Editor’s note: This commentary is by Diane Derrick, a self-employed business consultant from Hinesburg.
[I]t is unfortunate and questionable that the only parties allowed to participate in the Public Service Board’s inquiry regarding Vermont Gas’ violation into their failure to report excessive costs were Vermont Gas itself and the Department of Public Safety. Since both VGS and the DPS have admitted they both knew of the increases much earlier than either of them reported, it appears that they are both part of the alleged violation. This seems not only ludicrous that they would be the only ones allowed to participate in this hearing; it screams of serious implications of a conflict of interest.
The Conservation Law Foundation and one land owner along the pipeline applied for intervener status which would have allowed them to participate in this hearing. This would very likely have resulted in additional information to be brought to light and in my mind an opportunity to have the public interests represented by someone other than DPS, who has their own involvement to explain. Both parties were denied participation by the Public Service Board. I for one would like an explanation by the Public Service Board as to why they denied the request for others to participate.
This project has far-reaching implications that will last for decades and the more we learn the more this gas math and very possibly the entire regulatory process for utilities just does not add up to the public interest.
Since the PSB denied CLF and a landowner the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of the public, I felt it was imperative to show the public is well informed, concerned with the integrity of the entire process and committed to continually pressure VGS, DPS and the PSB to vet this entire project with the scrutiny it requires. I did this by respectfully and quietly holding up signs during the proceeding with questions and information that many of us felt should have been considered.
Eileen Simollardes’ testimony did nothing to build my trust in the company or this project. By her own admission in the first five minutes, the company had recently found another error in her pre-filed testimony that some of the budget columns reported “do not add up.”
The hearing left me with the feeling there are more questions than answers on every layer of this project. This project has far-reaching implications that will last for decades and the more we learn the more this gas math and very possibly the entire regulatory process for utilities just does not add up to the public interest.
