At Town Meeting in 2019, Norwich voted overwhelmingly to cut back on fossil fuels, but the progress to this point remains unclear due to a lack of data collection and reporting by town officials.
Now, some residents are wondering whether the town has any intention on following through with what was of clear interest to voters.
“I suspect that if we do run the numbers, there will be really not much of a reduction,” Aaron Lamperti, a leader in the push for fossil fuel reduction, said Thursday by phone. “I don’t believe that there’s anyone asking that question within the town offices, so I don’t know that anyone knows.”
Selectboard member Rob Gere, who also sits on the Energy Committee, said that he is not aware of any record keeping of fossil fuel use since the report came out.
“Nobody’s been doing that,” Gere said Friday by phone.
He added that there likely is information regarding how much has been paid for fuel in various departments and the price per gallon.
“You could extrapolate data that way, but I’m not aware that any departments have been keeping records that are directly usable,” said Gere.
Gere advocates for the establishment of a Green Procurement Team of community members and possibly department heads who can report data and hold the town accountable for working toward its goals.
Back in 2019, Article 36 had strong support, 792 to 189, in favor of reducing the town’s use of fossil fuels by no less than 5% as an annual goal, aiming for complete elimination by 2040. This advisory article also called for annual reports updating the public on progress.
A recent letter to the Selectboard, signed by about 30 concerned community members, called for more action. The town has yet to formally respond, said Lamperti.
Norwich Energy Committee member Linda Gray said the town needs to figure out how to make this transition to clean energy because the outcome of these efforts not only helps the environment but is a practical next step in becoming more efficient and fiscally responsible.
“Once you make a capital investment in equipment, whether it’s solar panels they’re mounting or wind turbines, you don’t have to keep buying fuel for them,” Gray said Thursday by phone.
While the Article 36 Task Force of a handful of residents created a report in February 2022 outlining several recommendations, the recent letter narrowed down three suggested priorities for 2026: routine reporting on fossil fuel use across town departments; establish a green or low carbon purchase policy; and identify Tracy Hall and public works office as spaces for carbon neutral heating/cooling.
“The letter is a reduced set of things that we thought might be a fairly good way to get back going,” Lamperti said, specifying that this is not a reiteration of the same recommendations, but rather a starting point.
Back when Article 36 passed, a trained task force member conducted a carbon inventory of Norwich, which the group’s recommendations are based on, Lamperti said.
The report stated that, in 2019, the town burned nearly 13,000 gallons of fossil fuels in stationary combustion, with the largest sources being from the town garage and Tracy Hall. As for mobile combustion, the town burned about 23,000 gallons, most notably from diesel in the Public Works Department.
In order to slowly reduce the 36,000 total gallons of fossil fuels from 2019, the task force advised first tackling heating in town buildings, then vehicles. The task force offered its recommendations in 2022, then disbanded, leaving future decisions in the town’s hands.
Since then, minimal action has been noted in annual town reports, with no data to show change.
For Lamperti, a member of the since-disbanded task force, the bare minimum for this year is to start updating the public on progress.
“If it isn’t being reported on then it’s just easy to leave it in the background and think about something else,” said Lamperti.
Article 36 specifically involved annual reporting, with part of the question stating, “shall the Town Manager be charged with monitoring such efforts and reporting on them each year in the annual Town Report.”
While efforts to reduce fossil fuels have been mentioned in multiple town reports since then, there is no data publicly available regarding the amount used from year to year, besides in the task force report, which included 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Gere, a previous task force member, hopes for its reactivation to update the 2022 recommendations as needed.
Eliminating fossil fuels is not an easy transition, which is why the article called for 20 years of work to get there. In the first year of the article, there were some drawbacks.
A $2 million project that would have reduced fossil fuels by around 25% was petitioned as an advisory article in 2020 for the purpose of bringing clean energy to municipal buildings. While voters passed it, 849 to 801, the margin was narrow enough for a revote, which occurred in August. There, the town decided against recommending it to the Selectboard, 1,041 to 608, and the project never came to fruition.
Lamperti and Gray both blamed the pandemic for the lack of progress.
“People suddenly were talking about serious potential financial collapse, and that there would be all sorts of problems, most of which didn’t really happen to the degree that we were concerned about at that time,” said Lamperti.
The recent letter calls also for weatherization of the fire department apparatus bay, investigation of electric vehicle options for town-owned vehicles and installation of electric vehicle chargers at town facilities.
While town vehicles may use more fossil fuels than buildings, it’s harder to switch to electric vehicles. As they become available, Lamperti hopes the town opts for hybrid or electric vehicles when it comes time to replace the ones they have, particularly in public works.
The plan to eliminate fossil fuels seemed ahead of the curve in 2019, Lamperti said, but has since become the more financially responsible decision in the wake of rising fuel prices.
“Had we done a little more five years ago, we would be more insulated from those price shocks,” said Lamperti.
Lamperti noted that getting down to zero may be an unrealistic goal, specifically because the town would likely continue to rely on fossil fuels as a backup resource, though cutting back by a significant margin is absolutely possible for 2040, he said.
Back in 2020, Vermont passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which, unlike Norwich’s advisory article, presented a legally binding reduction requirement. Specifically, the act called for greenhouse gas pollution to drop 26% from the state’s 2005 levels by 2025, then 40% from 1990 levels in 2030 and finally, 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
Statewide data from 2024 collected by the Agency of Natural Resources’ Climate Action Office, noted minimal change in greenhouse gas emissions between 2023 and 2024 in the transportation and heating sectors. These preliminary findings indicated that reaching the first goal may not happen by 2025.
State Rep. Michael Tagliavia (R-Corinth), a member of the House Committee on Environment, said he does not believe the 2025 goal has been met and that reaching the next goal for 2030 will depend on the technology available.
“If we had goals instead of mandates, it would be a better idea. Keep in mind, we live in one of the most environmentally friendly states in the country,” Tagliavia said Friday by phone.
In Norwich, the town is planning to bring back the advisory article for discussion.
“We have a board that is not unanimous in its opinions on things that could be done, but in general, we’ve made commitments to move forward on these stalled projects,” said Gere.
Gray understands that this delay has come about as a result of other, more timely priorities, which she said is common from the largest governing body all the way to down to individual homeowners.
“You’ve got other things to worry about, and this isn’t the most crucial thing. But ultimately, it will be crucial,” said Gray.
The Selectboard plans to discuss Article 36 at its next regular meeting Wednesday in Tracy Hall.
