Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-11-25
Time: 16:00

City Council - Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee

 Tuesday, November 25, 2025, 4:00 PM,

Join in Person: Front Conference Room, 645 Pine St. Burlington, VT 05401

Join via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/84603122855
To call into the meeting, including to speak during public comment:
Phone: 312-626-6799, Webinar ID: 846 0312 2855
[IGNORE_INDENT]
 1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to adopt/amend

2. Adopt Minutes
 2.1. Minutes of 9/30/25 & 10/29/25

3. Public Forum
 3.1. Public Comment - 30 min

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1. Velerity Report - 40 min
 4.2. Great Streets Bank & Cherry Update - 15 min
 4.3. Unaccepted Streets - 30 min - Action
 4.4. Recycling Next Steps - 45 min - Action

5. Director's Report

6. Councilor Items

7. Next Meeting
 7.1. Tentative - 12/23/25, time TBD

City Council - Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee

 Tuesday, November 25, 2025, 4:00 PM,

Join in Person: Front Conference Room, 645 Pine St. Burlington, VT 05401

Join via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/84603122855
To call into the meeting, including to speak during public comment:
Phone: 312-626-6799, Webinar ID: 846 0312 2855
[IGNORE_INDENT]
 1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to adopt/amend

2. Adopt Minutes
 2.1. Minutes of 9/30/25 & 10/29/25

3. Public Forum
 3.1. Public Comment - 30 min

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1. Velerity Report - 40 min
 4.2. Great Streets Bank & Cherry Update - 15 min
 4.3. Unaccepted Streets - 30 min - Action
 4.4. Recycling Next Steps - 45 min - Action

5. Director's Report

6. Councilor Items

7. Next Meeting
 7.1. Tentative - 12/23/25, time TBD




 Page 1 of 23
 CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT

 CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY &
 UTILITIES COMMITTEE
 c/o Department of Public Works 802.863.9094 VOX
 645 Pine Street, Suite A 802.863.0466 FAX
 Post Office Box 849 802.863.0450 TTY
 Burlington, VT 05402-0849 www.burlingtonvt.gov

 Councilor Mark Barlow, Chair, North District
 Inquiries:
 Councilor Gene Bergman, Ward 2
 Rob Goulding
 Councilor Becca McKnight, Ward 6 802.881-2278
 Councilor Marek Broderick, Ward 8 rgoulding@burlingtonvt.gov




 Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council
 Tuesday, September 30, 2025 – 5:00PM
 --Revised DRAFT MINUTES—
 See video for full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJSNk7D4Yck

Councilors absent: None
Councilors Present: Chair Barlow, Councilor Broderick via zoom, Councilor Bergman &
Councilor McKnight
Chair Barlow calls meeting to order at 5:11 PM
1. Agenda
Councilor Bergman moves to approve the agenda as posted.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
All in favor, Unanimous approval

2. Minutes of 8/19/25
Councilor Bergman moves to adopt the minutes as presented notating that AI has a few
errors.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
 All in favor, Unanimous approval

3. Public Forum
Sharon Bushor – Concerns regarding communication from Public Utility Board & BED.
Compliment to PlanBTV about efforts to gather public input on the plan.

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 PlanBTV 2050 Mobility (Transportation Plan)
 Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Planner, & Parsa Pezeshknejad,
 Transportation Planner presented information.

Councilor Bergman emphasized the importance of including various stakeholder groups in the
planning process, such as neighborhood associations, businesses, and educational institutions
like UVM and GMT, to address specific transportation issues like parking and traffic flow.

 Page 2 of 23
Councilor Broderick discussed the comprehensive plan, emphasizing the need to include
student voices from UVM and Champlain College, and addressed the importance of long-term
public transit planning.

Chair Barlow discussed the integration of open space plans and the need for scenario planning
around transportation systems

Zoom AI Summary with slight staff revisions: BTV2050 Transportation Plan Updates

The meeting focused on updates and planning for Plan BTV2050, a comprehensive city plan
encompassing transportation, housing, economic development, and parks. The transportation
component, led by DPW, aims to update the existing plan from 2011, considering significant
changes and future developments. Key goals include integrating transportation with land use
and housing, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and preparing for uncertainty through
scenario-based planning. Public engagement is a priority, with visioning workshops planned
before and after consultant selection, and the team is actively seeking consultants through a
request for qualifications process with proposals due October 8th. The group discussed the
need to separate transportation planning discussions for different areas of Burlington,
particularly between the South End and Hill sections, due to distinct transportation challenges
and residential concerns. The team also highlighted the need to make the RFQ and planning
documents easily accessible to the public and discussed how community input would help
shape transportation goals, with a focus on balancing space allocation for different modes of
transportation. The visioning workshops were outlined, including plans for surveys and open-
ended questions to gather community input.

Information only

 4.2 Emissions Reduction / Energy Efficiency Review
Darren Springer, General Manager of BED, Brad Williams Senior Operations Engineer of
BED presented information.

Councilor Bergman inquired about the inclusion of an implementation schedule and the role of
battery storage and solar expansion in the report, to which Brad confirmed these topics were
part of the ongoing assessment.

Zoom AI Summary with slight staff revisions: McNeil Plant Carbon Reduction
Assessment

Brad presented an update on evaluating opportunities to reduce emissions at the McNeil plant,
highlighting the progress made in characterizing the plant and identifying potential initiatives for
emission reduction. The meeting focused on the assessment of potential initiatives to reduce
carbon emissions at the McNeil plant by 25% and 50%. Brad explained the baseline emissions
level was established as the average of the past five years, and various solutions, including
RNG blending, ammonia blending, and carbon capture, were evaluated for their technical
applicability, efficiency, and economic implications. The team modeled most initiatives and
expected to complete the project in about a month, providing a detailed report on feasible
options, including cost and reduction levels.

Information only

 Page 3 of 23
 4.3 Forestry Third Party Review
John Bryant of K2QC Consulting presented information.

 Councilor Bergman wanted confirmation that 17.5% are chips 54.6 are round wood fuel wood.
Do you have a sense of the percentage that would be old trees, that are low value roundwood
damaged or diseased trees?

Chair Barlow asked if it were for McNeil, what would happen on these various stands?

Zoom AI Summary with slight staff revisions: Burlington Electric's Wood Residue
Management

John Bryant of K2QC Consulting presented a forestry report on Burlington Electric's wood
residue management system, highlighting the efficient operations at the Swanton Yard and the
collaborative relationship between loggers and BED foresters. He noted that BED foresters
primarily work in a compliance role rather than procurement, and praised the system's
attention to environmental concerns like bat habitats. The report addressed the RFP
requirements and documented the diverse approaches of logging contractors in Vermont's
challenging terrain. BED presented a comprehensive report on Vermont's forest management
practices, highlighting areas of compliance and offering recommendations for improvement.
Key recommendations included supporting professional logger training through the Northeast,
encouraging annual workshops on AMPs (Best Management Practices), updating education
materials on rare species protection, and developing alternative bioproducts facilities. The
report also suggested reviewing Vermont's Act 250 and considering a chain of custody process
for wood residues. Betsy, the Chief Forester, confirmed that 72% of Vermont's wood
production is burned for firewood, correcting an earlier misunderstanding. The discussion
touched on the challenges of tracking wood markets and the impact of McNeil's operations on
wood residue management.

Information only

 5. Director’s Report
Chapin Spencer, DPW Director stated the department plans to present a report on the city's
recycling program in October, with a recommendation to continue municipal recycling services.
Director Spencer addressed concerns about the new bike lanes on Main Street, explaining the
design and addressing safety concerns.

 6. Councilor Items
 None

 7. Next Meeting
 October 29, 2025 at 645 Pine St at 5:30 pm

 8. Adjournment
 Chair Barlow adjourns meeting at 7:09 pm.




 Page 4 of 23
 CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT

 CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY &
 UTILITIES COMMITTEE
 c/o Department of Public Works 802.863.9094 VOX
 645 Pine Street, Suite A 802.863.0466 FAX
 Post Office Box 849 802.863.0450 TTY
 Burlington, VT 05402-0849 www.burlingtonvt.gov

 Councilor Mark Barlow, Chair, North District
 Inquiries:
 Councilor Gene Bergman, Ward 2
 Rob Goulding
 Councilor Becca McKnight, Ward 6 802.881-2278
 Councilor Marek Broderick, Ward 8 rgoulding@burlingtonvt.gov




 Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council
 Wednesday, October 29, 2025 – 5:30PM
 --DRAFT MINUTES—
 See video for full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwLRdCEsdJQ

Councilors absent: None
Councilors Present: Chair Barlow, Councilor Broderick, Councilor Bergman & Councilor
McKnight via zoom
Chair Barlow calls meeting to order at 5:32PM
1. Agenda
Councilor Bergman moves to approve the agenda as posted.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
All in favor, Unanimous approval

2. Minutes of 9/30/25
Councilor Bergman stated there are errors and wants minutes fixed notating that AI has a
few errors.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
 All in favor, Unanimous approval

3. Public Forum
Kelton Bogesky of Casella spoke about their recycling process.
Jeff Comstock – wants to introduce the new Plattsburg Ave Neighborhood Traffic Safety
Work Group and share meeting notes.
Jason Van Driesche – Clarification about Pearl St paving issues & bike lanes.
Jack Evans – Thank DPW & Volunteers for the North Avenue Protected Bike Lane Project.
Supports complete streets updates.
Jack Tiano - feels recycling initial cost savings not it would be as big as thought. Doesn’t feel
we are giving DPW the chance to succeed.
Sharon Bushor (via zoom)– spoke about concerns about 150’ Setback of Parking &
Recycling 7-year proposal.
Councilor Evan Litwin (via zoom) – Thanks and Echos Sharon Bushor for her comments
about 150’ setbacks & Recycling. Plattsburg Avenue Traffic Safety & frustration around
 Page 5 of 23
speeding. Consider flower pots to reclaim the road & Sunset Drive Light change to red as cars
approach.
Pike Porter (via zoom) - Spoke about bike lanes, paperwork that was not attached to agenda,
Recycling – why can’t who ever use the current infrastructure.
Jason Stuffle – Plattsburg Ave get rid of slip lane & Pearl Street parking removal – people
change their habits.

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Plattsburg Ave & RT 127 Traffic Safety
 Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Planner & Laura Wheelock, City Engineer
 & Division Director of Technical Services presented information.

Councilors asked if data collection was in one direction or both? Governor has offered
resources from VT State Police – Are the Councilors open to make formal request to Chief
Burke? How long would it take to get a CCRPC study? Interchange at North End at Plattsburg
Ave part of accident cluster? Compare DPW & Neighbors ideas? Other steps that can be
taken? How extreme is that speed?

Public Comments – Jeff Comstock asked that we take a look at their meeting notes. Dave
Hartnett appreciates data but there is a reality that there is a problem at Plattsburg Ave and
the beltline. Nolan Ward 3 resident stated a no cost project to eliminate the slip lane.

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions:The committee discussed traffic safety
concerns on Plattsburgh Avenue and the Beltline, with Councilor McKnight inquiring about
speed data collection methods and Philip explaining that data was collected in both directions
using federal highway equipment and speed feedback signs. The group explored potential
solutions, including requesting temporary traffic enforcement support from the Vermont State
Police, and discussed a planned CCRPC safety study for the Beltline expected to begin in
June 2027. The committee agreed to have staff review neighborhood suggestions for short-
term traffic improvements and report back at the next meeting, while also considering
immediate actions like requesting a memo from Chief Burke regarding enforcement support.
Information only

 4.2 150’ No Parking Setback on Streets Without Sidewalks
Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Planner presented information.

Councilors asked if there was a list of streets right now? How many car parking spots is 150
feet? Do we have setbacks for commercial driveways?

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: Regarding parking setbacks, Phillip
presented a proposal for up to 150-foot no-parking zones on streets without sidewalks, which
would provide better stopping distance for drivers at 25 mph. The committee agreed to front-
load public engagement efforts before implementation, with a tentative list of streets to be
shared after further planning.


Information only


 Page 6 of 23
 4.3 Rick Sharp Presentation
Rick Sharp presented information about E - bikes.

Councilors asked where the rack is on Church St? What have communications been like with
CATMA? Community input? CATMA relationship?

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: Rick presented an update on the city's e-
bike rental program, highlighting its success and plans for expansion in 2025. He emphasized
the program's utilitarian use for transportation and its cost-effectiveness compared to other
modes of transport. Rick also expressed concerns about potential competition from out-of-
state companies and requested support for an exclusive bike share agreement with the city.
The committee discussed the program's current operations, including geofenced racks and
battery management, and considered Rick's request for support against potential competitors.


Information only

 4.4 Recycling Next Steps
 Chapin Spencer, Director of DPW & Lee Perry, Division Director of Maintenance
presented information.

Councilors asked for info related to specifics around financial improvements and reduction of
injuries. What are the capital needs of the City’s recycling program? If we went to a private
hauler, would we have to replace the toters?


AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: The council discussed the future of
Burlington's recycling and solid waste collection system, with Councilor Broderick expressing
opposition to privatization for 7 years and advocating for a fully consolidated municipal
collection system. The council agreed to give more time for long-term planning while
considering the current financial constraints and operational challenges. They also discussed
the need to address immediate issues with the recycling program, including staffing shortages
and equipment maintenance.


Information only

 5. Director’s Report
Chapin Spencer, DPW Director presented information regarding the first ever fall clean
sweep.

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: They discussed the fall clean sweep
program, which aims to reduce phosphorus in Lake Champlain by cleaning public right-of-ways
and reminding residents not to rake leaves into the street. Councilor McKnight encouraged
residents to leave leaves in their yards as a natural fertilizer and for pollinators. The group
agreed to use Front Porch Forum announcements and other media to communicate the
program details to the public.



 Page 7 of 23
 6. Councilor Items
 Councilor Bergman – What are we going to be doing with the Colchester Ave & North Ave
bike lane issues and if there can be engagement with the people who raised the issues?

 7. Next Meeting
November 25, 2025 at 645 Pine St at 4:00 pm

 8. Adjournment
Chair Barlow adjourns meeting at 8:25 pm.




 Page 8 of 23
 Kathryn E. Boucher
 90 State House Square
 Hartford, CT 06103-3702
 p 860 424 4372
 f 860 424 4370
 keboucher@pullcom.com
 www.pullcom.com

September 19, 2025

VIA EMAIL DEEP.EnergyBureau@ct.gov
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy
10 Franklin Square
New Britain, CT 06051

Re: Public Act 25-173 – Section 44 – Eligible Biomass Facility Procurement

The City of Burlington Vermont Electric Department (“BED”) respectfully submits the following written
comments in response to the September 2, 2025 Notice of Proceeding and Opportunity for Written
Comment issued by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP” or the
“Department”). BED appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in advance of the Department’s
forthcoming Eligible Biomass Facility Procurement.

I. Introduction

BED co-owns and operates the Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station (“McNeil”) in Burlington, Vermont.
In 2009, this New England sustainable biomass facility was certified as a Connecticut Class I renewable
energy source under Connecticut law.1 Importantly, the emissions profile required to qualify for
Connecticut Class I status, McNeil’s fuel sourcing practices, and the regional contributions of McNeil to
New England have not changed since that time. McNeil is a 50-megawatt electric generator that can run
on oil, natural gas, or wood fuel. Since 2013 McNeil has exclusively generated energy using wood. When
McNeil generates power using wood as fuel, the wood used is sustainably harvested, primarily in Vermont
and upstate New York, but at times has come from other sources throughout the Northeast. BED has been
approached by Connecticut wood suppliers regarding taking wood supply from tree trimming operations
and other Connecticut non-commercial wood sources.

McNeil is a dispatchable generator and analysis from 2022 found that natural gas was the marginal fuel on
the New England grid 92 to 98 percent of the time when McNeil was running, meaning that if McNeil was
offline, fossil fuel would be the replacement fuel.2 McNeil contributes to regional fuel source diversity,
particularly during high-cost winter months, benefitting ratepayers at a time when the region has been
overly reliant on natural gas and fossil fuels. ISO New England data shows increasing natural gas prices
are driving overall wholesale electricity cost increases in the region, with wholesale energy costs in the
winter of 2024-2025 up 147 percent compared to the prior winter, “driven by a substantial increase in


1
  See Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Docket 08-01-03.
2
  See Assessment of lifecycle GHG emissions from Joseph C. McNeil Generation Station, Page 5, available at
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/VEIC-Final-Memo-to-BED-LCA-of-GHG-emissions-4.29.22-
.pdf.




 Page 9 of 23
Page 2

natural gas prices.”3 By generating with wood fuel, McNeil diversifies the region’s energy mix, particularly
in the winter, and reduces reliance on natural gas for power generation. Wood fuel can be stored for months
on-site or in a satellite wood yard, and this permits McNeil to stockpile inventory before the beginning of
the winter season. This stockpile can be replenished with ongoing deliveries during the winter, allowing
McNeil to have a high winter capacity factor. For example, during this past winter when costs were high
for wholesale electricity, McNeil’s capacity factor was 88 percent in January (availability factor was 100
percent) and 77 percent in February (availability factor was 81 percent), helping to mitigate the regional
reliance on natural gas during those important winter months.

In 2014, McNeil was ultimately awarded four separate contracts in DEEP’s biomass procurement pursuant
to Section 8 of Public Act 13-303.4 BED was selected to negotiate two 5-year contracts (one with each
Connecticut electric distribution company) for a portion of McNeil’s output. Green Mountain Power,
another co-owner of McNeil, was selected to negotiate two 10-year contracts with the Connecticut electric
distribution companies (likewise one with each Connecticut electric distribution company). Those contracts
have contributed to McNeil’s continued operations in that timeframe and lower emissions throughout New
England.

Third-party analysis has indicated McNeil reduces greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis compared
to alternative generation such as natural gas. Analysis from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation
(“VEIC”) shows that McNeil reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent compared to
alternative ISO New England grid supply.5 Analysis from Innovative Natural Resource Solutions (“INRS”)
found that the lands from which McNeil sources wood from have increased their forest carbon storage by
the equivalent of 24.3 million tons of CO2 equivalent between 2007 and 2020.6 Similar to the VEIC
analysis, INRS also found that McNeil’s operation avoided over 80,000 tons of CO2 annually from being
emitted at alternative generators based on ISO New England grid mix emissions data.7

McNeil’s current forestry contracts prohibit McNeil from accepting wood harvests conducted solely for
energy production, and instead require McNeil to accept tops and limbs, diseased or damaged trees, and
non-commercial wood left over from commercial harvests. Using this “wastewood” is particularly
sustainable and lower in carbon emissions, as “all bioenergy technologies—even biomass electric power
compared to natural gas electric—look favorable when biomass ‘wastewood’ is compared to fossil fuel
alternatives.”8




3
 See ISO New England, Winter 2025 Quarterly Markets Report, Page 9, available at https://www.iso-ne.com/static-
assets/documents/100024/2025-winter-quarterly-markets-report.pdf.
4
 See Section 8 Final Determination, dated January 31, 2014, available at
https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/c6c6d525f7cdd1168525797d0047c5bf/9a6d3ba3caa71fac85257c71007778
ca/$FILE/Section%208%20Determination%20Final.pdf.
5
  See Assessment of lifecycle GHG emissions from Joseph C. McNeil Generation Station, Page 14, available
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/VEIC-Final-Memo-to-BED-LCA-of-GHG-emissions-4.29.22-
.pdf.
6
 See INRS analysis at Page 7, available at https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/McNeil-Carbon-
6.2023.pdf.
7
 Id. at Page 8.
8
 See Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, Page 110, available
at https://www.manomet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_June2010.pdf.


 2

 Page 10 of 23
Page 3

II. Responses to DEEP Questions

BED responds in turn to the Department’s questions below.

 1. What documentation should a potential bidder be required to submit to demonstrate they
 are an “eligible biomass facility”?

The relevant statute defines an eligible biomass facility as “a biomass facility that uses sustainable biomass
fuel and has an average emission rate of less than or equal to .075 pounds of nitrogen oxides per million
BTU of heat input for the previous calendar quarter, or energy derived from a biomass facility with a
capacity of less than five hundred kilowatts that began construction before July 1, 2003, and that has entered
into one or more existing biomass power purchase agreements.”

Thus, eligible facilities must have been previously qualified as Connecticut Class I by PURA or the DPUC
at that emissions level. Thus, BED proposes that provision of a prior CT Class I Final Decision from PURA
(or the DPUC as applicable), along with a copy of the facility’s most recent quarterly NOx emission
certification to PURA should be sufficient to demonstrate emissions eligibility. The separate “existing
biomass power purchase agreement” component is addressed below.

 2. What documentation should a potential bidder be required to submit to demonstrate they
 have an “existing biomass power purchase agreement”?

The relevant statute defines an existing biomass power purchase agreement as “a power purchase agreement
that: (A) (i) Was entered into by a biomass facility that uses sustainable biomass fuel and has an average
emission rate of less than or equal to .075 pounds of nitrogen oxides per million BTU of heat input for the
previous calendar quarter, or energy derived from a biomass facility with a capacity of less than five
hundred kilowatts that began construction before July 1, 2003, with an electric distribution company in the
state on or before June 5, 2013, or (ii) was executed in accordance with a solicitation pursuant to section
16a-3f or 16a-3h, as amended by this act; and (B) was in effect as of January 1, 2024.

BED proposes that submission of one or more power purchase contract(s) between an eligible biomass
facility (established per #1 above) and an CT electric distribution company with an effective term
encompassing the statutory date of January 1, 2024 would be sufficient. Alternatively, a copy of the PURA
Final Decision approving those contracts and referencing the term would also suffice.

 3. What documentation or other evidence should a potential bidder be required to submit to
 demonstrate to DEEP the costs to operate such facility and whether the facility supports the
 state's solid waste management plan for DEEP’s standard of review?

DEEP should require potential bidders to certify with the bid provided, the facility is expected to continue
to operate for their proposed bid term, if the submitted bid is accepted (even if the bid is below the facility’s
variable operating cost).

There are a variety of factors beyond variable operating cost that affect an entity’s decision to operate a
facility and its energy production in the ISO-NE markets. While other factors such as unit availability could
impact production volumes, the primary risk to CT customers would be if a bidder had no intention of
offering the unit into the ISO-NE energy markets at a price that will result in its selection for dispatch (i.e.,
which could be at a price that could be materially above the bid it submits in this RFP). Units that qualify
for RECs, including qualifying as a result of an award under this RFP, typically reflect REC values as a


 3

 Page 11 of 23
Page 4

reduction to the ISO-NE bid that would apply (based on variable costs only for example). Other values
streams can serve to additionally reduce a bid price from a pure variable cost basis. DEEP should consider
that historically REC qualified biomass has been economical in much of the ISO-NE year, and particularly
in the winter, when considering the costs submitted by bidders so as not to overstate the risk to CT customers
of lower than offered production. Any inclusion in a bid of a Certification that the facility will not be taken
out of service for the term of the bid should also be considered favorably.

Regarding whether the facility supports CT’s solid waste management plan, there are many ways that
potential bidders – even those located out-of-state – could demonstrate such support. BED therefore
recommends that DEEP take an expansive and inclusive view of what this “support” could entail, and
proposes that DEEP not require bidders to submit any specific form of documentation or evidence, but
rather some form of documentation or evidence, so as to allow potential bidders the greatest flexibility in
meeting this requirement.

III. Conclusion

Finally, like the ongoing Expedited Zero Carbon RFP, BED respectfully requests that the Department hold
a Bidder’s Conference and allow an opportunity to submit questions on the draft RFP.

BED looks forward to participating in the forthcoming RFP and to working with DEEP to ensure that
cost-effective sustainable biomass facilities located in New England that support the state’s solid waste
management plan can continue low-carbon operations supporting both Connecticut and the region.

Respectfully submitted,




Kathryn E. Boucher
Counsel to the City of Burlington Vermont Electric Department




 4
ACTIVE/76246.2/KEBOUCHER/20598560v3
 Page 12 of 23
 City of Burlington
 Department of Public Works

 Technical Services Engineering Division
 645 Pine Street, Suite A
 Burlington, VT 05402
 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450
 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW




 Memo
Date: November 25, 2025

To: Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC)

From: Phillip Peterson, PE, Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner
 Alice Schwencke, Excavation Inspector

CC: Chapin Spencer, Director of Public Works
 Laura Wheelock, PE, City Engineer/Division Director – Technical Services

Subject: Unaccepted/Private Streets in Burlington



Overview:

This memo serves to inform the TEUC; and by extension, the City Council, about the current status and
future service changes related to unaccepted and private streets in Burlington. DPW Staff are seeking a
motion from the TEUC to refer this item to City Council for their review.

Transitioning Services on Unaccepted and Private Streets:

Unaccepted and private streets represent a longstanding operational gray area in Burlington. While these
streets are not formally part of the City’s accepted network, DPW has historically provided limited services;
such as snow plowing, largely in response to resident expectations and practical considerations. This
informal support, however, creates inconsistencies in service delivery and responsibility across the
broader street system. As part of a phased transition toward clearer service boundaries, DPW will
discontinue these services on unaccepted/private streets after October 1, 2026. This timeline ensures
residents have ample opportunity to prepare, explore cost-recovery options, or pursue formal street
acceptance through dedication and City Council approval.

Water Resources Infrastructure
While it has been perhaps less gray in practice as far as providing benefits that are not prescribed, there
has also been longstanding and sometimes understandable confusion among property owners around
responsibility (both in the initial response and financially) for maintenance and capital improvements
related to water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure on these unaccepted and private streets.
Although a pipe on a private street may be of a large diameter and serve multiple buildings, unless




 Page 13 of 23
there is a clear easement in place that assigns responsibilities in a manner different to the BCO Chapters
26 and 31, these are functionally treated as “service line” connections to the public main, and, with the
exception of hydrant flushing and inspection and replacement costs for meter inside a building, the
costs for all maintenance, repair and replacement for infrastructure outside the street line (boundary of
right of way) are 100% the responsibility of the property owner. That said, for the protection of public
health, all work on any portion of the potable drinking water system up to and including the meter may
only be performed by or with the approval of the water resources division. For the portion of the
“service line connection” that enters the right of way and connects to the public main, the responsibility
framework depends on whether the infrastructure is drinking water or sewer/storm. In the case of
drinking water, the financial responsibility for the service line is shared between the City and the
property owner 50/50 and work is typically performed by the City or a City hired contractor. In the case
of sewer/storm, the pipe all the way up to and including the connection to the main is the sole financial
and maintenance responsibility of the property owner; however the City does have oversight on
allowing and approving that connection. When and where work has been performed by the water
resources division (or by a contractor) on a shared portion of the water system on an unaccepted or
private street, there can also exist complexities around how those charges are assigned to the
beneficiaries on the street when and where there is not an existing agreement in the land records
among those properties.

Street Inventory (see Attachment-1)

  Burlington currently has 55 unaccepted/private streets, of which 32 are confirmed private.
  These streets are not formally part of the City’s accepted street network and have not been
 dedicated into the public right-of-way.

Future Service Options:
After October 1, 2026, DPW will no longer provide routine services on unaccepted/private streets.
However, these services may be available through cost-recovery arrangements, pending staff capacity
and formal agreement. Estimated rates are as follows:

Plowing
  Truck with operator: $143/hour
  Salt: $110/ton

While plowing typically takes about 10 minutes per snow event per street, costs will vary depending on
street length, configuration, and frequency of service. Salt usage is generally minimal per storm but will
be billed at the established rate.

Pothole Filling
  Truck, trailer, and two laborers: $201/hour
  Asphalt: $87/ton
  Cold Patch: $135/ton




 Page 14 of 23
Recycling
  Recycling collection on unaccepted and private streets is contingent on the condition and
 accessibility of the roadway. When these streets are maintained in a reasonable and passable
 state by residents, DPW can continue curbside pickup at current locations or driveways. However,
 if a street deteriorates to the point where it poses a risk to City vehicles or staff, recycling pickup
 will be relocated to the edge of the public right-of-way. This approach ensures the safety of our
 fleet and personnel while maintaining service where feasible.

Formal Street Acceptance:

Residents may pursue formal street acceptance, which requires dedication of the street into the public
right-of-way and City Council approval. Once accepted, the street is eligible for full City services under
standard DPW operations. The City does not recommend accepting streets that fail to meet City
standards. Abutting owners may choose from the options below; certain options can lead to formal
acceptance while others provide alternative means of obtaining City maintenance.

  Owner-funded upgrades for formal acceptance: Residents pay to bring the street up to City
 standards, dedicate the roadway to the City, and then petition the City for formal acceptance.

  Maintenance contract with the City: Residents contract with the City for upkeep while
 ownership remains private.


Street Acceptance Process

Property owners seeking to dedicate a roadway to the City must follow a formal acceptance process
that ensures infrastructure quality, legal clarity, and interdepartmental coordination. Key requirements
include:
  The City must confirm that the street is in good condition and meets current standards
 before acceptance.
  A recorded survey map prepared by a licensed surveyor, with all monumentation
 installed.
  Title insurance in favor of the City and legal certification that all permits and
 infrastructure (roadway, water, storm, sewer) meet approved standards.
  Review of final plans by Burlington Electric Department (BED), DPW Technical Services,
 DPW Water Resources, and the Parks Department to confirm easements and vegetation
 conditions.
  A Warranty Deed with a metes and bounds description referencing the recorded survey.
  Submission of detailed record drawings (PDF and AutoCAD) covering all utilities,
 infrastructure, and vegetation, with engineering and surveyor certification.
  Payment of City Engineer and City Attorney fees for review and compliance.
  A full conditions assessment of all systems.
  DPW and other departments prepare a cover memo of support for City Council
 consideration.




 Page 15 of 23
This process ensures that any newly accepted street meets Burlington’s standards and is ready for full
integration into the City’s public infrastructure network.

Next Steps
  Engage with affected residents and neighborhoods
  Provide guidance on the street acceptance process
  Develop cost-recovery options for affected streets
  Coordinate with TEUC and City Council to ensure transparency and alignment

This memo is intended to support ongoing dialogue and planning as Burlington moves toward a more
consistent and equitable approach to street maintenance.
Thank you for taking the time to review this memorandum and for your continued support of
Burlington’s street system planning and maintenance efforts. If you have any questions or would like
additional information, please contact the Department of Public Works at (802)863-9094 or
dpwplanning@burlingtonvt.gov.

Attachments

 1. City of Burlington Unaccepted/Private Street Inventory.
 2. Examples of private and unaccepted streets.
Motion
The Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee hereby refers the attached memorandum
and supporting materials regarding unaccepted and private streets in Burlington to the City
Council for their review.
This referral is intended to support continued dialogue, inform future policy decisions, and
ensure alignment across departments as the Department of Public Works transitions services
and engages with affected residents.




 Page 16 of 23
Attachment-1

STATUS STREET PLOWING
PVT AMBROSE PL
PVT APPLETREE PT LN
PVT AVE A
PVT AVE B
PVT AVE C
PVT AVE C NO
PVT AVE C SO
PVT BAIRD ST
PVT CARRIGAN DR
PVT CEDAR LN
PVT CENTENNIAL CT
PVT CHITTENDEN DR YES
PVT CLAIRE POINT RD
PVT DEFOREST HEIGHTS
PVT DRIFTWOOD LN
PVT EASTMAN FARM RD
PVT IRA LN
PVT IRANISTAN RD (PARTIAL) YES
PVT LAKE FOREST DR
PVT LAVALLEY LN YES
PVT LITTLE EAGLE BAY
PVT MCAULEY SQ
PVT NORTHSHORE DR
PVT RAYMOND PL
PVT RIVER VIEW DR
PVT ROCK PT
PVT S MEADOW DR
PVT SUNSET CLIFF YES
PVT UNIVERSITY HGTS
PVT UNIVERSITY RD YES
PVT FAIRHOLT ST
PVT STARR FARM BEACH
UNAC ALFRED TER YES




 Page 17 of 23
UNAC BEACHCREST LN
UNAC BROWE CT YES
UNAC CALARCO CT YES
UNAC CAMPUS CT
UNAC CHASE LN YES
UNAC CLOAREC CT YES
UNAC COLCHESTER CT YES
UNAC DANS CT
UNAC DERWAY DR YES
UNAC ELBOW ST YES
UNAC LAWSON LN
UNAC MARKHAMS LN
UNAC MECHANICS LN
UNAC NORTH AVE EXT YES
UNAC NORTH COVE
UNAC REDSTONE TER YES
UNAC RUMSEY LN (Thorsen Way) YES
UNAC SUNSET COURT YES
UNAC TOWER TER
UNAC VOLTZ ST YES
UNAC WEST RD YES
UNAC WOODS ST




 Page 18 of 23
Attachment-2
Unaccepted and Privately Owned Streets in the City of Burlington.

Type 1 – Construction Similar to City Standards. This category could be missing a few elements, or the
asset condition is not in good condition. Generally the properties on the street are arranged to allow for
a standard city right of way to be formed.

Example: Northgate Extension

 Street Outlined in Red is
 Unaccepted



 Street is Paved

 Sidewalk on one side

 Street Lighting

 Curbing



 Driveway Curb Cuts do
 not match City Standards



 Asset Conditions are in
 fair to poor condition




 Page 19 of 23
Type 2 – Street is outlined by parcels, but not constructed to City Standard. These are areas where a
distinct street is described in the deeds of adjacent parcels as a shared road or right of way for the
parcels in the area, but not a public right of way that that was given and accepted by the City. The
street/way does not contain several elements required to be a city street.



 Streets Outlined in Red is Unaccepted



 Street is unpaved, road width is not adequate

 Missing Sidewalk

 Street Lighting is minimal

 Missing curbing




 Page 20 of 23
Type 3 – Streets that resemble shared driveways more than a street. These are areas are similar to Type
2 mentioned above but are generally shorter, could have different surfaces, limited lighting, and less
formalized use of space.



 Streets circled in red are
 examples of unaccepted streets
 that fit this type of configuration.
 These are the most variable in
 arrangement of elements and
 indication how to navigate to
 reach properties further from the
 public right of way.



 Surface is variable.

 Parking expectation varies

 Limited lighting

 No sidewalk

 Limited or no curbing




 Page 21 of 23
Type 4 – Privately Owned Street. These streets are generally connected to the public right of way, and
are thought of as a neighborhood street or connection. A few of these streets have legal findings that
despite being privately owned where declared a public way through the finding of the court. This finding
keeps the street available for any public to use, drive, travel over, but keeps maintenance of the street
with the private owner(s).

 Streets outlined in red are Privately owned.

 Ownership of private streets are sometimes
 known entities, and in other occasions they are
 unaccepted streets where deed research and
 land record searches have provided verification
 that a street is has not previously been accepted,
 and also has supporting documentation to
 indicate the original developer intended to retain
 ownership of the street.



 Street conditions on these streets vary
 significantly. They can contain several elements
 that adhere to our engineering standards, but
 usually not everything. Often curb or sidewalk
 are missing, and street lighting if present is not
 up to current code for a City owned street.



 Condition of the private streets in the City is
 often in fair to poor condition, and properties
 served by these private streets struggle with how
 to make improvements.




 Page 22 of 23
Second Example of Type 4




 Page 23 of 23

CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT

 CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY &
 UTILITIES COMMITTEE
 c/o Department of Public Works 802.863.9094 VOX
 645 Pine Street, Suite A 802.863.0466 FAX
 Post Office Box 849 802.863.0450 TTY
 Burlington, VT 05402-0849 www.burlingtonvt.gov

 Councilor Mark Barlow, Chair, North District
 Inquiries:
 Councilor Gene Bergman, Ward 2
 Rob Goulding
 Councilor Becca McKnight, Ward 6 802.881-2278
 Councilor Marek Broderick, Ward 8 rgoulding@burlingtonvt.gov




 Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council
 Tuesday, November 25, 2025 – 4:00PM
 --DRAFT MINUTES—

 See video for full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YCEb4MOYU
Councilors absent: Councilor McKnight

Councilors present: Chair Barlow, Councilor Bergman & Councilor Broderick via zoom
Chair Barlow calls meeting to order at 4:05 pm.

1. Agenda
Councilor Bergman moves to approve the agenda as posted.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
All in favor, Unanimous approval

2. Minutes of 9/30/25 & 10/29/25
Councilor Bergman moves to adopt both sets of minutes.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
 All in favor, Unanimous approval

3. Public Forum
Peter McOsland spoke about recycling program.
Sharon Bushor (via zoom) raised issues about the timing of meetings close to holidays,
particularly noting the upcoming meeting on December 23rd, and emphasized the importance
of public input on major city decisions.
Pike Porter (via zoom) presented questions about discrepancies in CO2 emissions data from
the EPA Clean Air Market Program and raised concerns about BED's power purchase
agreements, particularly regarding McNeil's eligibility for Connecticut RECS and the need for a
lifecycle analysis of wood combustion emissions.
4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Velerity Report
 Darren Springer, General Manager of B.E.D, Mike Harron, Director of Generation
 Operations of B.E.D, Seth Clifford Chief Forrester of B.E.D, Ali Kenney B.E.D
 Commissioner, present for the meeting. Brad Bradshaw & Katherine Birnie from
 Velerity presented information.

Councilors asked questions about EPA data, different options for replacing McNeil, and will
email any further questions to Darren. Ali asked for clarification about absolute decisions, if
McNeil were not in service, why would there be a need for additional capacity?

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: Darren Springer, General Manager of
Burlington Electric, introduced the Valerity report, which explores options for reducing stack
emissions and increasing efficiency at the McNeil site. Brad and Catherine from Valerity
presented the findings, focusing on establishing an emissions baseline and analyzing potential
initiatives for emission reduction. They discussed various options, including low-carbon fuels,
efficiency improvements, and waste heat recovery, while considering their impact on operating
costs, capital requirements, and rates. The presentation highlighted the need for further
evaluation of specific technologies, such as organic ranking cycle and wood pyrolysis, to
achieve the desired emission reductions. Brad presented an analysis of carbon reduction
options, comparing their impact on rates and emissions. He highlighted that ammonia and
RNG have high costs, while carbon capture and wood pyrolysis are more promising. The
analysis showed that carbon capture and pyrolysis could achieve a 50% reduction in
emissions with smaller impacts on rates. Brad explained that carbon capture could be used to
sell CO2 in the Northeast market, while pyrolysis offers increased efficiency and the production
of biochar. Brad explained that McNeil provides cost-effective renewable energy, contributes to
ISO New England's capacity requirements, and acts as a hedge against high market prices.
The discussion explored potential alternatives if McNeil were not in service, including wood
pyrolysis, hydropower, and battery storage options. Two scenarios were presented: one based
on wood pyrolysis and another on hydropower, both aimed at meeting Burlington's renewable
energy and capacity obligations. The conversation ended with a recommendation to explore
longer-duration battery storage systems and distributed energy resources to complement any
new renewable energy sources. Brad explained that the analysis used 2024 as a baseline for
comparing emissions reductions across different technologies, and clarified that wood
pyrolysis would not generate the same capacity as the current McNeil plant, requiring
additional storage or capacity purchases. Brad clarified that January data was randomly
selected to represent McNeil's value stream as a hedge against high prices, and explained that
carbon capture and pyrolysis options would require significant capital investment. The
committee agreed to follow up with Darren regarding written answers to outstanding questions
about the report.


Information only

 4.2 Unaccepted Streets (Changed from 4.3)
Laura Wheelock, Senior Public Works Engineer Technical Services, Philip Peterson,
Senior Transportation Engineer & Alice Schwencke, Excavation Inspector presented
information.

Councilors asked about having the breakdown of the lists into wards. Does the City provide
support? Proposed rates?

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: The meeting focused on the management
and potential acceptance of private and unaccepted streets within the city. Phillip, Alice &
Laura discussed the challenges of identifying and addressing these streets, including the need
for comprehensive mapping and outreach to property owners. The group agreed that providing
formal notices to property owners about the status of their streets is important, though the
timeline for sending these notices may be pushed back from the initially proposed October 1,
2026 deadline. They also acknowledged the complexity of the situation, with some streets
being privately owned but maintained by the city, while others are unaccepted and present
more significant challenges.
Information only


 4.3 Recycling Next Steps (Changed from 4.4)
Chapin Spencer, Director of DPW presented information.

Councilor Bergman and Councilor Broderick expressed concerns about the city's ability to
regulate and control a private contractor, particularly Casella, which has a history of price
increases. The group agreed that building capacity within city departments and maintaining
democratic control over the program is preferable to privatization, despite the financial
challenges involved. expressed opposition to privatizing Burlington's recycling service,
emphasizing the importance of democratic control and accountability over public goods. He
highlighted concerns about losing infrastructure and the ability to control pricing and worker
exploitation if the service is privatized. Emphasized the need for financial sustainability and the
potential for the service to remain unchanged for residents.


AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: The meeting focused on the city's recycling
program and potential changes to its operation. The city is considering either continuing to run
the consolidated collection service in-house or contracting it out to a private hauler. A memo
was presented that outlined the options, including a recent competitive bid for a contracted
service. The DPW Commission voted in favor of contracting out the service, though the final
decision rests with the council. Colby Delaire, Union President expressed concerns about
staffing challenges in the recycling department, noting high turnover and difficulty attracting
new candidates, even with incentives. They emphasized that any changes to the program
should not result in the loss of union jobs.
Councilor Bergman moves to recommend that the city maintains the recycling program.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
Councilor Bergman – Aye
Councilor Broderick – Aye
Chair Barlow – Nay


 4.4 Great Streets Bank & Cherry Update (Changed from 4.2)
Julia Ursaki, Transportation Engineer presented information.

Councilor Bergman supports & wonders what the likelihood of the economic progress council
not supporting us is. Councilor Broderick & Chair Barlow supports this.

AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: the committee supported removing it from
the current project to address a $16.6 million funding shortfall, allowing work to proceed on
other streets while seeking additional funding.
Information only


 5. Director’s Report
None

 6. Councilor Items
None

 7. Next Meeting
Tentative - December 16 or 19, 2025 at 645 Pine St at noon.

 8. Adjournment
Chair Barlow adjourns meeting at 7:20 pm.
From: Pike Porter <pikeporter@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 3:42 PM
To: Mark Barlow <mbarlow@burlingtonvt.gov>; Gene Bergman <gbergman@burlingtonvt.gov>; Becca Brown
McKnight <bbrownmcknight@burlingtonvt.gov>; Marek Broderick <mbroderick@burlingtonvt.gov>; Darren
Springer <dspringer@burlingtonelectric.com>
Subject: CO2 data question


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.

Hi all,

I attach data from the EPA clean air market program website: https://campd.epa.gov/data/custom-data-
download (McNeil facility code is 589) which provides different CO2 data then the Velerity slide
presentation. Can Velerity explain the discrepancy during its presentation?

Thanks.

Pike


From: Gene Bergman <gbergman@burlingtonvt.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 4:16 PM
To: Julia Ursaki <jursaki@burlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: FW: public records request



Also for TEUC public comment please



From: Pike Porter <pikeporter@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 2:55 PM
To: Mark Barlow <mbarlow@burlingtonvt.gov>; Gene Bergman <gbergman@burlingtonvt.gov>; Marek
Broderick <mbroderick@burlingtonvt.gov>; Becca Brown McKnight <bbrownmcknight@burlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: Fwd: public records request



[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


Hi all,



I requested any evidence to support that outlandish assertions that, " When McNeil generates power using
wood as fuel, the wood used is sustainably harvested, primarily in Vermont and upstate New York, but at times
has come from other sources throughout the Northeast. BED has been approached by Connecticut wood
suppliers regarding taking wood supply from tree trimming operations and other Connecticut non-commercial
wood sources." Below is the response advising that there is no evidence to support these claims.
See you at 4.



Thanks.



Pike Porter

Burlington Electric rate payer tired of "a troubling pattern of [BED]...inconsistencies and shortfalls."

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joseph Dempsey <jdempsey@burlingtonvt.gov>
Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: public records request
To: Pike Porter <pikeporter@gmail.com>



Good afternoon Pike,




I can confirm that the City has no records responsive to this request. There are no written documents or
communications with wood suppliers in Connecticut.




Thank you and have a great holiday week,

Joe




--

Joseph Dempsey

Public Information Officer

City Attorney's Office

The City of Burlington, Vermont

jdempsey@burlingtonvt.gov




Please note that this communication and any response to it will be maintained as a public record and may be
subject to disclosure under the Vermont Public Records Act.
From: Pike Porter <pikeporter@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:53 PM
To: Joseph Dempsey <jdempsey@burlingtonvt.gov>
Subject: public records request




[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.

Hi Joe,




I've attached a letter BED had submitted on its behalf that makes two statements:




...but at times [the wood] has come from other sources throughout the Northeast. BED has been
approached by Connecticut wood suppliers regarding taking wood supply from tree trimming operations and
other Connecticut non-commercial wood sources.




I request to review all documents possessed by Burlington Electric that helped inform these statements, or can
substantiate these statements, including wood contracts from other sources throughout the Northeast
evidencing dates and source locations of this wood, and emails or other correspondence from Connecticut wood
suppliers.




Thanks.




Pike Porter