The Privilege of Natural Gas and the Politics of Climate
For decades, Vermont’s energy policies have taken shape under the influence of environmental goals, political agendas, and economic interests. These forces have unintentionally created two Vermonts: northwestern “gas towns” with access to cost-saving natural gas, and other communities—especially those in the rural south and northeast—left reliant on pricier heating options like propane and oil. This division is more than geographic; it reveals a policy landscape favoring certain towns while imposing economic burdens on others, whose calls for fairer treatment often go unanswered.
1980s: Bernie Sanders, Mayor of Burlington, and the Privilege of Natural Gas
In the 1980s, access to natural gas was a benefit limited primarily to Vermont’s northwestern towns, including Burlington, where natural gas pipelines had been established in the 1960s. When Bernie Sanders became mayor of Burlington in 1981, he enjoyed the budgetary benefits that this stable, lower-cost fuel source brought to his city. It provided affordable heating to residents and allowed the city to allocate funds toward other needs, free from concerns over the fluctuating costs that other towns faced.
Environmental concerns were less prominent at the time, and Sanders’ approach to energy policy reflected this. Burlington’s natural gas access allowed him to keep costs down without worrying about climate impact, focusing instead on housing and local economic growth. This era of easy access gave the gas towns a leg up that many other regions would never receive, laying the groundwork for a lingering disparity that remains today.
1990s to Early 2000s: A Growing Divide as Vermont’s Environmental Awareness Grows
With the rise of the global environmental movement in the 1990s and early 2000s, Vermont leaders, including Sanders, who had by then become a U.S. Representative, began shifting their focus toward renewable energy. Towns in northwestern Vermont continued to benefit from their natural gas infrastructure, while areas without it, particularly rural southern and northeastern Vermont, remained dependent on higher-cost fuels. For these regions, the push for renewables didn’t bring the same economic reprieve as natural gas access had for their gas town counterparts, creating a cost-of-living gap between the regions that would only grow over time.
This period cemented an unspoken elitism among the gas towns. With more reliable, affordable energy at their disposal, these towns enjoyed an economic cushion that protected them from the rising fuel costs impacting southern and northeastern communities. Meanwhile, policymakers increasingly promoted policies that aligned with the needs of already-served areas while ignoring the economic hardships faced by other regions.
2010s: The Rise of Climate Policies and the Halt of the Vermont Gas Pipeline
In the 2010s, Vermont Gas Systems proposed a pipeline expansion to bring natural gas further south, reaching Middlebury and potentially extending into southern Vermont. For towns without natural gas, this project represented a lifeline to lower energy costs and reduce dependency on high-emission propane and oil. However, environmental groups, local activists, and certain state officials strongly opposed the expansion, their influence ultimately leading to the project being halted at Middlebury in 2016.
Despite the clear economic benefits this pipeline could have provided to southern Vermonters, Senator Bernie Sanders, known for his staunch stance against fossil fuels, did not champion the project as a cost-saving measure for rural communities. While Sanders wasn’t directly involved in the decision, his strong advocacy for renewables and vocal opposition to fossil fuel infrastructure likely influenced the political climate. Instead of supporting the potential affordability and emissions reductions the pipeline could have offered southern Vermont, Sanders remained aligned with activists opposed to expanding fossil fuels, reinforcing the momentum to abandon the project at Middlebury.
This decision reflected an elitist indifference to the needs of rural, underserved communities. Those already benefiting from natural gas access in the gas towns didn’t have to worry about high winter heating costs and therefore held little interest in extending that benefit to other regions. Instead, the ideal of a renewables-only agenda took precedence, ignoring the economic hardship imposed on Vermont’s southern and northeastern residents. This elitist attitude effectively dismissed the needs of rural communities, cementing a structural disadvantage that has endured for decades.
2020s: The Super-Majority, Climate Policy, and the Impact on Rural Towns
Today, Vermont’s energy landscape is shaped by ambitious climate policies like the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and the Clean Heat Standard, which place a greater economic burden on towns that already lack affordable energy options. These policies, largely crafted by representatives from the gas towns, disregard the reality of the cost disparities endured by communities without access to natural gas. Rural, lower-income towns continue to bear the brunt of Vermont’s climate agenda, struggling to comply with mandates that prioritize green ideals over economic fairness.
Meanwhile, the gas towns remain shielded by their access to natural gas. They enjoy a financial cushion, a “climate privilege” accrued over decades, which effectively subsidizes their participation in the state’s climate goals. This disparity has deepened a longstanding economic and political rift, leaving southern and northeastern Vermont towns carrying a heavy economic load for climate policies that cater to the interests of their wealthier, gas-served neighbors.
The Environmental Irony: “Chopping Off the Nose to Spite the Face”
This history reveals a stark irony in Vermont’s approach to climate policy. By stopping the natural gas pipeline and opting for an all-or-nothing commitment to renewables, the state not only ignored the needs of rural and southern communities but also missed a critical chance to reduce GHG emissions. Transitioning these areas from high-emission heating oil and propane to natural gas could have substantially advanced Vermont’s GHG targets.
Natural gas, while not a perfect solution, would have served as a transitional bridge, reducing both emissions and costs. But this option was discarded by policymakers primarily representing the gas towns, whose own heating costs were already low. Instead, non-gas towns remain burdened by higher heating costs and emissions, ironically making the very climate goals Vermont aims to achieve more elusive. The economic and environmental hardship inflicted on underserved towns underscores how Vermont’s climate policy, while idealistic, has been anything but equitable.
Conclusion: A Call for a Fair and Equitable GWSA Funding Solution
As Vermont pushes forward with the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), it must address the inequities created by decades of uneven energy access. The gas towns in northwestern Vermont have enjoyed lower costs and reduced emissions through natural gas, while rural and southern Vermont pay more without affordable options. Vermont could implement a fair GWSA funding model, where these gas towns contribute more toward climate initiatives, offsetting the costs faced by non-gas towns.
This funding model would not only acknowledge the advantages these towns have long enjoyed but would also help provide economic relief to communities that have been left out of the conversation. By balancing historical privilege with today’s needs, Vermont could take an inclusive step toward a unified, fair energy future, giving every town a stake in achieving Vermont’s climate goals.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontEnergy #FairFunding #ClimateJustice
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply