
ounce
from
what
is
today
will
produce
10
million
800
000
tons
of
CO2.
So
it's
not.
H
H
Even
it
grows
back
in
80
years,
you're
still
lost
80
years
of
service
of
it
doing
its
job
at
full
capacity,
mature
trees
do
the
work
McNeil
and
the
people
that
run
it
have
tried
to
make
arguments
with
the
state
recently
that
little
trees
grow
faster
than
big
trees
and
that
it's
okay,
the
little
trees,
are
really
doing.
The
work
they're
confusing,
what's
called
acceleration
and
velocity
a
big
tree
has
velocity
it's
moving
along
chugging
along
sucking
up
carbon
a
little
tree
starts
at
nothing
and
it
does
increase
its
ability
to
grow.
H
So
it's
acceleration
is
faster,
but
it's
not
ever
reaching
the
speed
of
a
big
tree
until
it's
about
80
years
old,
so
they'll
do
anything
to
confuse
anything
to
make.
It
seem
like
is
okay,
what
they're
doing,
but
it's
not,
and
just
because
the
loggers
are
cutting
the
trees
and
some
of
them
are
used
for
other
purposes.
In
the
lumber
industry,
those
trees
are
being
cut
and
that's
the
only
way
we
get
fuel
and
I
don't
know.
If,
if
you
stop
the
lumber
industry,
but
they
shouldn't
be
confusing
like
they're?
H
Okay,
if
there
wasn't
the
trees
being
cut,
there'd
be
no
fuel
for
them,
and
that
has
a
big
impact.
Another
thing
that
McNeil
does
because
it's
renewable
you
can
sell,
what's
called
renewable
energy
credits,
and
that
means
that
they
can
sell
their
credits
to
someone
else
who
has
a
quote
dirty
fuel
or
fossil
fuel,
and
they
can
get
some
kind
of
credit
and
green
wash
their
dirty
fuel
usage.
H
So
you
got
a
dirty
fuel
kind
of
green
watching
another
dirty
fuel
and
if
you
took
McNeil,
really
wanted
to
look
at
his
footprint
and
by
the
way
you
saw
in
the
film
and
I
think
someone
else
said
it
here:
they
don't
count
one
ounce
of
CO2
produced
from
this
biogenetic
wood,
not
an
ounce.
They
don't
report
it
at
all
when
they
reported
in
2021
that
the
city's
footprint
from
transportation
and
energy
uses
was
188
thousand
tons
of
CO2.
Here,
that's
what
we
generated
from
those
uses
that
didn't
include
one
ounce
from
McNeil.
H
The
true
number
is
about
400
000
tons
more
than
that,
but
that's
how
they
operate
to
them.
It's
okay,
they're,
just
giving
this
number
a
lower
number
doesn't
include.
Mcneil
they've
met
their
goal.
They
think
Mother
Nature
doesn't
know
that
the
climate
doesn't
know
it,
but
that's
the
way
they
operate.
It's
not
just
them.
You
saw
it
in
the
the
film
here.
That's
the
way
this
industry
operates,
the
biogenic
fuel
doesn't
count
like
it.
H
Never
even
happened,
and
if
you
look
100
years
from
now
and
even
then
it
doesn't
work,
you
might
say:
okay
over
100
years,
it
was
neutral,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
neutral
by
2050
or
anytime
soon
it
just
can't
be
so
if
you
take
McNeil,
though,
and
you
want
to
look
at
it
the
right
way,
you
can
look
it
and
say:
okay,
how
much
CO2
does
it
produce?
Let's
say
they
say
zero
or
they
say
a
little
bit,
because
it
does
have
some
fossil
fuel
that
help
ignite
the
wood.
H
H
In
fact,
as
long
as
McNeil
runs,
it
can't
catch
up,
and
you
include
the
impact
of
selling
these
renewable
energy
credits,
which
means
others
are
burning,
their
dirty
fuels
because
we're
we're
burning
it
and
you
put
that
all
together,
McNeil
and
probably
most
of
the
other
fossil
on
the
wood
burning
plants
like
that
shown
on
the
map.
I
didn't
realize
with
so
many
they're,
the
worst
fuel
they're
the
absolute
worst.
H
We
would
be
better
burning
coal
and
I'm,
not
saying
I
want
to
advocate
for
it,
but
coal
and
natural
gas
look
real
good
for
the
short
term
compared
to
this
these
wood
plants
and
then
and
I'll
finish
up
with
this.
If
you
look
at
the
both
the
district
energy
plan,
but
especially
the
carbon
tax
plan,
both
those
plans
do
nothing
to
lower
McNeil's
CO2
output,
not
by
one
tiny
little
ounce.
They
do
nothing.
In
fact,
they
rely
on
McNeil's,
increased
use
and
McNeil's
increased
output
of
CO2.
H
So
it
looks
like
a
like
a
sheep
and
Wolf's
clothing.
These
things
look
good,
I
mean
who
doesn't
want
to
tax
dirty
old
carbon
in
the
future
and
who
doesn't
want
to
have
District
Heating
well
yeah.
But
if
you're
going
to
use
this
plant
you're
never
going
to
meet
energy
goals,
and
it's
we're
really
just
gotta.
We
really
have
our
heads
in
the
sand.
H
It's
just
I,
don't
know
what
else
you
can
say
about
it
and
one
thing
we
got
to
think
about
and
maybe
we're
in
one
way
lucky
in
this
city
we
may
be
able
to
have
enough
pressure
is
applied,
shut
this
plant
down.
We
can't
control
the
other
plants
that
are
all
over
that
map
here.
But
this
thing
is,
you
know
a
mile
away
sitting
over
there
we're
part
owner
of
it
and
with
enough
pressure
we
probably
could
phase
it
out
and
get
rid
of
it.
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
luck
in
a
way.
H
So
many
of
these
things-
I,
don't
know
that
it
matters
that
much
in
the
end,
but
it
should
be,
it
should
be
closed,
should
be
phased
out
and
anything
you
see
that
comes
from
the
city,
especially
from
McNeil
plant
you
mentioned,
say:
Jennifer
green
she's,
one
of
what
I
call
the
Magnificent
Six
they
rap.
Whenever
there's
trouble
on
the
plant
is
challenged.
H
The
Magnificent
Six
gather
and
issue
a
statement
as
they
did
recently
showing
how
good
the
plant
is
and
they'll
come
up
with
all
kind
of
reasons,
but
they'll
never
they'll,
never
talk
about
how
much
CO2
that
plant
puts
out
they'll
talk
about
jobs,
we'll
talk
about
electricity
rates,
they'll,
never
talk
about
how
much
CO2
that
plant
puts
out,
but
remember
it's
one-on-one.
So
if
you
see
tons
of
wood,
it's
tons
of
CO2
I've
said
more
than
I
wanted
to
thanks.
H
I
N
H
Oh
yeah
and
quickly,
one
thing
to
remember
is
Optics
is
a
big
thing
with
all
these
politicians.
This
is
all
about
the
Optics.
They
want
to
look
like
they're
dealing
with
climate.
They
don't
care
what
they
don't
care
that
they're
using
zero
for
the
CO2
emissions
from
McNeil.
They
want
to
just
be
able
to
say
we
look
at
us,
we're
fossil
free
and
look
at
how
good
we
are.
It's
all
the
Optics.
What
really
is
happening
somehow
they
just
are
able
to
Zone
that
out.
Just.
H
A
Spoke
in
opposition
I
made
a
detailed
written
submission.
They
voted
unanimously
in
favor
of
it.
Gene
Bergman
did
say
that
he
acknowledged
that
biomass
was
a
worldwide
problem
and
that
the
city
might
have
to
revisit
it
in
the
future,
but
even
that's
what
he
said
yeah,
but
he
voted
for
it
too.
They're.
E
L
I
heard
jeans,
so
Jean
lives
right
across
the
street
from
the
McNeil
plant.
Pretty
basically
you
know,
and
he
I
heard
him-
ask
Jennifer
green
and
different
people.
He
said
I
need
the
facts.
I
need
to
tell
my
neighbors
like
what
is
this
doing
to
us
and
you
know
I,
don't
think
he
ever
got
any
I
think
he
was
part
of
he
got
the
sales
pitch.
I'm
surprised
he
fell
for
it
because.
M
H
If
you
want
to
get
an
idea
of
how
BD
goes
about
disseminating
their
information
about
the
plant
on
their
website,
they
have
a
section
about
McNeil
and
they
have
a
part
where
they've
got
six,
what
they
call
myths
and
they're
gonna,
and
in
this
website
they
show
the
facts
behind
the
myth.
So
the
way
it
goes
is
the
myth
is
stated,
and
then
they
give
the
facts.
One
of
the
myths,
my
very
favorite
was
was
you
can
see
pollution
coming
out
of
the
McNeil
plant?
That's
the
myth.
H
The
fact
is,
this
is
what
their
answer
was:
no
you're
seeing
Steam,
that's
their
answer,
that's
and
it
doesn't
get
any
better
than
that.
Instead
of
saying
well
you're
seeing
steam,
but
most
of
the
pollution.
You
can't
see.
That
would
be
an
honest
answer.
Instead,
it's
you're
seeing
steam,
don't
worry
about
it.
That's
the
people
you're
dealing
with
well,
you
can
do
all
kinds
of
things
they're.
Just
they
took
it
very
literally.
You
know
you
can't
see
the
CO2.
So
the
answer
is
we're
just
gonna.
H
B
E
E
D
D
D
Maybe
half
of
that
plant's
output,
so
McNeil's
a
big
big
plant,
it's
it's
twice
the
size
of
what
bed
needed
at
the
time
the
plant
was
built
and
they
just
wanted
to
build
it
bigger
because
of
economies
of
scale,
and
they
had
some
other
owners
that
they
could
rope
into
this.
So,
that's
why
it's
so
big
and
it's
so
expensive
to
operate,
because
it
has
this
huge
wood
shed
around
it
that
it
has
to
draw
from
it's:
it's
burned
natural
gas
in
the
past
and
it
could
burn
oils
and
it
could
burn
coal.
D
Even
one
of
the
permits
I
looked
at
mentioned
that
it
could
burn
coal.
So
it's
basically
a
coal
plant
that
burns
green
wood
chips
and
it's
true
that
it's
not
efficient
and
the
reason
it's
not
efficient
is
because
they're
trying
to
burn
green
wood
chips
which
are
45,
moisture
content,
that's
about
half
water
and
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
all
operated
wood
stoves.
No
self-respecting
vermoner
would
put
green
wood
in
a
wood
stove
right,
so
the
wood
needs
to
be
seasoned.
D
D
D
D
And,
of
course,
at
the
time,
Vermont's
forests
were
growing
back
from
having
been
cut
down
for
the
Sheep
craze
and
the
large
Dairy
operations
that
were
happening
in
in
the
1800s
and
early
1900s,
so
Foresters
being
Foresters.
They
wanted
to
clean
up
the
woods
and
they
thought
they
had
a
lot
of
potential
fuel
in
Vermont,
but
it
turns
out.
They
know
in
2019,
McNeil
spent
9.4
million
dollars
on
wood
chips
and
5.4
million
of
that
was
spent
on
imported
wood
chips
from
outside
of
the
state.
D
D
The
water
make
Steam
run
it
through
a
turbine
and
cool
it
on
the
other
side
of
the
turbine
to
con
to
condense,
the
steam
to
water
and
run
it
back
through
the
system
again
and
again
and
again
and
most
of
the
heat
comes
out
in
the
condenser,
where
it's
cooling
off
the
steam,
it's
low
temperature,
but
that's
where
the
the
bulk
of
the
the
BTUs
or
the
jewels
go
in
the
early
years.
Mcneil
plant
barely
ran
because
it
was
so
expensive
to
run
recently.
D
D
D
D
D
Okay,
it
just
sounds
nice
yeah,
it's
just
you've
heard
all
heard
about
carbon
offset
schemes.
This
is
just
a
carbon
offset
scheme.
It's
just
a
little
bit
better
than
schemes
where
they're
planting
trees
on
another
continent,
it's
a
little
bit
more
controlled
and
a
little
bit
stricter
accounting.
But
it's
still
it's
based
on
this
lie
that
burning
biomasses,
carbon
neutral
and
therefore
zero
emission
that
yet
those
two
ideas
are
kind
of
conflated.
When
talking
about
biomass.
D
So
this
is
just
showing
you
where
the
wood
comes
from,
not
a
lot
of
money
spent
in
Vermont
on
wood
like
25
000
in
Orleans
County.
Now,
that's
closer
to
the
Rye
gate
plant,
so
rygate
is
probably
was
probably
buying
chips
in
Orleans
County,
but
even
even
1.2,
1.3
million
dollars
in
Chittenden
County.
That's
not
a
lot
of
money.
D
D
D
It
has
wood
chip
plant
capacity,
it
has
large
Hydro
capacity,
that's
purchased
and
yeah
all
bed,
yeah,
yeah,
sorry
and
and
this
big
wood
pie
slice
here,
that's
McNeil,
but
then
they
do
this
wreck
Market
Arbitrage.
They
sell
the
certificates
that
the
other
state
utilities
will
buy,
and
then
they
go
get
wrecks
from
some
place.
That
is
maybe
not
quite
as
sophisticated
or
or
acceptable
to
the
to
the
southern
New
England
states,
and
that's
why
all
of
a
sudden
you've
got
this
Cabot
plant.
D
D
Take
steam
off
the
turbine
or
maybe
out
of
the
boiler,
I'm,
not
quite
sure
what
they're
planning,
but
either
way
it
reduces
the
output
of
the
plant
and
or
increases
the
amount
of
fuel
that's
being
burned
in
the
boiler
and
that's
a
hit,
and
you
know
that's
that
costs
money
and
it
costs
a
generating
capacity
and
all
that
and
then
they're
going
to
take
this
really
hot
high
pressure
steam.
Stick
it
in
a
pipe
that
has
to
be
steel
and
welded
and
has
to
you
know
it's
an
expensive
thing
and
run
this
pipe.
D
You
know
right
up
past
past
the
Friends
Meeting
House
here
on
North
Prospect
Street,
it's
going
to
be
a
25
20
I'm,
not
25,
20
foot
wide,
ditch
that
or
affected
area
when
they,
when
they
put
this
in
and
and
then
get
it
up
to
the
hospital
and
the
hospital
is
the
main,
the
main
customer.
Everything
else
is
Navy
and
so
the
it's.
It's
probably
a
go.
D
M
D
Actually,
Neil
lunderville
who's
masterminding.
This
whole
thing
he's
the
one
who's
interested
in
getting
the
steam
up
to
UVM
and
and
yeah
and
in
the
hospital
and
he's
the
one
who's
interested
in
having
the
the
the
clean
heat
credits
that
are
being
that
that
would
be
created
this
whole
system.
It's
a
whole
system
of
clean
heat
credits
that
the
that
is
in
the
the
humongous
S5
bill.
That's
just
come
out
of
the
Senate
natural
resources
and
energy
committee
is
yeah.
Well,
I
I
mean
I
yeah
yeah,
like.
A
D
Yeah,
you
know
when
the
plant
was
built.
It
was
built
with
the
oversized
boiler
and
with
the
term
with
the
turbine
system
that
is
designed
to
have
steam
extracted
from
it.
At
several
points,
they
did
try
to
market
the
steam
to
UVM
in
the
hospital
in
1983,
and
it
was
a
long
time
ago.
I
know
right.
This
is
an
ancient
plant.
Okay,.
D
And
that
was
all
rejected
because
it's
too
expensive
and
it
doesn't
make
any
sense,
and
it
would
you
know
it's
really
hot
material
being
trying
they
want
to
try
to
transmit
it
over
a
mile
losing
heat
all
the
way
to
get
to
the
hospital
and
why
the
hospital
needs
so
much
steam
is
just
Legacy.
It's
sticking
with
really
old
technology.
There's
you
don't
need
Steam
to
heat
a
well-insulated
building
you
these
days,
yeah
yeah.
Well,
this
is
the
21st
century.
D
D
I
just
want
to
say
that
District
energy-
we
knew
about
this
in
1992.,
okay,
in
the
plan
that
that
we
wrote
we're
ready
for
a
low
temperature
system,
and
we
knew
that
biomass
was
not.
Renewable
I
was
part
of
the
5611
negotiation
for
Vermont
environmental
externalities
Rule,
and
that
was
not
adopted,
but
it
was
negotiated
for
quite
quite
a
long
time
and
biomass
was
excluded
from
the
Renewables
list,
because
we
knew
all
the
stuff
that
was
explained
in
the
in
the
movie.
D
D
D
Can
revoke
the
the
certificate
of
public
good
and
then
the
plant
stops
operating?
This
is
not
some
kind
of
long
negotiation
thing.
If
the
puc
decides
the
plant
needs
to
shut
down,
it
can
shut
down
and
Lane
and
Sherman
memo
that's
been
mentioned,
I
can't
the
the
stuff
I
would
say
about.
It
can't
be
printed
in
the
New
York
Times.
It's
just
not
a
good
minimum.
Sorry.
B
H
You
may
know
the
answer,
but
one
of
the
problems,
of
course,
with
any
of
these
commitments
if
they
build
a
pipe
they're
going
to
want
to
know
they're
going
to
get
Steam
for
20
30
years
or
whatever
right,
and
that
means
McNeil
would
have
to
always
have
the
excuse.
Well,
we
got
to
keep
running
because
we
have
a
legal
commitment
and
we'll
be
subject
to
some
big,
fine
or
or
lawsuit
if
we
ever
try
and
stop
the
plant.
So
that's
the
Insidious
thing
about
this.
H
If
they
build
the
steam
pipe
and
invest
like
42
million
dollars
to
build
it,
they're
going
to
want
to
guarantee
that
McNeil's
going
to
provide
steam,
McNeil
will
want
to
give
them
that
guarantee,
but
I
think
we
want
them
to
not
give
that
guarantee
and
to
stop
the
thing.
But
this
is
just
the
Trojan
Horse
to
get
in
there
and
then
have
this
as
another
excuse,
possibly
along
with
the
carbon
tax.
Why
McNiel
has
to
continue
to
run
yeah?
You
know
it's
out
of
their
hands
we're
committed.
Now
we
can't
stop
and
that's
what
they're.
H
B
B
I
Outside
there's
a
sign
up
sheet,
if
folks
are
interested
and
want
some
more
information,
please
sign
up.
I,
have
a
link
to
an
EPA
site
that
can
provide
you
with
the
carbon
emissions
and
nitrous
oxide
emissions,
etc
for
McNiel
for
any
given
year,
I
think
from
1990
on
up.
So,
if
you
want
to
verify
some
of
these
numbers
like
in
2021,
456
thousand
tons
of
carbon
dioxide
was
emitted
for
McNeil.
I
can
provide
you
with
the
link
to
the
EPA
site,
and
you
can
look
it
up.
I
I
also
have
copies
of
the
contracts,
dozens
of
contracts
with
the
loggers
and
lumber
yards
in
New,
York
state
and
in
Vermont
that
details
whole
whole
tree
chips,
so
you've
heard
that
they
use
residue
residue
is
a
term
of
Art
in
the
logging
industry.
It
means
the
trees
that
are
not
valuable
enough
to
go
for
lumber
or
veneer
or
other
high
value
processes.
I
Sometimes
the
residues
actually
remain,
but
with
the
contracts
in
place,
the
McNiel
contracts
that
those
residues,
the
waste
wood
as
they
call
them,
are
cut
and
then
burn.
If
people
want
to
see
the
contracts,
if
people
want
to
see
the
Burlington
electric
Department
harvesting,
guidelines,
I
can
send
those
to
you
again
just
sign
up
and
put
an
asterisk
by
your
name.
Saying
yes,
I'd
like
to
see
this
information
and
I
can
pass
that
along
any
other
questions
that
folks
might
have
actually.
O
I
I
You
know
in
southern
Vermont,
11
000
Acres
of
a
forest-
probably
some
of
that
will
get
burned
at
McNeil,
but
I
don't
know.
If
there's
any
direct
correlation,
it
has
been
calculated
how
much
of
wood,
how
much
CO2
is
sequestered
down
there
and
would
be
lost.
I.
Don't
have
that
number
in
this
brain
of
mine
right
now,
but
it's
quite
a
bit.
B
And
Catherine
here
is,
can
probably
pass
around
in
a
moment
postcards
to
send
to
the
Head
Ranger
of
the
Green
Mountain
National
Forest.
Lodging
a
comment
about
telephone
Gap
in
the
comment
periods
open
till
March
13th.
So
that's
just
another
not
directly
related
action
that
we're
keeping
a
close
eye
on
break
yeah.
J
J
It's
it's
chilling.
It's
chilling
to
me,
so
we've
been
working
closely
with
standing
trees
and
early
I
wanted
to
just
bring
your
attention
to
this.
What
I
thought
was
a
very
impactful
bit
of
information
that
the
director
of
standing
trees
that
quarter
shared
with
us
earlier
today
and
it
really
puts
in
context
what
453
000
tons
of
CO2
each
year
means
so
so
what
does
that
mean?
You
know
what
is
what
are
some?
How
do
you
connect
that
to
your
to
our
daily
lives?
J
So
I
just
want
to
share
with
you,
and
you
can
look
at
this
on
your
way
out:
88
640,
gasoline-powered
passenger
vehicles
driven
for
one
year
or
one
trillion,
twenty
one
million
one
hundred
thirty,
four
thousand
one
hundred
sixty
seven
miles
driven
46
million
two
hundred
ninety
thousand
two
hundred
eighty
eight
gallons
of
gasoline
consumed.
This
is
just
one
year
of
McNeil
yeah,
it's
incredible.
Fifty
one
thousand
eight
hundred
nineteen
homes,
energy
use
for
one
year
and
on
and
on
and
and
I
also
wanted
to
just
point
out.
J
The
overarching
problem
here
is
green,
washing
we've
all
been
heavily
green,
washed
and
duped
for
years
by
Burlington,
electric
and
leaders
in
Burlington,
and
it
really
makes
me
angry
we're
getting
to
the
bottom
of
it
and
it's
been
a
real
eye-opener,
we'll
be
posting
contracts,
logging
contracts
to
our
website.
So
if
you
sign
up
you'll
be
able
to
look
at
them
and
it
is
primarily
whole
trees
that
are
being
burned.
They
can
call
them
residues.
J
That
is
a
forestry
term
that
most
of
us
aren't
familiar
with
because
we're
not
in
the
forest
industry
necessarily.
So
all
of
these
terms
need
translating
for
the
rest
of
us
so
that
we
can
really
fully
understand.
What's
going
on
as
Steve
mentioned,
Burlington
Electric's
website
is
not
a
reliable
source
of
information.
J
I
was
duped
by
it
and
it
again
has
been
a
real,
a
real
eye-opener
and
that
I
also
wanted
to
to
just
point
out
as
well
the
transition
I.
You
know
at
one
point:
a
decision
was
made,
I
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
have
the
details
of
that
decision.
However,
Burlington
placed
its
climate
future
in
the
hands
of
our
utility
Burlington
Electric,
and
at
that
point
the
goal
shifted
from
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
to
reducing
fossil
fuel
use.
J
That
is
a
fundamentally
flawed
and
very
dangerous
position
to
take,
and
what
that
means
is
that
the
mayor
city,
council,
Burlington,
electric,
can
say
we're
meeting
our
climate
goals
because
we're
reducing
the
use
of
fossil
fuels.
Well,
meanwhile,
what
they
don't
say
is
that
greenhouse
gas
emissions
are
ever
increasing.
J
J
It's
an
uphill
battle
because,
as
Nick
pointed
out,
you
see
that
ballot
item.
You
read
that
ballot
item
and
you
want
to
say.
Yes,
oh
my
gosh,
you
want
to
say
yes,
because
it
doesn't
tell
you
what
renewable
means,
what
Burlington
considers
to
be
renewable
when
I
attended
an
NPA
meeting
recently
a
few
weeks
ago,
Karen
Paul
entirely
glossed
over
that
item
and
did
not
explain
the
details
and
I
think
that's
what's
happening
all
over
the
city.
So
please
vote.
No,
please
spread
the
word.
J
J
F
Well,
preposition
zero
would
would
put
on
in
the
city
Charter
that
residents
can
sign
a
referendum
to
be
placed
on
the
ballot,
so
it
would
override
city
council
and
something
like
this,
where
the
vote
was
seven,
nothing
or
whatever.
It
was
immediately.
The
citizens
can
get
involved
and
put
a
ballot
on
the
Rev
ref
have
a
ballot
referendum
and
overturn
it.
B
Yeah
thanks
so
much
I,
we'll
finish
up
really
quick
to
be
respectful
of
everybody's
time,
so
just
to
orient
toward
what
us
at
stop
BTV
biomaster
thinking
for
next
steps.
Vote.
No
one
question
two
tell
your
friends
and
we're
gonna
be
canvassing
around
town,
probably
starting
Wednesday,
when
we
get
a
big
printing
of
half
sheets
to
put
near,
but
not
in
people's
mailboxes.
B
So
there'll
be
a
whole
new
opportunity
to
get
your
voice
heard
and
hopefully
heated
on
that
and
another
little
piece
of
news
coming
up
is
on
Wednesday.
We
have
we're.
We
should
be
getting
that
the
results
of
Records
requests
for
all
the
Harvest
plans
going
to
McNiel
from
the
last
three
years.
So
we
should
have
a
lot
more
information
and
then
soon
photos
and
on
the
ground
examination
of
what,
where
the
trees
are
actually
coming
from
and
what
that
looks
like,
but
sign
up
if
you
want
to
help
us
canvas
spread.
The
word
thanks.