Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-09-30
Time: 17:00

City Council - Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee



 Tuesday, September 30, 2025, 5:00 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
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to adopt/amend

2. Adopt Minutes
 2.1. Minutes of 8/19/25

3. Public Forum
 3.1. Public Comments - 30 min

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1. planBTV 2050 Mobility (Transportation Plan) - Information - 40 min
 4.2. Emissions Reduction/Energy Efficiency Review - Information - 20 min
 4.3. Forestry Third Party Review - Information - 20 min

5. Director's Report

6. Councilor Items

7. Next Meeting
 7.1. Tentative - 10/28/25, time TBD

8. Adjournment

City Council - Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee



 Tuesday, September 30, 2025, 5:00 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
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to adopt/amend

2. Adopt Minutes
 2.1. Minutes of 8/19/25

3. Public Forum
 3.1. Public Comments - 30 min

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1. planBTV 2050 Mobility (Transportation Plan) - Information - 40 min
 4.2. Emissions Reduction/Energy Efficiency Review - Information - 20 min
 4.3. Forestry Third Party Review - Information - 20 min

5. Director's Report

6. Councilor Items

7. Next Meeting
 7.1. Tentative - 10/28/25, time TBD

8. Adjournment




 Page 1 of 58
 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 Evan Litwin, Ward 7 802.881-2278
 Councilor Marek Broderick, Ward 8 rgoulding@burlingtonvt.gov




 Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council
 Tuesday, August 19, 2025 – 5:00PM
 --DRAFT MINUTES—
 See video for full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoouA3m8o_w

Councilors absent: Councilor McKnight
Councilors Present: Chair Barlow, Councilor Broderick, Councilor Bergman via Zoom
Chair Barlow calls meeting to order at 5:00 PM
1. Agenda
Councilor Broderick moves to approve the agenda as posted.
Councilor Bergman seconds.
All in favor, Unanimous approval

2. Minutes of 7/24/25
Councilor Bergman moves to adopt the minutes as presented.
Councilor Broderick seconds.
 Councilor Bergman would like more detailed minutes
All in favor, Unanimous approval

3. Public Forum
Quinton Zanderan - Policy Director from One on Climate - Online

4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 GMT Assessment Methodology Study
 Peter Plume & Michele Hobbs, of Reframe Lab and Clayton from GMT presented
 information.

 Zoom AI Summary:

 Strategizing GMT's Sustainable Future

 The meeting focused on evaluating GMT's current municipal assessment methodology
 and strategic path forward to ensure sustainability of transit service in the region, equity
 Page 2 of 58
across municipalities, and fiscal stability. Participants discussed the value and future
role of GMT in Burlington, highlighting its importance in providing transportation options,
reducing private auto use, and supporting economic development. They also explored
GMT's funding model, considering regional funding options and barriers, and
emphasized the need for more frequent service and route adjustments to accommodate
future development. The study is in its initial phase, with several months remaining for
further input and planning.

Public Transit Funding and Governance

The meeting focused on discussing funding models and governance structures for
public transit, particularly Green Mountain Transit (GMT). Gene and DPW expressed
uncertainty about the current funding model's intricacies and called for more detailed
information to improve proposals for innovation. They emphasized the need for regional
collaboration and suggested convening a larger roundtable to exchange ideas. Gene
highlighted affordability concerns and the importance of engaging communities deeply
in transit planning. DPW advocated for a regional approach to funding and governance,
suggesting collaboration with existing county-level structures. The group discussed
potential barriers to changing the funding approach, including perceived threats to
Burlington's dominance and the current assessment methodology. They agreed on the
need for better education about transit's value to build public support.


4.2 BED Synapse & Building Electrification Institute Presentation
Darren Springer, General Manager of BED, Shelley Kwok & Philip Eash-Gates Of
Synapse Energy & Caytie Campbell – Orrock of Building Electrification Institute
presented information.


Zoom AI Summary:

The meeting focused on two main topics: a regional transit study and building electrification policies. For the
transit study, DPW announced that municipal meetings would be completed by early September, with
proposed recommendations and a strategic roadmap to be developed by mid to late October, and a full report
expected by year-end. Regarding building electrification, Shelley and Philip from Synapse presented analysis
of three Burlington buildings, showing that while electrification measures reduced energy use intensity across
all buildings, the economics varied significantly depending on building type and system age. The analysis
found that gas heated buildings with rooftop units could electrify with minimal incremental costs, while high-
temperature central boiler systems faced more challenges. The presentation concluded that Burlington would
be the smallest community in the country to adopt such a policy, presenting both opportunities and
administrative challenges.

Transit and Building Electrification Updates

The meeting focused on two main topics: a regional transit study and building
electrification policies. For the transit study, DPW announced that municipal meetings
would be completed by early September, with proposed recommendations and a
strategic roadmap to be developed by mid to late October, and a full report expected by
year-end. Regarding building electrification, Shelley and Philip from Synapse presented
analysis of three Burlington buildings, showing that while electrification measures
 Page 3 of 58
reduced energy use intensity across all buildings, the economics varied significantly
depending on building type and system age. The analysis found that gas heated
buildings with rooftop units could electrify with minimal incremental costs, while high-
temperature central boiler systems faced more challenges. The presentation concluded
that Burlington would be the smallest community in the country to adopt such a policy,
presenting both opportunities and administrative challenges.

Weatherization Cost Analysis and Trends

The meeting focused on a presentation about weatherization and energy efficiency
measures, with Shelley explaining the cost calculations for different building systems.
Gene raised questions about the cost breakdowns, which Shelley clarified by explaining
the methodology for calculating levelized costs over a 15-year period. Darren and Chris
discussed the current incentive landscape for heat pumps, noting uncertainty about
future rebates due to ongoing regulatory processes. Philip presented a national
perspective on air-source heat pump costs and trends, suggesting that while costs are
slowly decreasing, performance is improving. The group agreed that more data is
needed to inform future policy decisions, particularly regarding the affordability of air-to-
water heat pump technology for commercial buildings.

Burlington's Building Performance Standards

Caytie presented on building performance standards, explaining that Burlington would
be the smallest city to implement such a policy and emphasizing the importance of
pairing it with technical support and job requirements. She outlined key components
including benchmarking data management, compliance pathways, and the need for
clear guidance and support for building owners. Caytie recommended finalizing the
benchmarking ordinance, engaging stakeholders, and ensuring adequate time for policy
design and implementation, while acknowledging Burlington's existing climate policies
and the need to balance multiple requirements.

Energy Performance Standards Policy Discussion

The committee discussed policy approaches for building energy performance
standards, with Caytie presenting options including individual percentage reductions
and cohort targets. The group explored how these approaches could be implemented in
a bureau ordinance, with Philip and Caytie noting that Boston uses both methods while
Cambridge successfully employs percentage reductions. The discussion concluded with
agreement that Burlington should gather benchmarking data before determining the
best approach, and John Bryant provided a brief update on the forestry study which is
expected to be completed in September.

4.3 BED Forestry Study Update
John Bryan owner of K2QC Consulting presented information.

Zoom AI Summary: John Bryan provided an update on his forestry assessment analysis
for the McNeil Generating Station, highlighting his observations and progress over the
past six weeks. He visited 12 logging sites in Vermont and New York, reviewed BED
documents, and found the logging contractors to be diverse and passionate about
maximizing wood value. John plans to complete his report by September 30th and aims
 Page 4 of 58
to present it at a future meeting. The committee expressed appreciation for his work and
discussed scheduling the next meeting to accommodate John's presentation.


4.4 Downtown Parking Item
Jackie Esperti, Parking Services Operation Manager presented information.

Zoom AI Summary: The meeting explored the possibility of public-private parking
partnerships in Burlington, with Jackie presenting examples of existing arrangements
and discussing revenue sharing options. Gene and other counselors expressed
concerns about potential conflicts with private property owners and the need to avoid
subsidizing parking, while Jackie emphasized that the initiative is aimed at preparing for
future parking shortages due to new hotels and developments. The committee agreed
to continue discussions and gather more data on parking projections and private lot
usage before making recommendations.

5. Director’s Report

Stormwater Agreements and Union Contract

Zoom AI Summary: The meeting covered several key updates and decisions. The group
approved stormwater agreements with homeowners' associations, including a minor
tweak for Strathmore HOA regarding stormwater facility responsibility, which will be
presented to City Council on September 8th or 9th. The Board approved a 3–4-year
collective bargaining agreement for urban drivers that provides financial stability but
may lead to service cuts being evaluated by GMT in November 2026.

6. Councilor Items
None

7. Next Meeting
September 30, 2025 at 645 Pine St at 5:00 pm

8. Adjournment
Chair Barlow adjourns meeting at 7:28 pm.




 Page 5 of 58
 112 State Street TTY/TDD (VT: 800-253-0191)
 4th Floor FAX: 802-828-3351
 Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 E-mail: puc.clerk@vermont.gov
 TEL: 802-828-2358 Internet: www.puc.vermont.gov


 State of Vermont
 Public Utility Commission


 July 31, 2025
Kerrick Johnson, Commissioner
Department of Public Service
112 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620

Dear Commissioner Johnson:

The Department of Public Service (“Department”) recently stated in a Commission case that the
City of Burlington Electric Department (“BED”) “has exhibited a concerning pattern of
regulatory errors, inconsistencies, and shortfalls in recent years” and that stronger regulatory
oversight is necessary to secure improved performance by BED in the context of its energy
efficiency utility program.1 In a July 2 Seven Days article regarding BED’s failure to properly
document renewable energy credits from the McNeil Generating Station, you stated, “Prudence
would dictate, in order to protect ratepayers, you look at the outward signs of effective
management.” 2

The Vermont Public Utility Commission (“Commission”) has observed this pattern of errors,
inconsistencies, and shortfalls by BED both in its capacity as an energy efficiency utility and as a
distribution utility. 3 We identify the following examples in both current and past case. 4

 In Case No. 23-1985-INV, regarding 2024 energy efficiency charge rates, BED’s initial
 proposal was based on budgets larger than those approved by the Commission. 5
 Although this was corrected before a decision was issued, this lack of precision had the
 potential to cause BED ratepayers to overpay for EEC-funded activities.

 In Case No. 22-3947-TF, BED filed a revised net-metering tariff to correct an error
 affecting 206 customers and amounting to $26,275 in under-compensation.



1
  Case No. 25-0231-INV, Department Comments of 4/25/25.
2
  Kevin McCallum, An Error Cost Burlington Electric $1 Million, SEVEN DAYS, July 2, 2025,
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/an-error-cost-burlington-electric-1-million-43900313.
3
  We opened this case to ensure transparency of this dialogue. This is not a Commission investigation.
4
  We note that Chair McNamara is recused from some of the cases identified below. See Chair McNamara’s
memorandum regarding conflicts and recusal (2/9/24), available at https://puc.vermont.gov/document/chair-
mcnamaras-memorandum-regarding-conflicts-and-recusal. However, this case does not involve making new
determinations regarding the merits of these past cases.
5
  Case No. 23-1985-INV, BED Revised EEC filing, 11/3/23.


 VERMONT
 Page 6 of 58
 In Case No. 24-1832-INV, regarding energy efficiency charge rates for 2025, BED
 identified a significant negative balance in its EEU fund. The negative balance is likely
 the result of years of compounded errors in BED’s energy efficiency charge calculations.
 The Commission opened Case No. 25-0231-INV to investigate the negative fund balance.

 BED did not report output and fuel type for the McNeil Generating Station for the third
 quarter of 2024 in the NEPOOL GIS system. As a result, BED lost approximately
 $951,000, while Green Mountain Power Corporation lost $600,000 and the Vermont
 Public Power Supply Authority lost $260,000.6

 In Case No. 21-2701-INV, regarding 2022 energy efficiency charge rates, the
 Commission found that the manner in which BED had pursued its proposal was
 unacceptable because BED was aware that its proposal was inconsistent with a
 Commission Order yet made no mention of the inconsistency in its initial filing. The
 Commission noted that “the regulatory process is harmed when an entity subject to our
 jurisdiction does not act in a manner consistent with our decisions, particularly where
 such an entity acts as though it can make unilateral decisions that are inconsistent with a
 Commission order.” The Commission stated that, going forward, it expected “marked
 improvement in BED’s regulatory diligence.”

 On March 28, 2022, the Commission issued an order regarding its overall performance
 assessment of BED as an energy efficiency utility.7 The Commission found
 inconsistencies in BED’s regulatory engagement. In its discussion, the Commission
 references Case No. 19-3272-PET, in which the Commission determined that BED had
 made multiple filings “that were late, had internal inconsistencies, were missing
 information, or included other mistakes.” 8 BED was directed to develop “robust
 processes for the internal review of documents before they are filed with the
 Commission, compliance checks to ensure timely response to Commission orders, and
 quality controls to verify that filings are made in the appropriate case(s) with all required
 materials.” 9 BED was directed to put these processes into place before the
 commencement of the next demand resources plan proceeding. The Commission stated
 that it is important for BED’s filings to be timely, accurate, and complete.10

 In Case No. 24-0598-PET, BED petitioned the Commission to reimburse its distribution
 utility operating accounts for expenditures that were incurred for the District Energy
 System (“DES”) in calendar year 2023. The Commission denied the petition because
 BED should have requested Commission approval of the expenditures in advance, and


6
  https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/an-error-cost-burlington-electric-1-million-43900313
7
  Petition of the Department of Public Service, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 209(d)(2), requesting a proceeding to
conduct Energy Efficiency Utility overall performance assessments and consideration of re-issuance of EEU order
of appointments to provide services, Case No. 21-1500-PET, Order of 3/28/22.
8
  Id. at 15.
9
  Id. at 16.
10
 Id. at 18 (“BED has failed to meet several QPIs and MPRs over the past two performance periods. In the context
of BED’s organization qualifications, the Department seeks to see more evidence from BED that it is recognizing
these shortfalls in a timely manner and managing the EEU's resources to address the shortfalls earlier in each
performance cycle. It is incumbent on BED to continually assess performance and to bring issues to the Department
and the Commission, as appropriate, as soon as the issues reach a reasonable level of concern.”).




 Page 7 of 58
 because the petition was ultimately an untimely effort to reconsider a prior Commission
 denial of a similar request.

 In Case No. 24-1848-TF, BED asked the Commission to reopen its approval of BED’s
 2024 rate case decision due to errors in BED’s cost of service. BED stated that its cost of
 service unintentionally included $100,460.31 of expenses associated with the DES and
 did not disclose this information in a discovery response. As a result, the Department’s
 testimony and the Commission’s order are based on erroneous information provided by
 BED. 11

 In Case No. 25-1010-INV, the Commission is investigating BED’s expenditure of
 approximately $2 million of energy efficiency utility and ratepayer funds on the
 development of a district energy system (“DES”) in the 2021-2023 performance period.
 We will examine “the source(s) of funds for DES support spending, and whether BED
 had proper regulatory approval for these expenditures.” 12

 In Case No. 24A-1346, BED’s 2023 EEU Annual Report, BED acknowledged
 overspending its residential-sector resource-acquisition budget for the 2021-2023
 performance period by 33% as a result of invoicing errors. In BED’s response to the
 hearing officer’s information request, BED stated, “In hindsight, however, BED should
 have been more proactive and informed the Commission of these issues sooner than the
 2023 EEU Annual Report filing. BED will strive to provide more timely notices in the
 future.”13

 Act 151 of 2022 provides that an electric energy efficiency utility may use a portion of its
 approved resource-acquisition budget for specified thermal and transportation efficiency
 programs if certain criteria are met.14 In Case No. 22-1473-PET, BED was directed to
 make a compliance detailing its Act 151 activities because BED’s implementation of
 certain parts of its Act 151 programs was inconsistent with representations that BED had
 made to the Commission.15

To date, and as evidenced by the above recent examples, the Commission has taken up BED’s
regulatory errors, inconsistencies, and shortfalls on a case-by-case basis, addressing the facts of a
particular circumstance and the policy or legal consequences. However, the pattern of conduct
that this list illustrates may necessitate a more holistic approach. The Commission is concerned
that BED has not implemented adequate quality-control measures or identified the root cause of
these issues. Therefore, we seek the Department’s recommendation on an approach to facilitate
effective regulatory engagement. We ask that the Department file a response in the next month
in ePUC in this case. We appreciate the Department’s consideration of this request.



11
 Case No. 24-1848-TF, BED Motion to Alter or Amend, 5/30/25.
12
 Case No. 25-1010-INV, Order of 5/20/25.
13
 Case No. 24A-1346, letter of 8/13/24.
14
 Vermont Public Act No. 151 (2022 Vt. Adj. Sess.).
15
 Case No. 22-1473-PET, Order of 7/8/24 (“BED’s filings in this case are problematic. We conclude that BED’s
description of the Act 151 programs that it has implemented continues to be inconsistent with the program plans that
BED provided in its DRP and in its re-allocation request.”).




 Page 8 of 58
This letter is also being issued in multiple open Commission proceedings that concern BED.
Vermont’s other distribution utilities and energy efficiency utilities and parties to the above cases
have been added to receive notice of this letter.




 Sincerely,




 Edward McNamara Margaret Cheney J. Riley Allen
 Chair Commissioner Commissioner




 Page 9 of 58
PUC Case No. 25-1584-INV - SERVICE LIST

John Abbott (for Vermont Public
Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Power Supply Authority)
PO Box 126
5195 Waterbury-Stowe Road
Waterbury Center, VT 05677
jabbott@vppsa.com

Erik Bailey (for Village of Johnson
Village of Johnson Water & Light Department Water & Light
PO Box 603 Department)
Johnson, VT 05656
ebailey@townofjohnson.com

Mary Bouchard (for Vermont Gas
Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. Systems, Inc.)
85 Swift Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
mbouchard@vermontgas.com

Sarah Braese (for Town of Hardwick
Town of Hardwick Electric Department Electric Department)
PO Box 516
123 N. Main Street
Hardwick, VT 05843
sbraese@hardwickelectric.com

Brian Callnan (for Washington Electric
Washington Electric Cooperative Cooperative Inc.)
PO Box 8
East Montpelier, VT 05651
brian.callnan@wec.coop

Andrea Cohen (for Vermont Electric
Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative Inc.)
42 Wescom Road
Johnson, VT 05656
acohen@vermontelectric.coop

Conservation Law Foundation
15 East State Street, Suite 4
Montpelier, VT 05602




 Page 10 of 58
Jeffrey Cram (for GF Power LLC)
GF Power LLC
1000 River Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
jeffrey.cram@globalfoundries.com

Crystal Currier (for Barton Village Inc.
Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Electric Department)
PO Box 126
5195 Waterbury-Stowe Rd
Waterbury Center, VT 05677
ccurrier@vppsa.com

Sierra Dubie (for Town of Hardwick
Town of Hardwick Electric Department Electric Department)
PO Box 516
Hardwick, VT 05843
sdubie@hardwickelectric.com

William F. Ellis (for City of Burlington
McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan Electric Department)
271 South Union Street
Burlington, VT 05401
wellis@mcneilvt.com

Elijah D Emerson, Esq. (for Village of Johnson
Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC Water & Light
P.O. Box 349 Department) (for Village
Littleton, NH 03561 of Enosburg Falls Water
eemerson@primmer.com & Light Department
 Inc.) (for Town of
 Hardwick Electric
 Department) (for Town
 of Northfield Electric
 Department)
Marla Emery (for Village of Johnson
Village of Johnson Water & Light Department Water & Light
P.O. Box 603 Department)
Johnson, VT 05656
memery@townofjohnson.com

Beth Essary (for Town of Hardwick
Town of Hardwick Electric Department Electric Department)
PO Box 516
Hardwick, VT 05843
bessary@hardwickelectric.com




 Page 11 of 58
Brian Evans-Mongeon (for Village of Hyde
Village of Hyde Park Electric Department Park Electric
P.O. Box 400 Department)
Hyde Park, VT 05655
gm@villageofhydepark.com

Steven R Farman (for Vermont Public
Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Power Supply Authority)
5195 Waterbury-Stowe rd
Waterbury Center, VT 05766
sfarman@vppsa.com

Karen Field (for Town of Hardwick
Town of Hardwick Electric Department Electric Department)
PO Box 516
Hardwick, VT 05843
kfield@hardwickelectric.com

Edward B. French, Jr., Esq. (for Village of Hyde
Stackpole & French Park Electric
PO Box 819 Department) (for Town
Stowe, VT 05672-0819 of Stowe Electric
efrench@stackpolefrench.com Department)

James Gibbons (for City of Burlington
City of Burlington Electric Department Electric Department)
585 Pine Street
Burlington, VT 05401
jgibbons@burlingtonelectric.com

Grace Grundhauser (for Green Mountain
Green Mountain Power Corporation Power Corporation)
163 Acorn Lane
Colchester, VT 05446
grace.grundhauser@greenmountainpower.com

Kerrick Johnson (for Vermont
Vermont Department of Public Service Department of Public
112 State Street Service)
Montpelier, VT 05620-2601
Kerrick.Johnson@vermont.gov




 Page 12 of 58
Scott Johnstone (for Village of
Village of Morrisville Water & Light Department Morrisville Water &
857 Elmore Street Light Department)
Morrisville, VT 05661
sjohnstone@mwlvt.com

Michael Lazorchak (for Town of Stowe
Town of Stowe Electric Department Electric Department)
PO Box 190
Stowe, VT 05672
mlazorchak@stoweelectric.com

Mari McClure (for Green Mountain
Green Mountain Power Corporation Power Corporation)
163 Acorn Lane
Colchester, VT 05446
ceo@greenmountainpower.com

Abbey Miller (for Village of Enosburg
Village of Enosburg Falls Water & Light Department Falls Water & Light
42 Village Drive Department Inc.)
Enosburg Falls, VT 05450
amiller@enosburg.net

Liz Miller (for Green Mountain
Green Mountain Power Power Corporation)
163 Acorn Lane
Colchester, VT 05446
Liz.Miller@greenmountainpower.com

John Morley (for Village of Orleans
Village of Orleans Electric Department Electric Department)
Municipal Building
One Memorial Square
Orleans, VT 05860
jmorley@villageoforleansvt.org

John Morley (for Barton Village Inc.
Village of Orleans Electric Department Electric Department)
Municipal Building
One Memorial Square
Orleans, VT 05860
jmorley@villageoforleansvt.org




 Page 13 of 58
Ken Nolan (for Vermont Public
Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Power Supply Authority)
P.O. Box 126
Waterbury Center, VT 05677
knolan@vppsa.com

Lynn Paradis (for Swanton Village,
Village of Swanton Inc. Electric Department)
Village of Swanton 120 First St.
Swanton, VT 05488
lparadis@swanton.net

Jill Pfenning (for Vermont Gas
Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. Systems, Inc.)
85 Swift Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
jpfenning@vermontgas.com

Louis Porter (for Washington Electric
Washington Electric Cooperative Cooperative Inc.)
PO Box 8
East Montpelier, VT 05651
louis.porter@wec.coop

Jackie Pratt (for Town of Stowe
Town of Stowe Electric Department Electric Department)
PO Box 190
Stowe, VT 05672
jpratt@stoweelectric.com

James Porter, Director of Public Advocacy (for Vermont
Vermont Department of Public Service Department of Public
112 State Street Service)
Montpelier, VT 05620-2601
DPS-PA@vermont.gov

Christopher Recchia (for Village of Ludlow
Village of Ludlow Electric Light Department Electric Light
9 Pond Street Department)
Ludlow, VT 05149
crecchia@ludlowelectric.com




 Page 14 of 58
Renewable Energy Vermont
P.O. Box 1036
Montpelier, VT 05601

Jeffrey Schulz (for Town of Northfield
Town of Northfield Electric Department Electric Department)
51 South Main Street
Northfield, VT 05663
jschulz@northfield.vt.us

Thea Schwartz (for Vermont Electric
Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative Inc.)
42 Wescom Road
Johnson, VT 05656
tschwartz@vermontelectric.coop

S Mark Sciarrotta (for Vermont Transco
Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. LLC)
366 Pinnacle Ridge Road
Rutland, VT 05701
msciarrotta@velco.com

S Mark Sciarrotta (for Vermont Electric
Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. Power Company, Inc.)
366 Pinnacle Ridge Road
Rutland, VT 05701
msciarrotta@velco.com

William (Bill) Sheets (for Swanton Village,
Swanton Village, Inc. Electric Department Inc. Electric Department)
120 First Street
Swanton, VT 05488
wsheets@swanton.net

Ronald A. Shems, Esq. (for Washington Electric
Tarrant, Gillies & Shems, LLP Cooperative Inc.)
P.O. Box 1440
Montpelier, VT 05601-1440
ron@tarrantgillies.com

Darren Springer (for City of Burlington
City of Burlington Electric Department Electric Department)
585 Pine Street
Burlington, VT 05401
dspringer@burlingtonelectric.com




 Page 15 of 58
Emily Stebbins-Wheelock (for City of Burlington
City of Burlington Electric Department Electric Department)
585 Pine Street
Burlington, VT 05401
estebbins-wheelock@burlingtonelectric.com

Rebecca Towne (for Vermont Electric
Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative Inc.)
42 Wescom Road
Johnson, VT 05656
rtowne@vermontelectric.coop

Joseph Vandette, Jr. (for Washington Electric
Washington Electric Cooperative Cooperative Inc.)
P.O. Box 8
East Montpelier, VT 05651
jj.vandette@wec.coop

James Weber (for Village of
Village of Jacksonville Electric Company Jacksonville Electric
manager@jacksonvilleelectric.net Company)

Erica Welton (for Town of Lyndon
Town of Lyndon Electric Department Electric Department)
PO BOX 119
Lyndonville, VT 05851
ewelton@lyndonelectric.com

David C. Westman (for Efficiency Vermont
Efficiency Vermont - Vermont Energy Investment Corporation - Vermont Energy
20 Winooski Falls Way Investment Corporation)
5th Floor
Winooski, VT 05404
dwestman@veic.org




 Page 16 of 58
State of Vermont
Department of Public Service [phone] 802-828-2811
112 State Street [fax] 802-828-2342
Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 [tdd] 800-734-8390
http://public service.vermont.gov

 August 29, 2025

Edward McNamara, Chair
Margaret Cheney, Commissioner
J. Riley Allen, Commissioner
Vermont Public Utility Commission
112 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620

RE: Burlington Electric Department

Dear Chair McNamara, Commissioner Cheney, and Commissioner Allen:

Thank you for your letter dated July 31, 2025, in which the Commission notes the Department’s
stated concerns regarding Burlington Electric Department’s (“BED”) troubling pattern of
“regulatory errors, inconsistencies, and shortfalls.” The letter enumerates a number, but not all of
the examples that comprise BED’s regulatory deficiencies, both as an energy efficiency utility and
as a distribution utility, that led to the Department’s filings and public statements. The
Commission’s letter concludes with a request for the Department’s recommendation “on an
approach to facilitate effective regulatory engagement” on the part of BED. As described below,
the Department recommends a focused management audit of BED’s key business practices.

More specifically, the Department recommends that the Commission open an investigation into
BED’s internal quality controls. As part of this investigation, the Department would engage a firm
with the requisite expertise to conduct a business process audit with a specific focus on internal
quality controls. It is the Department's expectation that BED would fully cooperate and collaborate
with the selected auditing firm. While BED’s internal practices have not yet been assessed, an
audit could reveal the need to implement additional quality controls. Examples of such controls
include:

 x Regulatory Quality Controls – Ensuring processes to maintain compliance with state and
 federal regulations.
 o Compliance Monitoring that would include multiple levels of data review,
 supporting document verification, and independent calculations to ensure filing
 accuracy.
 o Reporting Controls that would include data validation and supervisor review.
 o Record Keeping that would include transaction logs and create audit trails for all
 system changes, including user identification, timestamps, and approval
 documentation.

 1


 Page 17 of 58
 x Operational Quality Controls - Clear documentation of policies and procedures to
 understand how decisions are made and evaluate the effectiveness of internal operations
 with a goal of ensuring consistency, compliance, and accountability.
 x Financial Quality Controls - Promote fiscal discipline, prevent waste, and ensure that all
 public funds are spent efficiently and effectively (e.g., Revenue Management, Expenditure
 Controls).
 x Cross-Functional Quality Controls
 o Training and Competency assessments for all employees. Verify employee
 qualifications before authorizing specific work activities. Ensure adequate staffing
 levels and provide ongoing training, on-the-job performance monitoring, and
 feedback mechanisms. Ensure succession planning for critical positions.
 o Continuous Improvement processes that identify the root cause or systemic issue
 requiring corrective action. Implement performance metrics over time to identify
 degrading performance before it becomes problematic. This is a particularly
 pertinent discipline lacking at BED.

Again, this list is illustrative. BED’s management performance issues regarding energy efficiency
and power supply-related functions are well documented. What is not clear to the Department,
however, is whether or how far these issues extend and how those issues might further
disadvantage their customers. Our recommendation is that the audit focus on the four areas
described above while taking a broader look at the overall management structure and culture.

Having said that, as documented in its Service Quality and Reliability Plan (SQRP) metrics, the
Department believes it is important to note that BED delivers reliable service to its customers.
Further, the Department receives very few complaints from BED's customers, and we note that
BED seems to mostly enjoy strong customer support as evidenced by recent bond votes. Most
importantly in this context, we do not believe that BED is intentionally obscuring facts or engaging
in actions for any malicious purposes.

These are some of the reasons why the Department finds their poor performance in the identified
areas so frustrating: they can do better, they know they should, and yet to date they have not. In
fact, in the last two weeks, BED withdrew its Revised Miscellaneous Service Fees Tariff dated
August 4, 2025, due to the Department uncovering multiple formula errors in the supporting
spreadsheets that resulted in incorrect fee calculations. When alerted to these errors by Department
staff, BED responds reasonably well but its continued mistakes and need of remedial help diverts
precious resources from other critical Departmental responsibilities and comes at an as yet
unquantified cost to their customers. Such a state is unsustainable.

The impact of BED’s poor performance doesn’t just affect their own customers and personnel, but
all of Vermont’s electric ratepayers. That is why, in the end, the Department recommends that the
Commission open the investigation as described. We are mindful of the demands on BED
personnel’s time, the Department and Commission’s time, and the possibility of unintended




 Page 18 of 58
negative consequences that may accrue from the recommended audit. Yet, it is BED’s own
performance that has brought us to this point.

The Department’s goal in recommending this investigation and audit is to secure effective,
comprehensive and sustained performance by BED to best ensure self-sustained reliable and
affordable service. It is intended as a corrective action that the Department decided upon only after
careful consideration of all other options. The Department would like nothing better than to help
BED quickly secure an end state whereby all aspects of the utility’s operations are effectively
managed.

Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations.

Sincerely,




Kerrick Johnson
Commissioner




 Page 19 of 58
 planBTV 2050
 unified comprehensive plan

 Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee 9/30/2025

 Project Lead:
 Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner
 dpwplanning@burlingtonvt.gov
 Project Team:
 Julia Ursaki, Public Works Engineer
 Parsa Pezeshknejad, Public Works Engineer


 Page 1
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 20 of 58
 Introduction




 Page 2
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 21 of 58
 2024 TEUC motion highlights
 • Support DPW in pursuing funding to update the Transportation Plan


 • Collaboration and engagement
 • Mayor’s office, City planning, Walk/Bike council, NPAs, GMT

 • Include evaluating downtown pedestrian/bike-only street options
 • Conduct pilot closures
 • Traffic impact study


 Page 3
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 22 of 58
 What is planBTV? planBTV: 2050


  PlanBTV: 2050 is a collaboration between the
  CCRPC and four City Departments Mobility
 Element
 Parks Element CEDO Element




 A holistic
  OCP: updating long-term
 the 2019 Municipalvision  that reflects the way
 Plan (planBTV)
  DPW: updating and expanding a 2011 Transportation Plan
 Burlingtonians experience the interconnected city.
  BPRW: updating its 2015 Comprehensive Plan
  CEDO: creating a new economic development plan



 Page 4
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 23 of 58
 What is planBTV? planBTV: 2050


  PlanBTV: 2050 is a collaboration between the
  CCRPC and four City Departments Mobility
 Element
 Parks Element CEDO Element




  OCP: updating the 2019 Municipal Plan (planBTV) = planBTV: 2050
  DPW: updating and expanding a 2011 Transportation Plan
  BPRW: updating its 2015 Comprehensive Plan
  CEDO: creating a new economic development plan



 Page 5
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 24 of 58
 Municipal plan needs
 • Strong housing demand with limited
 capacity to supply
 • Housing costs are unsustainably high
 • Uneven growth across the city
 • Inconsistent federal funding
 • Large capital projects stretch the
 community’s capacity
 • Referencing and merging similar plans


 Page 6
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 25 of 58
 What is planBTV? planBTV: 2050


  PlanBTV: 2050 is a collaboration between the
  CCRPC and four City Departments Mobility
 Element
 Parks Element CEDO Element




  OCP: updating the 2019 Municipal Plan (planBTV)
  DPW: updating and expanding a 2011 Transportation Plan
  BPRW: updating its 2015 Comprehensive Plan
  CEDO: creating a new economic development plan



 Page 7
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 26 of 58
 Parks, Recreation and Waterfront needs
 • Increased demands on green
 • Pressures on open spaces by unhoused
 community members
 • Focused work on equity and inclusion
 • Planning centered on wellness, health and
 safety
 • Anticipating climate change
 • Merging and referencing similar plans

 Page 8
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 27 of 58
 What is planBTV? planBTV: 2050


  PlanBTV: 2050 is a collaboration between the
  CCRPC and four City Departments Mobility
 Element
 Parks Element CEDO Element




  OCP: updating the 2019 Municipal Plan (planBTV)
  DPW: updating and expanding a 2011 Transportation Plan
  BPRW: updating its 2015 Comprehensive Plan
  CEDO: creating a new economic development plan



 Page 9
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 28 of 58
 Parks, Recreation and Waterfront needs
 • Burlington has no economic development strategy
 • COVID-19 changed consumer behaviors, and reduced
 downtown foot traffic
 • More remote workers resulting in vacant office space…
 • Rising rates of homelessness
 • A reduction in business revenue
 • Economic activity dispersing from heavily-impacted
 Downtown core


 Page 10
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 29 of 58
 What is planBTV? planBTV: 2050


  PlanBTV: 2050 is a collaboration between the
  CCRPC and four City Departments Mobility
 Element
 Parks Element CEDO Element




  OCP: updating the 2019 Municipal Plan (planBTV)
  DPW: updating and expanding a 2011 Transportation Plan = planBTV Mobility
  BPRW: updating its 2015 Comprehensive Plan
  CEDO: creating a new economic development plan



 Page 11
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 30 of 58
 Why update planBTV Mobility?
 Context and need for update:
 • Last Transportation Plan update was
 in 2011
 • Significant development since then
 • Planning for approx. 7,000 new
 housing units by 2050 under act 181
 • Need to reassess transportation
 policies and community priorities



 Page 12
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 31 of 58
 Why update planBTV Mobility?
 Integrate several topic and area-specific plans:
 • planBTV WalkBike Safety Action Plan (2025)
 • planBTV: New North End (2025)
 • Transportation Demand Management (2024)
 • North Winooski Avenue Transportation Study (2020)
 • planBTV: South End (2019)
 • North Avenue Corridor Study (2015)

  You can find all here: Past Projects | Burlington, VT


 Page 13
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 32 of 58
 Visions for PlanBTV Mobility?

 • Develop a long-term mobility vision aligned
 with future growth

 • Integrate transportation with land use and
 housing

 Source: nclurbandesign.org




 Page 15
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 33 of 58
 Implementation and outcome
 • Use scenario-based planning: explore different futures to prepare for uncertainty.
 • Unify and prioritize: unify recent/ongoing plans and spotlight emerging issues.
 • Create a guiding framework: clear structure for future transportation investments.
 • Create metrics for progress: measurable indicators to track plans.
 • Realistic and actionable strategies: short, medium, and long-term actions that are
 realistic.
 • Acknowledge realities: cars are part of the system, rural context, political landscape.


 Page 16
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 34 of 58
 What’s next




 Page 17
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 35 of 58
 RFQ time line
 • RFQ issued August 22, 2025
 • Virtual pre-submission meeting September 10, 2025
 • Questions due: September 12, 2025
 • Proposals due October 8th
 • Interview period: Mid October
 • Contract awarded/executed November 2025
 • Plan Completion: 12/2026*

 The Municipal Plan element must be adopted by 3/27/2027. All other plans are under no such time limitation and
 may extend past 12/2026 as needed. Though it is our goal to complete all elements at the same time



 Page 18
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 36 of 58
 Initial public engagement and outreach
 • Neighborhood planning assemblies (NPAs)
 Visiting NPAs to introduce the process and gather early input.
 • Public visioning workshops
 Will begin this fall starting October
 • Community Survey (will be online mid October)
 A citywide survey will be launched with a QR code
 • Project advisory committee (PAC)
 Currently inviting individuals and organizations to form a PAC
 • More extensive engagement such as focus groups


 Page 19
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 37 of 58
Join the planBTV: 2050 team for the start of the Neighborhood
Visioning process!
These workshops will set the stage for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan by bringing
neighbors together to share ideas, values, and priorities for the future of the community.

  South End Old North End
  5:30 – 7:30pm | Tuesday, October 7th 5:30 – 7:30pm | Thursday, October 23rd
  BCA Community Room, 405 Pine Street Old North End Community Center
  Downtown + Waterfront Old East End
  5:30 – 7:30pm | Monday, October 27th 5:30 – 7:30pm | Thursday, October 30th
  Community Sailing Center, 505 Lake Street Schmanska Park Barn, 63 Grove Street
  New North End
  planBTV: 2050 is kicking off in coordination with the planBTV: NNE neighborhood planning
  process, which has been underway since January.
  Check out www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan/nne for more information!

 Page 38 of 58
 Questions
 Contact information:
 Phillip Peterson
 Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner
 (802) 598-8356
 dpwplanning@burlingtonvt.gov

 Page 21
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 39 of 58
 Engagement/outreach
 October November
 Phase Task Description Notes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
 4.1.1East End - Schmanska Park 10/30
 4.1.2ONE - Community Center Open Houses; to include
 4.1.3DT/Waterfront - Sailing Center summary of relevant
 Visioning
 South End - BCA Community Room or Champlain adopted plans and
 4.1.4 College Miller Center planBTV: 2050 visioning 10/7
 4.1.5NNE
 4.1.6Storymap (?) + Survey
 Video
 Ward 1 Second Wednesday « «



 NPA Roadshow
 Ward 2 Second Thursday « «
 Ward 3 First Wednesday « «
 Wards 4/7 Fourth Wednesday « «
 Ward 5 Third Thursday « «
 Ward 6 First Thursday « «
 Ward 8 Fourth Thursday « «



 Page 22
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 40 of 58
 Needs and focus areas
 Key focus areas:
 • Increased trip demand
 • Electric vehicles and climate goals




 Source: ccrpctranspstats.uvm.edu




 Page 23
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 41 of 58
 Needs and focus areas
 Key focus areas:
 • Increased trip demand
 • Electric vehicles and climate goals
 • Land use and transportation integration
 • Multimodal network and transit system
 • Safe and connected active travel



 Source: smartgrowthamerica



 Page 24
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 42 of 58
 Needs and focus areas
 Key focus areas:
 • Increased trip demand
 • Electric vehicles and climate goals
 • Land use and transportation integration
 • Multimodal network and transit system
 • Safe and connected active travel
 • Access to needs and, services
 • Mobility and Roadway management
 Source: smartgrowthamerica



 Page 25
planBTV 2050:
Mobility Page 43 of 58
 Burlington Electric Department
Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil




 John Bryant
 K2QC Consulting LLC
 Holden, Maine 04429
 207.745.9955
 k2qcconsulting@gmail.com

 September 30, 2025

 Page 44 of 58
Introduction
This report serves as an independent review of the forestry assessment and analysis for the McNeil
Generating Station (‘McNeil’). As owner of K2QC Consulting, LLC (‘K2QC’), I contracted with the
City of Burlington Electric Company (‘BED’) on May 2, 2025 to provide a forestry assessment and
analysis for McNeil. BED’s RFP 014-25C defines report expectations with audit standards detailed
in Appendix A. Founded in 2020, K2QC is a forestry consulting company specializing in forestry,
forest management, forest operations, and organizational design.

Overview
The policy of BED to accept delivery of whole tree chips from Vermont harvesting operations that
are certified by a professional forester and meet the “Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Chipping
Operations in Vermont” are the central issue for the report that follows.

Disclosure Statement
When I submitted my work proposal in late February, I did not know the city of Burlington had a
wood chip to energy plant, nor did I know BED had a forestry staff or anything about the supply
system in place to provide wood waste to the McNeil plant. After BED’s acceptance of my work
proposal and the follow-up BED contract completion in early May, I began work in late May with a
clean slate and other than information in the McNeil RFP, I know little about the task in front of me.
It was an interesting, informative experience.

Executive Summary
BED has been practicing responsible wood residue purchasing and harvest plan certification since
the early 1980’s using sound, silvicultural based methods to ensure sustainable timber management
on sites managed by forestry consultants or BED foresters. The harvesting policy is the foundation
for acceptance of wood chips into the McNeil system. During my field visits, I observed no chipping
of trees that could be sold to higher use roundwood or sawlog markets. In my opinion, loggers have
no incentive to sell or chip trees that could be sold for a higher return to other markets. I identified
no significant issues worth noting in this report. This report identifies recommendations for
improvement.

Acknowledgement
I want to thank and acknowledge the BED forestry team – Betsy Lesnikoski, Seth Clifford, Don
Tobi, and Kevin Fink for their time and efforts to provide requested documents and harvest plans,
answer my questions, educate me to the McNeil system certification requirements, and escort me
to the chip receiving locations and BED certified logging sites in Vermont and northeast New York.

Chief Forester Betsy Lesnikoski and the BED foresters are well versed in the McNeil system,
state laws and regulations in Vermont and New York, logging service contractor (‘logger’)
dynamics, and the McNeil chip purchase certification process. BED’s forestry team were excellent
resources as I researched pertinent documents, public records, historical discussions, and the
extensive BED certification protocols. BED has a history of continuous improvement, public
feedback, and regular reviews of their forestry practices.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 2 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 45 of 58
Biomass - Wood Residues
The term biomass is widely used in various publications and public policy debates, and means many
things depending on the derivation of, or end use of the material. For use in this report, I define
biomass as ‘wood residues’ from timber harvest operations used for energy production – this
includes chips, grindings, sawmill residues, trees with no higher use market, and logging yard
debris. The wood residues from forestry operations consist of tree tops, branches, damaged, dying,
or dead trees, irregular or bent stem sections, and inferior trees with no market that are removed
during timber harvest operations to improve growing conditions for the better quality and more
desirable trees.

Landowners, foresters, and loggers make decisions on the use of wood residues to benefit
landowners economic return, forest stand aesthetics, soil stability during yarding, wildlife habitat, and
timber market availability and value. Trees grow in Vermont and northeast New York in an incredibly
challenging environment due to rapidly changing weather conditions (floods, extreme wind events,
extreme winter cold temperatures, snow, ice, and ever-changing climatic events), insects, and
diseases. These conditions create defective trees that compete with the better formed, desirable
trees for light, water, and nutrients to grow. Foresters and landowners make periodic decisions
regarding preferred tree species, specific forest management objectives, and desired rotation age
which impacts decisions on tree removal and retention of tops, branches, and tree stems in a stand.

Ultimately, a robust wood residue chip market provides increased options for forest management
decisions, a renewable resource for energy, and a healthier logging community. Strong diverse
timber markets are the basis for good forest management practices, when proper harvest planning
and oversight are implemented. The McNeil system is a valuable wood residue market for loggers.

Field Visits to Harvest Sites
With the assistance of BED foresters, I visited 14 active and 5 inactive or closed winter harvest
sites selected randomly in Vermont and northeast New York to view timber harvest operations and
talk with loggers about their planning process, regional timber markets, and impressions of the
McNeil system. The loggers visited represent approximately 58% of the 2024 volume delivered to
the McNeil system. Given the coordination and time allocated, I did not have time to visit every
harvest site or logger – I viewed a good cross section of loggers and diversity of harvest activity.
During my field visits, I had conversations with the following loggers or in-field representatives of the
logger.
 Darren McDonald Patrick Remillard Montgomery Logging
 Jason Lathrop Tom Lincoln Justin Lathrop
 Patrick Gregoire Mike Parker Richard Hallstrom Logging
 Gabe Parent Kenny Bigelow Adirondack Forest Fiber

During my initial visit to Burlington, I toured the McNeil plant and the Swanton yard to understand the
process of receiving and using wood chips at the two points of delivery. I reviewed delivery and cost
data for the McNeil system to understand trends in recent years. I estimated 60% of the field visits
were on Vermont harvest sites with the remaining 40% in New York.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 3 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 46 of 58
Logging Service Contractor Observations
a. I was extremely impressed with the diversity of loggers and logging systems in the McNeil
 supply system, the professionalism and passion for their work, and their ability to maximize the
 value of timber to the best possible use from harvest sites.
b. Loggers speak highly of, and rely on, the McNeil system to assure silvicultural objectives are
 accomplished and local markets are utilized to optimize timber value.
c. Loggers are extremely complimentary of the Swanton Yard and the efficient process used to
 unload chip trucks and the yard operators ability to address any issues.
d. There are legitimate economic challenges for loggers in the McNeil supply system and the
 long-term supply chain, which will require continued focus on listening to suppliers and working
 together to ensure future system viability.
e. Loggers emphasized the importance of a regional wood residue market as it creates jobs in
 rural, forest-based communities, provides a revenue stream from low-value trees and wood
 residues, and supports improved silvicultural options.
f. Vermont has some of the most challenging terrain for forest management and removal of timber.
 The landscape has been worked for many centuries for dairy farms, agriculture, maple sugar
 production, timber production, and recreation. I marvel at the ability of local loggers to
 understand how to work in this landscape and sustainably produce timber products for sale.

Logging Service Contractor Comments
I had four main questions for the loggers interviewed during our field visits; 1) tell me about your
timber markets?, 2) what is your process for separating timber for these markets?, 3) what are your
thoughts about McNeil and the Swanton yard?, and 4) tell me about your interactions with BED
foresters.

Specific comments from loggers (as verbatim as possible given my field notes):
a. “McNeil is the market of last resort. We only send them wood that does not have another
 better market or make more money.”
b. “We are not required to manage for rare, threatened, and endangered species (‘RTE’) and
 would likely not know if they were present if BED foresters were not involved.”
c. “I have never had a BED forester pressure me to put more wood into a chipper.”
d. “I would not be stopping my operation and move my entire operation if BED did not require
 protection of endangered bats. BED works with us on that process.”
e. “The delivered price for chipwood is so much less than every other product, we can only
 afford to chip wood that has no other market.”
f. “When trees come to the landing, we cut them up to maximize the value for the landowner and us –
 with every part of the tree sent to the highest value market. That is so important to my financial
 success.”
g. “Sometimes the best use of tops and limbs is to stabilize the trails, so that is where it goes.”
h. “I cannot afford to just chip wood. My operation requires a healthy mix of timber.”
i. “The Swanton yard is very efficient and well run. They get my trucks in and out as soon as
 possible.”
j. “BED foresters keep me informed and aware of regulatory issues, most notably the bat
 management issues with Vermont biologists.”


Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 4 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 47 of 58
k. “We work with BED foresters to identify alternatives when ground conditions turn poor.”
l. “BED pays for wood chips received in a very timely manner. They inform us if a payment delay arises.
 If you run a business, you know how important that is for cash flow.”
m. “Our business likely would not survive without the McNeil facility.”
n. “BED foresters are enthusiastic about doing the right thing on the land. We do our best to listen and
 learn.”
o. “This equipment you see needs operators, which are in short supply. I am worried about the
 future. I personally juggle many machines in one day to keep things moving.”
p. “I depend on the McNeil system to help accomplish my harvest outcomes.’


Harvest Visit Observations
a. During my visits to ongoing harvests, I observed chipping operations that used either poor
 quality trees (unmerchantable or with no other market), tops and limbs from trees, or sections of
 trees that were removed to upgrade a section of the tree to a higher value sawlog or usable
 section for firewood or pulpwood. All higher-grade trees or sawlogs were separated out for
 delivery to firewood outlets, pulpwood mills, sawlog markets (US and Canadian), or other local
 chip using facilities (i.e., Middlebury College).
b. The harvests utilized a variety of silvicultural systems – primarily single tree selection and group
 selection techniques. The single tree selection focuses on removal of low-quality, suppressed,
 short-lived species, and overmature high-risk trees. Group selection focuses on creating
 openings in the forest to encourage natural regeneration. The silvicultural system is well
 described in the harvest plan process used by BED or the forest consultant hired by the
 landowner or logger.
c. Loggers who chip for the McNeil system use chipping as the lowest priority option. If a harvested
 tree has a higher value option (sawlogs, veneer, pallet logs, pulpwood, firewood, or other local
 markets), the logger separates the better-quality section of tree from material to be chipped.
d. I was extremely impressed with the utilization of trees on the logging operations into piles
 destined for higher use products – loggers are incentivized to sell to the highest value markets.
 It is in their company’s interest to move products to the highest value market to optimize
 returns.
e. Loggers take pride in assuring any tree removed during the harvest operation ends up in a solid
 wood form (firewood, pulpwood, or sawlogs).
f. Loggers diligently focus on keeping logging yards as organized as practicable to assure positive
 aesthetics and clear understanding of merchandized products – sawlogs, pulpwood, firewood,
 and lower value material destined for chipping. This is very evident when you visit the landings.
g. Local consulting foresters or landowner staff foresters are directly involved in 60% of the harvest
 plans that deliver wood residues to McNeil. BED interacts as required on these jobs; however,
 most of BED forester efforts focus on jobs where no foresters are involved to ensure BED
 certification requirements are addressed.
h. On inactive harvests, the wood residues were piled in preparation for chipping. The higher
 value roundwood was hauled and the low value chip piles will be chipped later.
i. On closed winter sites, the log landing was cleared and stabilized to avoid any negative aesthetic
 reaction.



Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 5 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 48 of 58
Noteworthy BED Management Practices
a. The BED foresters documentation of harvest sites and field inspections are impressive and
 extremely professional – and, in my opinion, the harvest plan documentation sets a standard for
 non-public lands in the Northeast US.
b. BED foresters regularly interact with Vermont biologists, as required, to ensure RTE’s and associated
 habitat are identified and protected during harvest operations.
c. The BED harvest plan checklist includes a lengthy list of important topics – including ACT 250
 permits, protected lands identification, agricultural conversion plans, mapping of RTE habitats,
 wetlands, deer wintering areas, and rare natural communities. BED foresters understand the
 requirements and can readily speak to the importance and need for compliance on harvest sites.
d. Silvicultural prescriptions on BED harvest plans are detailed with extensive forest stand data
 and descriptions of process and desired outcomes.
e. BED has an excellent relationship with Vermont’s Natural Resource Managers including the State
 Division of Forests, Parks and Recreation, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of
 Environmental Conservation Wetlands division.
f. BED foresters regularly conduct and document harvest site inspections from locations where
 McNeil receives wood residues.
g. BED foresters work in a compliance and a chip procurement role; however, adherence to BED
 harvest standards (the compliance role) is the first priority. Working closely with suppliers has
 allowed BED to maintain standards while procuring sufficient wood residues to keep McNeil on
 line. This concept can be misleading, yet it is an important public pursuit. In a compliance role, a
 forester works to assure permitting, harvest plan compliance, and environmental issues are
 addressed properly. In a procurement role, a forester’s primary role is assurance that their
 market gets the timber or chips from the logger and typically does not oversee the environmental
 tasks. High accolades to BED foresters who seem to focus on the right tasks given the need to
 balance compliance to standards while maintaining supply of wood residues. Given my
 background, it is clear BED foresters clearly know their role in the process.

Noteworthy McNeil System Practices
a. The Swanton yard receiving system is a success story with recent improvements resulting in a
 top-notch, well-run yard. Any wood receiving facility that gets delivery trucks in and out quickly
 will be a preferred delivery destination.
b. The Swanton yard is required to deliver 75% of the wood residue volume for McNeil by rail. This
 requires close coordination between the Swanton Yard and McNeil.
c. The McNeil logger payment process administered by BED appears to be a huge success given
 discussions with loggers.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 6 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 49 of 58
BED Harvest Policy Audit Standards (from Appendix A – pages 11 to 17 of the BED RFP 014-25C)
The BED policy standards, the stated audit question (from the BED RFP) and K2QC observations are
noted below.

A. It will be the policy of BED to accept delivery of whole tree chips only from harvesting operations in
 Vermont certified by a professional forester as meeting the criteria of “good forestry practice” as
 outlined below. BED foresters or their authorized agents will conduct periodic on-site inspections
 to insure compliance with the following practices. Unresolved violations of these practices will
 result in the termination of chip purchase from the offending producer.
 Evaluate whether; 1) harvest sites are periodically inspected, 2) identified issues reach a resolution,
 and 3) whether unresolved violations result in termination of chip purchasing.
 Confirmation of harvest site inspection reports and discussion with BED foresters and
 loggers support the implementation of this policy. Specific examples were cited to
 support this policy.

B. The use of necessary and applicable erosion and sedimentation control practices will be
 required. Every harvesting contractor will become familiar with the publication AMP’s for Water
 Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont. Contractors will be required to implement procedures
 outlined in the guide to the satisfaction of BED foresters.
 Evaluate whether the AMPs are implemented on jobs.
 Confirmation of harvest sites and inspection reports, and discussions with BED foresters
 and loggers support the proper implementation of this policy.

C. Consideration for visual quality will be required:
 1. All refuse will be removed from the landing/logging site prior to termination of the operation.
 Wood waste will be removed or buried and brush piles leveled to the extent possible.
 2. Appropriate techniques will be used adjacent to major hiking trails to protect the integrity of
 the trail and the hiking experience.
 3. Landings will be laid out so as to reduce the adverse visual impact.
 Confirm that closeout includes removal of debris and appropriate treatment of woody waste.
 Confirmation on inspection reports and discussions with BED foresters support the proper
 implementation of this policy as stated in 1 and 3. No confirmation on statement 2, as I made
 no visits to harvest sites adjacent to trails.

D. Wildlife and fisheries will be given consideration in harvest planning:
 1. Landowners will be made aware of any negative impacts to wildlife or fisheries relating to a
 proposed chip harvest operation on their property.
 2. For all sites within Vermont from which wood fuel will be purchased by BED, a BED forester
 will visit the site with the landowner and/or harvesting contractor and confer in developing
 a harvesting procedure which meets the forester’s approval.
 Demonstrate harvest plan modifications to protect and enhance wildlife and fish habitats.
 Significant confirmation on harvest plans and discussions with BED foresters support the
 implementation of this policy.

E. Ensure Harvest Notifications include the pertinent information and protection of Deer Wintering
 Area, Wetlands and Habitats of Rare and Endangered species. When landowner goals require



Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 7 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 50 of 58
 silvicultural manipulation for wildlife management purposes, guidance may be sought from the
 Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife or other qualified source as well as the publication ‘A
 Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Habitat Management for Vermont Woodlands by the Vermont
 Department of Fish and Wildlife.’
 Demonstrate cooperation between BED foresters and VT Fish and Wildlife biologists.
 Significant confirmation on harvest plans, visits to harvest sites, and discussions
 with BED foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

F. Protection of fisheries resources will be provided through the use of acceptable erosion and
 sedimentation control practices including the use of filter strips and protection of streamside
 shade. Harvesting contractors will be required to implement applicable procedures outlined in the
 publication Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in
 Vermont to the extent specified by Burlington Electric Department foresters.
 Ensure water quality through the implementation of AMPs on all harvests sites.
 Significant confirmation of harvest site inspections and discussions with BED
 foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

G. BED foresters will seek guidance in protecting significant archeological sites.
 Ensure significant archaeological sites are not disturbed by BED harvesting practices.
 Significant confirmation from harvest site inspections and discussions with BED
 foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

H. The development of management goals will involve consideration of the objectives of the
 landowner and alternatives available to him or her, the characteristics of the site and forest
 stand, and impacts on related resources (water quality, wildlife, scenic quality, and recreation).
 Demonstrate that Harvest Sites meet the above goals.
 Confirmation of harvest sites and inspection reports, and discussions with BED
 foresters support the proper implementation of this policy.

I. The landowner or land manager and/or the harvesting contractor will confer with a professional
 forester representing BED in developing a harvesting procedure which meets the forester’s
 approval. In all cases, harvesting will incorporate, to the extent reasonably possible, the
 protection of residual trees, minimization of waste and assurance of rapid and adequate
 regeneration. Every effort will be made to put harvested products to their most valuable use.
 Residual stand damage will be minimized on BED harvests, wood on harvests is efficiently
 utilized and silvicultural practices meet accepted standards to establish adequate regeneration.
 Confirmation of harvest sites, site inspection reports, and discussions with BED foresters
 support the proper implementation of minimal post-harvest residual damage. Significant
 confirmation during harvest site inspections support observations of timber efficiently
 utilized to highest value markets. Confirmation during post-harvest inspections, harvest
 plan documentation, and discussions with BED foresters support the proper
 implementation of silvicultural practices.

J. Specific types of cutting will include but not be limited to Selection System, Seed Tree
 System, Shelterwood System, Clearcutting, Improvement Cut and Thinning.
 Demonstrate that all BED forestry (i.e., non-development/land conversion) harvests rely on a



Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 8 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 51 of 58
 sound silvicultural system that is appropriate to the site.
 Confirmation of harvest sites, inspection reports, and discussions with BED foresters
 support the proper implementation of this policy. The clearcutting system is not
 widely utilized on harvest plans. On a limited basis, BED foresters work with Vermont
 habitat biologists to prescribe small patch clearcuts for wildlife improvement. I
 visited two harvest sites that employed land clearing for conversion to agricultural
 uses.

K. Harvesting contractors are expected to abide by all applicable local, state, and federal
 regulations.
 BED requires and maintains proof of appropriate insurance from suppliers. BED requires
 suppliers to meet applicable transportation safety and load requirements. BED does not
 procure wood from contractors who have a record of timber theft or other property destruction
 or damage.
 Discussions with BED foresters support the implementation of this policy.


Afforestation Concerns
In addition to the afore-mentioned harvest policy standards, the BED RFP noted an objective in the scope
of work titled ‘Providing qualitative and quantitative assessment of afforestation/deforestation outcomes in
areas where wood is harvested for McNeil and the market factors that affect such outcomes.’ The data
from 2025 year-to-date timber harvesting notifications in New York and Vermont noted below (provided
by Betsy Lesnikoski).

 Agricultural
 Notified Plans Development Conversion
 % of % of
 Acres Acres Total Acres Total
 New York 7,762.9 198.4 2.6% 222.0 2.9%
 Vermont 11,768.6 152.6 1.3% 156.1 1.3%


Year-to-date 2025, Vermont has 2.6% and New York has 5.5% of harvest sites using clearing activity for
development and agricultural conversion. These activities are relatively minor and may or may not occur
without the McNeil market. The McNeil market does not rely on this activity as a major component of
wood residues. Most importantly, these sites are not permanently lost to timber production as natural
regenerated forests historically prevail as Vermont farms have a rich history of clearing land for
agriculture and subsequently letting it regrow naturally.

The vast majority of timber harvests are partial cuts where the natural regeneration process is the method
used to cultivate a new forest stand. Plantation management systems, where where land is cleared and
trees are planted on short rotations, are generally not employed in the northern forests of upstate New
York and Vermont.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 9 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 52 of 58
Recommendations For Improvement

Training, Advocacy and Reporting
a. Support logger training through Professional Loggers of the Northeast or another organization
 with resources to advocate, train and educate loggers on use of Vermont AMP’s and New York
 Best Management Practices.
b. Encourage annual workshops with a third-party organization to encourage Vermont loggers on
 effective use of AMP’s.
c. Regularly update BED education materials to assure the public understands the importance of BED’s
 leadership in protection of RTE species and habitat.
d. Encourage regional development of alternative forestry bioproducts facilities to create additional
 markets for low-grade wood residues – the Vermont forest is growing volume faster than
 current removals, which will become a long-term problem if not properly addressed. Healthy,
 well-managed forests are the goal to optimize forest carbon sequestration and storage.
e. Advocate for pragmatic improvements to Vermont’s ACT 250. The law has a good foundation,
 yet it needs to evolve and change with the demands of Vermont’s public and rural culture.
f. Support SLoCAMP (Supporting Loggers Compliance with AMP’s), a grant-funded cost-share
 program to support Vermont loggers in implementing initiative-taking water quality protection
 practices on their harvest sites. The program is funded by the Vermont Department of Forests,
 Parks and Recreation and administered by the Professional Logging Contractors of the
 Northeast.
g. Consider chain of custody processes to improve verification of chip supply and origination of
 wood residues.
h. Consider a trip ticket policy for all loads of timber or wood residues transported from the woods or mill
 to a wood using facility to ensure site-to-site or site-to-mill timber security.

Harvesting Policy
A review of the BED Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Operations in Vermont is one of the outcomes
in the RFP. The policy is a pragmatic document that covers a wide range of extremely important
aspects of harvest planning and implementation.
In my process of reviewing documents pertaining to BED’s policies, I reviewed the 2013 report by
Pricewaterhouse Coopers which used the 2010-2014 SFI standard to identify gaps in the BED
process of procuring wood residues for McNeil. Although there were many similar conclusions as
mine, I wanted to highlight more specific actions to improve clarity of the BED Harvesting Policy.

Recommendations To Improve BED’s Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Chipping
Operations in Vermont
a. Improve the overall quality of the BED Harvesting Policy document using a graphic designer
 or publisher program to enhance readability and the professional appearance. The text of
 the document is technically clear and professional (other than minor improvements noted
 below); however, the appearance of the document could use some improvement.
b. Section 1 – Require annual review/education of Vermont AMP’s for all loggers in the BED
 system. The Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast could be a good resource to
 lead a training session.
c. Section 2a – Define refuse. Require all refuse be removed as soon as practicably possible,
 especially during winter months when snow and ice can prevent clean-up at season end. At a
 minimum, require weekly clean-up of refuse.


Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 10 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 53 of 58
d. Section 2c – Add revegetation of landings with grass or natural vegetation within one year.
e. Section 5b – Reword ‘every effort will be made to put harvested products to their most
 valuable use’ to ‘timber removed from the designated harvest plan will be utilized to the
 maximum possible value’.
f. Section 7 – Reword to state ‘BED foresters will encourage landowners to utilize a stumpage
 sale contract detailing harvest plan, stand prescriptions, and a list of markets with stumpage
 prices paid to the landowner’.


Other Observations Addressing Public Concerns
a. The public has a genuine interest in forest management and desires exemplary work from BED
 certified harvest plans. As stated earlier, the harvest plan documentation used by BED foresters
 sets a standard for non-public lands in the Northeast US. The detailed planning and collaboration
 with State of Vermont Natural Resource Managers is noteworthy, exemplary, and progressive.
b. The McNeil system receives wood residues from many sources. During my field visits, I observed
 no chipping of large diameter sawlogs or whole trees that could be sold to higher use roundwood
 markets. Loggers have no financial incentive to sell or ship timber that could be sold for a higher
 return.
c. Land in the Northeast is regularly cleared for farming, housing, or development, especially near
 farms and larger communities. Vermont has a rich history of balancing farming, sugarbush lands,
 timber management, and rural communities. Neighboring states admire this balance of public
 demands. Without a wood residue market, the residues from site conversions would be open
 burned, which would directly release carbon the atmosphere and avoid use as a power source.
d. Public comments from the June 24, 2025 TEUC meeting stated that 72% of wood produced in
 Vermont is burned. I cannot locate any public data that supports the statement. Timber produced
 in Vermont is sold to over 40 markets from sawlogs to pulpwood to firewood to wood residues.
 Historically, Vermonters burn wood to heat their homes and generate heat for their sugarbush
 operations – the use of wood for heat is a source of pride and a fabric of the rural society.




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 11 of 14
McNeil LLC
 Page 54 of 58
Photos of Active Harvest Sites – Summer 2025 (by John Bryant)
 Photo 1: Sorting roundwood from limbed tops Photo 2: Processing firewood on the logging yard




 Photo 3: Piled tops from a winter job ready for chipping Photo 4: Old fashioned firewood processing on site




 Photo 5: Sorting roundwood from wood residues Photo 6: Large pile of tops prepared for chipping




  Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 12 of 14
 Page 55 of 58
 Photo 7: White Pine sawlogs ready for shipment Photo 8: Truck loaded with wood chips




Photo 9: High quality hardwood crop trees post-harvest Photo 10: Multiple wood products utilized for high value markets




 Photo 11: Swanton yard wood chip receiving station Photo 12: Tops and limbs piled for chipping




 Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 13 of 14
 Page 56 of 58
 Exhibits Reviewed for This Report
 a. RFP 014-25C – BED Request for Proposal – Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil.
 b. Vermont Acceptable Management Guidelines – Manual for Logging Professionals 2019.
 c. Burlington Electric Department – Harvesting Policy for Whole Tree Chipping Operations in
 Vermont (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 d. Burlington Electric Department – Making A Harvest Plan (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 e. Detailed lists of active 2024 and 2025 Vermont and New York harvest plans and maps under
 the McNeil certification system by BED Foresters (provided by Seth Clifford).
 f. Northern Woodlands article on Forest Carbon (summer 2025 edition).
 g. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC report on BED’s Biomass Fuel Procurement Assessment
 (dated June 2016).
 h. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC report on 2023 McNeil Economic Impact Analysis
 (dated June 2023).
 i. A Guide to Forest Carbon in the Northeast authored by Alexandra M. Kosiba, UVM 2024.
 j. McNeil Operation Certificate Permit dated September 14, 1981 (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski)..
 k. McNeil Operation Certificate Amended Permit dated May 16, 1983 (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 l. BED analysis of 2019 annual purchases compared to net growth (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 m. McNeil system volume delivery summary report for 2022 to 20245 (provided by Betsy Lesnikoski).
 n. Price Waterhouse Coopers repot on the BED McNeil Station – SFI Standard Gap Assessment
 report (dated April 29, 2013).
 o. Maine Woodland Owners article on Silviculture and Carbon Sequestration authored by Bob
 Seymour dated April 2021.
 p. A Landowners Guide – Wildlife Habitat Management for Lands in Vermont published by
 Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (dated 2014).
 q. Northern Woodlands magazine article on New Forest Bioproducts as A Conservation Tool
 (Summer 2025 edition).
 r. State of Vermont ACT 250 Program and History (from vermont.gov/act250-program website).
 s. TEUC forum discussion and notes from June 19, 2023 public meeting.
 t. TEUC forum notes from August 22, 2024 public meeting.
 u. TEUC meeting notes from June 24, 2025 public meeting.
 v. City of Burlington contract with K2QC Consulting LLC (dated May 2, 2025).
 w. K2QC Consulting LLC proposal for Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil (dated
 February 18, 2025).




Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 14 of 14
 Page 57 of 58
Qualifications, Experience and Education – John Bryant
  a. Retired Northeast Region Manager and Co-owner – American Forest Management (national
 forestry consulting company) – responsible for client relations and leadership of twenty-eight
 employees in 2 office locations and 3 timber processing yards in Maine (October 2007 to
 December 2019).
  b. Owner – K2QC Consulting LLC since January 2020 (forest management, timber value assessment,
 logger business assessment, and organizational development work).
  c. 42 years’ experience as forester and land manager in Maine and New Hampshire for St. Regis Paper
 Company, Champion International Corporation, International Paper Company, and American Forest
 Management.
  d. Region Manager – Champion International Corporation, and International Paper from February
 2000 to September 2007 – responsible for management of company owned lands and leadership
 of thirty-five employees in 4 office locations in Maine.
  e. From 2005 to 2019, responsible for managing annual deliveries and quarterly negotiations for an
 annual fiber supply agreement on 1,100,00 acres of timberland between Verso Paper [and pre-
 successor mill owner International Paper] and landowner BBC Lands [and pre-successor
 landowner GMO Renewable Resources]. The annual fiber supply volumes totaled 800-000 tons
 in 2005 and were amended in later agreements due to mill requests, timber markets, and mill
 closures.
  f. Manager Land Transactions – Champion International Corporation (April 1996 to January 2000) –
 responsible for land sales and acquisitions in Maine and northern New Hampshire including lead
 negotiator for a 22,000-acre Nicatous Lake conservation easement between Robbins Lumber
 Company, Forest Society of Maine, State of Maine, and partner conservation organizations.
  g. Internal Consultant (part-time) – Champion International Corporation from 1990 to 2000 –
 working with management and work teams to improve team participation and improve
 company collaborative culture.
  h. Forester in various land management and silviculture positions at St. Regis Paper Company
 and Champion International Corporation from May 1977 to March 1996, including 8 years
 as a Field Forester.
  i. Maine Licensed Forester #931 (1982 to present).
  j. 1977 B.S. Forest Utilization degree from University of Maine, Orono.
  k. Advisory Committee Member, Scientific Forest Management Area, Baxter State Park (2014 to
 present).
  l. Co-Chair, FOR/Maine Executive Committee (2023 to 2025).
  m. Town of Holden Planning Board (1993 to 2014)
  n. President, Holden Land Trust – Holden, Maine (2022 to present).




 Respectfully submitted,

 John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC
 k2qcconsulting@gmail.com
 Maine Licensed Forester 931
 207-745-9955
 Holden, Maine 04429




 Forestry Assessment and Analysis for McNeil Prepared by: John Bryant, K2QC Consulting LLC Dated: September 30, 2025 Page 15 of 14
 Page 58 of 58

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
 --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 – Comments regarding communication regarding public Utility &
Compliment to PlanBTV about how to reach out.

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

Zoom AI Summary: 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.

Burlington Transportation Planning Separation

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. They 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. 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.

Information only

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

Zoom AI Summary: Comprehensive Planning and Emission Reduction

The committee 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. They also discussed the integration of open space plans and the need for
scenario planning around transportation systems. The visioning workshops were outlined,
including plans for surveys and open-ended questions to gather community input. Finally, 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.

McNeil Plant Carbon Reduction Assessment

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. 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.

Information only
 4.3 Forestry Third Party Review
 presented information.

Zoom AI Summary:

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.

Vermont Forest Management Report

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.