Gov. Peter Shumlin has asked for a detailed federal environmental review if an oil pipeline than runs through the Northeast Kingdom is reversed to carry tar sands crude.
The governor has written to Secretary of State John Kerry about the issue, since the State Department has jurisdiction over a project that crosses the U.S.-Canada border.
Shumlin’s letter to Kerry asks for a presidential permit for the pipeline and an impact statement to assess the environmental costs of reversing the pipeline.
Justin Johnson, deputy secretary at the Agency of Natural Resources, said the Shumlin Administration is concerned that extracting and burning tar sands oil from Western Canada will add to climate change. The governor’s letter also said Vermont’s economy and environment would be affected if the pipeline ruptured and oil spilled.
“So we just want to make sure that if this process goes forward all the environmental factors have been considered and that we have a good understanding both on the federal level and the state level what the risks and the rewards would be,” Johnson said.
The line now ships conventional crude west from a terminal in Portland, Maine to refineries in Montreal. But the CEO of the Portland Pipe Line Corporation told Vermont lawmakers last winter he’s looking for new business, including reversing the flow to carry tar sands oil east.
The National Wildlife Federation opposes tar sands oil development.
Jim Murphy is senior counsel for the federation. He noted that a presidential permit and environmental impact statement were required for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline designed to carry tar sands from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Murphy said the same level of environmental review should be conducted if the flow of the Portland line is reversed to carry tar sands.
“We feel that because that this is a very different substance that poses different risks to Vermont, that poses different risks to the climate, that poses different risks from the extraction process in Canada, that all of this make it a different substance and a substantial change in use,” Murphy said. “And if it’s a substantial change in use, then it would need a new presidential permit.”
The District 7 Environmental Commission has also determined that the project needs a new Act 250 land use permit if the flow is reversed to carry tar sands. A spokesman for the Pipe Line Corporation did not respond to requests for comment.
