Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After debate over emissions and cost, Middlebury Select Board backs gas-powered dryer in wastewater project
Summary
Following extended public comment and technical presentations weighing greenhouse-gas impacts against funding and operating costs, the Select Board voted to continue design for a gas-powered BCR dryer for the wastewater treatment plant, citing funding and operational considerations while residents urged an electric alternative to meet town emissions goals.
The Middlebury Select Board debated whether to specify an electric or natural-gas energy source for a new biosolids dryer at the municipal wastewater treatment plant and — after extended public comment and engineering briefings — voted to proceed with a design that uses a gas-powered thermal-fluid heater paired with the vendor BCR's dryer.
Town staff and the infrastructure committee distributed a comparative analysis of four sludge-drying alternatives normalized to electric energy for apples-to-apples comparison; engineering consultant Wright-Pierce and town staff explained that Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) scoring favors lowest-cost alternatives and that selecting a higher-cost option could jeopardize points needed to secure large subsidies and low-interest loans. "If the left hand [option] is the lowest cost alternative," an engineer said, "checking the box for lowest-cost will protect our eligibility for SRF funding," (Wright-Pierce representative, speaker 11).
Public commenters, energy-committee members and climate advocates urged the board to pick the electric option, arguing it would sharply reduce the plant's greenhouse-gas footprint and align with the town's 80% reduction target. Mike Roy (speaker 17) and others presented modeling that suggested an electric path would reduce emissions dramatically. "Shifting from lime to electricity reduces [emissions] by 90%" one commenter summarized (Mike Roy, speaker 17).
Board deliberation emphasized two trade-offs: long-term greenhouse-gas and operational implications of a fossil-fuel heating source versus near-term affordability, the town's ability to qualify for SRF grants and loans, and operational familiarity and maintenance. Several board members said they were reluctant to saddle ratepayers with a higher annual cost if SRF support were lost. After discussion, a motion was made to support continuing design for a gas-powered BCR bioscrew dryer; the motion carried by voice vote and the board instructed staff to continue design and to document reporting and review obligations.
Provenance: Item opened at SEG 1840; the public-comment block spans roughly SEG 2196–SEG 2926; motion and voice vote recorded at SEG 3892–SEG 3911.
