Please consider the comments found in the attached file.
Filed
05/15/2026
MacDonald, Greg [PUBCOM]
I live in St. J on a ridge line overlooking the proposed site of this biomass "reactor". I have many concerns and unanswered questions about the safety of this reactor. The applicant has been less than forthcoming in his presentation regarding the safety records of these plants; the emissions produced; who is responsible for monitoring those emissions; the toxins of the biochar; whether there is a market for the biochar; the capacity of local emergency teams to respond to an emergency; etc.
Filed
05/15/2026
Partnership for Policy Integrity [PUBCOM]
Haight, Laura [PUBCOMREP]
see attached file
Filed
05/15/2026
Partnership for Policy Integrity [PUBCOM]
Haight, Laura [PUBCOMREP]
Attachment to PFPI's comments
Filed
03/31/2026
Porter, Pike [PUBCOM]
Typical 248 process timeline attached. There is no reason the Commission or hearing officer should deviate from this established process: Application Filed--> Scheduling Conference-->Site Visit-->Public Hearing-->Intervention Deadline. BTW, 2 weeks to respond to applicant/DPS MOU, etc is definitely not enough time. The Commission has ignored its own rules to benefit applicant time extensions, don't short change the public's need for time.
Acknowledged
11/12/2025
Forrest, Brian Frank [PUBCOM]
I am writing to request that you hold a pubic hearing on the bio-mass project (case number: 24-2797-PET) proposed by VGS in Lyndonville, VT. This project is in direct conflict with the goals of the state in reacting to the climate crisis.
Acknowledged
11/12/2025
Lipton, Cheryl Joy [PUBCOM]
I request respectfully that the PUC hold a public hearing and site visit for this VRG proposed project, Case no. 24-2797-PET. The proposed biomass plant would cause harm to forest ecosystems, create damage to biodiversity and climate, as well as have direct and indirect negative impacts to human health. This project needs to be looked at in great detail, and the public be given more opportunity to hear details and submit comments. Thank you for your actions so far on this case.
Acknowledged
11/10/2025
Steel, Elizabeth M H [PUBCOM]
I'm requesting that the PUC hold a public hearing and site visit for VRG's proposed project (Case no. 24-2797-PET). The facility is proposing to utilize technology with potentially harmful effects on the community and the surrounding ecosystem. The public deserves to know more about the impact of this facility and I'd like to thank the PUC in advance for their willingness to engage with the public on this issue.
Acknowledged
11/10/2025
New, Debbie [PUBCOM]
See attached file.
Filed
11/10/2025
Jones, Candy [PUBCOM]
The PUC needs to hold appropriate public hearings on this proposal in a manner that allows for the maximum participation and fact finding.
Acknowledged
11/10/2025
Morgan, Hannah [PUBCOM]
I'm requesting that the PUC hold a public hearing and site visit for VRG's proposed project (Case no. 24-2797-PET). The facility would use new and unproven technology with potentially harmful effects on the surrounding community and environment. This is not the direction we should be going in an effort to provide more green, safe and equitable energy in our state. I'd like to thank the PUC in advance for their willingness to engage with the public on this issue
Acknowledged
11/10/2025
Moffett-Hynds, Stephanie [PUBCOM]
This is very concerning. I'm requesting that the PUC hold a public hearing and site visit for VRG's proposed project (Case no. 24-2797-PET). The facility would utilize new and unproven technology with potentially harmful effects on the community and the surrounding ecosystem. I'd like to thank the PUC in advance for their willingness to engage with the public on this issue.
Filed
11/10/2025
Braun, Natalee [PUBCOM]
I appreciate the Public Utilities Commission’s commitment to hearing from the public and considering community input on important projects. I’m concerned that VRG’s proposed facility (Case No. 24-2797-PET) would rely on new and untested technology that could adversely affect the community and the surrounding environment. For that reason, I ask the Commission to hold a public hearing and site visit so that individuals can have their questions answered and share their concerns.
Acknowledged
11/10/2025
Rosenmiler, Diane [PUBCOM]
I have concerns with the proposed project and I'm requesting that the PUC hold a public hearing and site visit for VRG's proposed project (Case no. 24-2797-PET). The facility would utilize new and unproven technology with potentially harmful effects on the community and the surrounding ecosystem. I'd like to thank the PUC in advance for their willingness to engage with the public on this issue.
Filed
11/10/2025
Kaiser, Jason [PUBCOM]
I'm requesting the PUC to hold a public meeting and visit the site for VRG's proposed project (Case No. 24-2797-PET). I'm concerned the facility would use new, unproven, technology that hasn’t been tested much and could be harmful to the community (particularly due to proximity to NVRH Corner Medical and Little Dipper Doodles child care) and the environment (methane, a potent greenhouse gas, does leak). I appreciate the PUC’s effort to listen to the public and consider our concerns.
Acknowledged
11/10/2025
Johnson, Donley [PUBCOM]
I am concerned about the potential public health impact of the proposed biomass plant. I believe that a direct conversation between the community and Vermont Renewable Gas is in order, and therefore request a public hearing and site visit. All stakeholders should be invited to share their perspectives, including but not limited to families who utilize Little Dipper Doodles, the Lyndonville Electric Company, loggers, farmers who may use biochar generated by the plant, and Vermont Renewable Gas.
Filed
11/10/2025
Burrell, Sally [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
11/07/2025
Alex, Zakaras [PUBCOM]
Hello, I'm emailing to ask that the PUC hold a public hearing and site visit for the new experimental biomass plant that's being proposed near Lyndonville (Case no. 24-2797-PET). I'm concerned about the potential pollution, which could harm the local community and natural environment. I also believe very deeply that burning things is not the answer for our energy future. I'd like to thank the PUC in advance for their willingness to engage with the public on this issue.
Acknowledged
11/06/2025
Partnership for Policy Integrity [PUBCOM]
Haight, Laura [PUBCOMREP]
PFPI requests that the Commission schedule a site visit and public hearing (see attached)
Acknowledged
11/04/2025
Andrews, Jerome [PUBCOM]
I would like to request a public hearing and site visit for VRG's proposed gasification power project in Lyndonville VT (Case no. 24-2797-PET). This is NOT a suitable location for this type of generation facility which is easily borne out when visiting the site and talking with neighboring businesses and residents. Furthermore, this "renewable" project is anything but renewable. This project will do nothing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and so should not get the support of the PUC.
Filed
11/04/2025
MacAusland, Peter [PUBCOM]
I request that the PUC hold a public hearing for the project defined in case # 24-2797. This project would employ a technology not currently used anywhere in the United States and therefore has no track record of being reliable. I also request that the PUC schedule a site visit because of its proximity to current, and possibly future, businesses which would be adversely affected by the emissions of this project.
Acknowledged
11/04/2025
Bayer, Carl [PUBCOM]
The State of Vermont is on record that using biomass to generate electricity is no longer a goal. Even though there was a possible exception for small biomass plants, their is no reason to promote small biomass plants like the one being proposed in Lyndon, just bad policy. In addition the stated intention of the VSG is to develope more of these small plants, to add up to more than small biomass production. Please stop this fiasco at the get go. Carl Bayer, Ryegate, Vermont
Acknowledged
12/12/2024
Vermonters for a Clean Environment [PUBCOM]
Smith, Annette [PUBCOMREP]
PUC issued an order in this case with a deadline. Day before the deadline, the applicant requested an extension. The PUC's rule, for which there have previously been no exceptions except for extenuating circumstances, is that extension requests must be filed 3 days in advance of the deadline. PUC did not respond to the extension request. Today, applicant submitted its response. Is the PUC going to give this applicant special treatment and not apply its rule? Please reject today's filing.
Filed
10/14/2024
Vermonters for a Clean Environment [PUBCOM]
Smith, Annette [PUBCOMREP]
see attached file
Acknowledged
10/08/2024
Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets [PUBCOM]
Patry, Willy Jane [REP]
Patry, Willy Jane [PUBCOMREP]
Comments moved to "all other documents" section as VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets is a party
Filed
10/08/2024
Dolgin, Steve [PUBCOM]
I have 9 families that reside in my Apartment Building living within a short distance of the proposed site location. I believe we are approximately 1/4 mile away. The building is also located at one of the two road entrances (150 feet away) that could be accessed by the increase traffic. I just found out about this project and am stunned that no one has contacted me. I have questions about the traffic control, noise concerns, safety for the tenants, etc. Please contact me!!
Acknowledged
10/07/2024
MacAusland, Peter [PUBCOM]
To Vt. PUC,
I am opposed to an expedited process being considered by you for project #24-2797-PET. Because of the significant adverse impacts this project would have on nearby forests a full review by the PUC must be undertaken.
Acknowledged
10/07/2024
350VT [PUBCOM]
Rule, Vanessa [PUBCOMREP]
Please find attached the names of those who have signed on to a petition asking the PUC to extend the process for issuing a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Renewable Gas, LLC to construct and operate a 2.2 MW farm methane facility in Lyndon, Vermont from 248(j) to 248.
Acknowledged
10/07/2024
Partnership for Policy Integrity [PUBCOM]
Haight, Laura [PUBCOMREP]
see attached file
Acknowledged
10/07/2024
350VT [PUBCOM]
Vanessa, Rule [PUBCOMREP]
See attached file
Acknowledged
10/04/2024
Joslin, Tom [PUBCOM]
I support this biochar project. Biochar can provide multiple benefits, including long-term carbon sequestration, for fighting climate change. Biochar can also promote soil health, or could be used as climate-friendly additives to construction materials. I operate an independent water quality research lab in Jericho VT, researching biochar for water quality improvement. This is an opportunity for Vermont to lead, in climate mitigation and sustainable forestry.
Acknowledged
10/04/2024
Gish, Chris [PUBCOM]
See attached file.
Filed
10/04/2024
Farley, Elio [PUBCOM]
I am concerned about the Lyndon project and have many questions about the safety and impacts of this plant. As High Temperature Ablative Pyrolysis (HTAP) has never been used in the U.S., have our regulations adjusted to account for this new technology? What are the long-term health impacts of biogas production near children? Will this require more pipelines to be built? How will this factory monitor methane gas leaks? How will we limit the amount of forest burned? Thank you.
Filed
10/04/2024
Gish, Chris [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
10/04/2024
Miceli, Mari [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
10/02/2024
O'Connor, Isabella [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
10/02/2024
Vermont Forest Products Association [PUBCOM]
Hardy, Steve [PUBCOMREP]
See attached file
Acknowledged
10/01/2024
Ruth, Will [PUBCOM]
Please abide by the full determination process to thoroughly review the proposed plant. We need to carefully consider full greenhouse gas emissions and side-effects for the community and local economy before committing to building structures that can take years to pay off and benefit the climate and financial investment. Long-term threats and consequences cannot be worth short-term benefits at this point in the economic and climate crises.
Filed
09/30/2024
Putvain, Amy [PUBCOM]
VRG should NOT be approved for expedited permit. The technology that they propose bringing to our community is untested. Solid 3rd party evidence of its safety, both short and long term, should be required before considering any additional factors. Preserving the wellbeing of our community and surrounding communities, should be the number one priority. Are we really willing to jeopardize the safety of children for alleged "green energy"? I hope everyone is doing their research.
Acknowledged
09/30/2024
Bowen, Mark [PUBCOM]
All the rules have been followed, and this relatively small, pilot project looks like a good idea. It will help our working lands economy by providing a market for the low-quality wood produced through logging, Christmas tree farming, and maple sugar production. I doubt it will add to deforestation. It's a greenhouse-friendly way to produce local power. It promotes sustainable forest management and environmental stewardship, and through biochar production even helps with farming.
Acknowledged
09/30/2024
Braun, Natalee [PUBCOM]
Plans for the Lyndon Biomass Plant deserve to proceed through the regular permitting process, not an expedited one, Any facility that adds to greenhouse gas emissions should be off the table from the outset, Since that is not the case with the proposed Lyndon facility ,I urge you to subject it to the intense scrutiny it merits, while keeping in mind this week's national news highlighting yet another round of climate change fueled extreme weather events for which the recovery will cost billions.
Acknowledged
09/27/2024
Grant, Catherine [PUBCOM]
Please note: The proposed Lyndon Biomass Plant should undergo a full review instead of their current plan to fast track the permit process. There is no reason to expedite the process.
Acknowledged
09/26/2024
Steel, Elizabeth [PUBCOM]
The proposed plant uses a new technology called High Temperature Ablative Fast Pyrolysis, which will be the first plant to produce energy this way in the United States. Before approving a permit the public needs to understand fully the plant’s impact on public health and safety, system stability and reliability, cost effectiveness, and the economic, environmental and climate impacts. The standard permitting process is required to allow the public more time to understand these issues.
Acknowledged
09/26/2024
Flood, Patrick [PUBCOM]
I think it is outrageous that the PUC is considering a less than full review for the proposed Lyndon Biomass Plant. Biomass is a bad idea for many reasons and this particular plant proposes to use untested methods that failed elsewhere. There is no perceivable advantage to Vermont. A full review process would expose all the dangers and potential failures of this proposed plant. I am firmly opposed to anything less than a full review and urge the PUC to meet its responsibility and conduct one.
Acknowledged
09/26/2024
350VT [PUBCOM]
Vanessa, Rule [PUBCOMREP]
Dear PUC members,
I am submitting an attached petition on behalf of 395 individuals asking you to extend the process for a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Renewable Gas, LLC from 248j to 248. We are still collecting signatures and I will forward new ones as they come in before 10/8/2024. These have been collected as of 9/26/2024 at 11:30am.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Rule
Co-Director, 350VT
Acknowledged
09/26/2024
Atchinson, Robert W [PUBCOM]
There is absolutely no reason for the PUC to fast-track the CPG and other permitting for the experimental plant. If anything, the Commission should be all the more prudent in examining this proposal with a fine-toothed comb.
Our children and grandchildren are relying on YOU to do the right thing for their existence and all species on this Planet. Please make your best attempt to get this correct and be on the right side of history.
Thanks,
Bob Atchinson
Energy Coordinator
Plainfield
Acknowledged
09/25/2024
Sturm, Timothy Miles [PUBCOM]
I request that the Public Utilities Commission conduct a standard review of the VRG proposal. It appears that this type of plant is not the clean energy operation as advertised. The proposed site sits closely to a childcare center with 100+ children attending and to the Corner Medical Center. This area frequently experiences thermal inversions which could trap emissions from a plant such as this, and endanger the health and safety of young children and elders, in particular.
Acknowledged
09/25/2024
MacDonald, Greg [PUBCOM]
I am requesting that the PUC require VRG to go through the standard Section 248 Process before issuing a Certificate for Public Good. There seem to be many questions that community members have regarding this untested biomass reactor, that has never been used in this country. There are concerns about safety; location; the impact on Lyndonville Electric rates; the biochar byproduct; emissions; etc. The community has a right to know and the expedited 30 day process keeps us in the dark. Thank you.
Acknowledged
09/25/2024
Andersen, Sigurd [PUBCOMRO]
I have a hard time finding the "public good" in this proposal, and have many unanswered questions. It seems to me at a minimum that under such circumstances it is counter to the public interest to rush through an expedited review process. Who are the people behind the project? Where and when (if ever) has the proposed technology been used successfully? Is the seemingly important "biochar" likely to enhance rather than potentially poison a farmer's fields? How do owners make $ on this project?
Filed
09/24/2024
Whitehead, Chad L [PUBCOMRO]
The Town of St Johnsbury requests to maintain party status as this project is reviewed.
Acknowledged
09/23/2024
Baxter, Sarah [PUBCOM]
We have major concerns for the various unknowns of this project. A childcare center located within this industrial park cares for 150 children. What kind of health effects will this have for these children? This childcare center was not made aware of this project and there is a lack of information for the general public. Do we really want to experiment with this level of harm? With so many unknowns why are regulations being bypassed? They are not being held to the same standards as others.
Filed
09/23/2024
Campbell, R Scott [PUBCOM]
I have heard from many area residents grave concern about the lack of access for the public and municipalities to ask questions about this project. There is suspicion that the choice to site the facility here is an example of the type of environmental injustice often seen in rural and low-income areas.
I request the Commission consider moving CPG approval from expedited 248(j) to the full 248 process to satisfy these concerns.
Acknowledged
09/20/2024
Stasny, Susan L [PUBCOM]
There is much that is unknown and uncertain about this plant given the new and untested nature of this technology. The public and residents of the NEK have a right to learn more and engage in a public robust process around whether or not this plant should be built in their region. The expedited process doesn’t allow for the public to engage
Acknowledged
09/18/2024
Minichiello, James [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
09/16/2024
Vermont Woodlands Association [PUBCOM]
Robertson, Alan Michael [PUBCOMREP]
see attached file
Acknowledged
09/16/2024
Kleppner, Bram [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
09/16/2024
Hamlin, Joanna P. [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
09/13/2024
Carlson, Evan [PUBCOM]
As a multi generational resident of Lyndon i support the VNG biomass project proposed for the Lyndon/Saint Johnsbury Industrial Park. This is producing a semi renewable energy all from low grade wood materials coming from our backyard, rather than so many other products produced far outside our region and are purely extractive. This is an important for energy independence and economic development.
Acknowledged
09/13/2024
Phanstiel, William Jesse [PUBCOM]
In light of the shutdown of two Biomass plants in New Hampshire and the untested market suitability for our area I think some discussion of the cost effectiveness of the electricity the proposed plant in St Johnsbury Industrial park will provide. Lyndonville electric is already paying a mandated premium price for "alternate" sourced wind farm power as opposed to available hydroelectric power. What needs to be discussed is how much more will power generated at this plant cost consumers here.
Acknowledged
09/13/2024
Allen, Nick [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
09/10/2024
Ruffed Grouse Society & American Woodcock Society [PUBCOM]
Waldron, Todd Grouse Society & American Woodcock [PUBCOMREP]
See attached file
Acknowledged
09/10/2024
Porter, Pike [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Acknowledged
09/09/2024
Dolivo, Anne M [PUBCOM]
This is an application for a new, untested technology. HTAP is a kind of pyrolysis that has never been used in the United States. VRG - Lyndon would be the first project in the USA. This should call for rejecting the fast track and providing space for public comment. This technology is unproven and deserves close inspection. It’s a dangerous and highly technical technology at the scale they are proposing.
Acknowledged
09/09/2024
Simon, Laura [PUBCOM]
This project will be the first of its kind for electricity production in the US. As such a closer examination of the facts requires that the Commission open the process to public comment to consider additional information. The expedited process per Section 248(j) of Vermont Statute 30. V.S.A. does not allow public comment.
The Air Pollution Control Permit does not account for all GHG emissions that occur throughout the woody biomass lifecycle.
There is no proof of effect on air pollution.
Acknowledged
09/09/2024
Ling, John [PUBCOMRO]
I have serious concerns about the effect this project will have on air quality, and on my business. Our paint shop needs clean air intake from outside and lingering smoke, strong orders, and formaldehyde from the proposed project could negatively effect the paint ability and quality. We are now providing 9 good paying jobs and soon to add 2 more. We also plan to get a major rental car company located across the from the project site. All of this progress could be at risk due to AIR POLLUTION.
