In addition to the well-publicized battles over the Keystone XL Pipeline, an equally important struggle is brewing over the threat of tar sands oil coming to an existing pipeline that runs from Montreal through Vermont and New Hampshire to Portland, Maine. Working with the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and multiple regional and local organizations, the Clinic is fighting to keep tar sands oil from flowing through New England.
The Canadian tar sands are one of the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, from destruction of the boreal forest of Alberta to their huge greenhouse gas emissions—according to James Hansen, full development of these tar sands will mean "game over" for our climate. As demonstrated by spills in Michigan, Arkansas, and other locations, tar sands oil is also almost impossible to clean up once it is released into the environment.
Along with trying to transport this dirty energy south through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the giant energy companies also are seeking an eastward pipeline to Montreal, and from there to the coast through routes such as the existing Portland-Montreal Pipeline. This 60+-year-old pipeline, built to transport conventional crude oil north to Canada, would experience the much greater pressures and temperatures needed to transport the thick tar sands oil. In addition to climate change impacts, tar sands oil poses substantial risks to the pristine environments of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, New Hampshire, and Maine.
In January 2013 the Clinic filed a Petition for Vermont to assert jurisdiction over the transport of tar sands oil under Act 250, Vermont's unique land-use law. In April 2013, the Northeast Kingdom District Coordinator entered a precedent-setting Jurisdictional Opinion that granted our clients' Petition and held that the pipeline operators would be required to obtain a permit before transporting tar sands oil through Vermont.
Selected Filings
Request for Jurisdictional Opinion (January 2013)
Natural Resources Board Jurisdictional Opinion #7-274 (April 2013)