Burlington Council Backs District Energy Plan, Carbon Fee 

The Burlington City Council took two big steps on Monday toward slashing the use of fossil fuels in buildings. But it did so over the objections of critics who said the alternative energy sources being promoted come with their own climate perils.

The council narrowly passed a plan to build a $42 million steam pipeline that will help the University of Vermont Medical Center cut its natural gas use. Councilors also approved a carbon-impact fee that will assess stiff penalties on new or updated buildings that are heated with fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and propane instead of more renewable options.

The moves are key pieces in the Queen City’s plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in buildings by 2030, which will require installing electric or other renewable energy heating systems.

A majority of the council concluded that the city’s wood-fired McNeil Generating Station was part of that climate solution, despite claims that burning wood for energy is actually a major climate problem.
“I have become convinced that McNeil will continue to provide electricity for many more years regardless of whether or not we pass this resolution tonight,” Councilor Mark Barlow (I-North District) said of the district energy plan.

The resolution passed 6-4, with two council members who work with the medical center, Ben Traverse (D-Ward 5) and Tim Doherty (D-East District), recusing themselves from the vote.

Democrat Hannah King (Ward 8) joined three council Progressives in voting no, while Progressive Gene Bergman (Ward 2) voted yes along with the council's two independent members and three Democrats.

The carbon impact fee passed by a vote of 8-4.
On Monday, critics lined up to lambaste both measures, particularly the McNeil district energy project.

“The time for compromise and intermediate steps is long over,” David Rand, a doctor at the medical center, told the council. “The time to spend upwards of $50 million to buttress an aging, polluting and highly inefficient McNeil plant is also over.”

Sarah Sciortino said she was astounded that Burlington, which is “constantly touting our climate-forward brand,” continues to burn trees “in the name of sustainability and progress.”“Trees are our first line of defense against a complete climate meltdown,” she said.

And Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, a Montpelier-based group that advocates for forest restoration, begged the council to let go of the idea that burning trees for electricity is a climate solution.

Prominent Vermont environmentalist Bill McKibben was a proponent of biomass energy for years before he saw the light, Porter noted.

“Today he absolutely knows that that was a mistake,” Porter said. “You have a choice tonight to get off the biomass train and get on real climate solutions.”
Though the hospital has yet to sign a contract with the city, the length of the proposed pact was of particular concern to some environmental activists and groups. The wood-fired power plant is the largest single source of carbon emissions in the state.

By investing in McNeil, critics contend, the city will effectively lock in its use of aging, dirty power at a time when a rapid transition is needed to cleaner energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal.

In recognition of those concerns, Darren Springer, Burlington Electric Department’s general manager, made a number of concessions.

He agreed not to increase the amount of wood burned at McNeil. The plant burns about 74 tons of wood chips per hour, and earlier versions of the project called for burning more wood to supplement the hospital. Instead, the plant will cap wood use and simply generate slightly less electricity.

The resolution also calls on the electric department to explore lower-emission fuel sources and to come up with a plan to reduce emissions by 25 percent in five years and 50 percent in 10 years.
The department also agreed to annual audits of its forestry practices. These and other measures helped secure the support of council members who previously opposed the plan, including Councilor Bergman.

Bergman, who lives in the city's Old North End and can see McNeil from outside his home, said last month that he opposed the project. But on Monday, he said he was convinced to support it. Hospital officials had told him it would be at least 15 years before they could fully transition off natural gas if steam from McNeil wasn't an option.

The medical center "made it absolutely clear that they’ve got no alternative that would come close to the emission reductions that would come from this project,” Bergman said.

While the majority of speakers on Monday spoke against McNeil, several others spoke in support of the district energy plan.
The yes vote doesn't mean the McNeil plan is a done deal. The city must first negotiate a contract with the hospital. Then, the nonprofit that will operate the system would need to get financing and permitting, including an Act 250 permit, which can be arduous.

The vote on the carbon impact fee was almost as contentious as the district energy vote.


Bergman argued that these “harmful and objectionable” biofuels should be removed from the ordinance, forcing any new buildings to use only clean heat sources. He noted that renewable natural gas, most of which comes from landfill or farm digesters in Vermont, represents only a tiny fraction of the current natural gas mix. “We should be not encouraging or incentivizing so-called renewable natural gas, or biodiesel, whether you call it sustainably sourced or not,” he said.

Councilor Traverse countered that the “vast majority” of future buildings and renovations were expected to use electric heat.

The ordinance had been reworked to make sure combustible renewable fuels such as biodiesel would only qualify if the state certified them as better than fossil fuels and if cleaner sources, such as electric, geothermal or solar heat, wouldn't work for a particular building.

“From my perspective, I think they should have the choice,” Traverse said.