Public commenters urge city to enforce district energy resolution, fault Burlington Electric’s McNeil repowering analysis

Two members of the public used the committee’s public‑forum period to press the city to take stronger action on district energy and on Burlington Electric’s recent analyses of the McNeil wood‑chip plant.

Steve Goodkind, speaking for Stop Vermont Biomass, urged the committee to “grab the mantle” and assume responsibility for coordinating the multi‑stakeholder work the City Council’s District Energy Steam Pipe Resolution envisions. Goodkind said the resolution names tasks the city should lead — coordinating stakeholders and tracking studies — and asked the committee to create a simple public tracking tool to show deadlines, responsibilities and progress.

Ashley Adams, who identified herself as a Burlington Electric ratepayer and member of Stop Vermont Biomass, criticized a Burlington Electric October 15 report prepared in response to the November 20, 2023 district energy resolution. Adams told the committee the report “doesn’t do what the resolution requires” and said it incorrectly estimates repowering potential. “The repurposed study that general manager Springer provided overestimates the amount of power by a multiple of 4 because it fails to account for the fact that McNeil runs less than half the time, and it also ignores the fact that Burlington only gets credit for half of the output as a 50% owner,” Adams said. She added the study omitted hydropower from the analysis and said the community deserved a clearer answer on whether the steam‑pipe/district energy project is moving forward.

Why it matters: The 11/20/2023 District Energy Steam Pipe Resolution set deadlines and tasks for investigating alternatives to conventional wood‑chip combustion and for studying how to reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions from the McNeil plant. Speakers told the committee they believe Burlington Electric has missed deadlines and produced analyses that do not satisfy the resolution’s requirements; they urged the city to track compliance publicly and to press for more complete work.

What the committee heard Steve Goodkind asked the committee to take a direct role in assembling stakeholders and running the study timeline, arguing the city should not leave the “driver’s seat” to Burlington Electric or other parties. He proposed a simple tracking plan — essentially a schedule or spreadsheet the committee could use to publicly check progress against resolution’s deadlines.

Ashley Adams asked whether the district energy effort is still moving forward and criticized Burlington Electric’s framing of the district energy project as “shovel ready.” Adams said a PUC filing indicated the steam‑pipe project was on hold pending determinations about clean‑heat credits and asked the committee to provide clarity to the community.

Next steps: Committee members thanked speakers and noted the items would be considered further during staff briefings and future agenda cycles. Some committee members said they would like to see the city’s accountability list updated to explicitly show the district energy resolution and related deliverables so the council and public can track progress.