By Rob Roper
Advocates for S.5, dubbed “The Unaffordable Heat Act” by critics, continue to lament and challenge Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore’s estimate that the program will add $0.70 to each gallon of heating oil, propane, natural gas and kerosene.
Two representatives of the House Environment and Energy Committee, Reps. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover, and Gabrielle Stebbins, D-Burlington, called Moore’s estimate “unfortunate” during their presentation of the bill to the Appropriations Committee.
Vermont Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover
Sibilia mischaracterized Moore’s admission that the $0.70 figure was not likely correct — it is a rough estimate — as Moore somehow admitting the number was high.
Moore, however, testified that while the number could be high, it could also be low by a factor of four. There is considerable evidence that the latter scenario is the case.
Moore’s calculation assumes that “obligated” fuel dealers will absorb 25 percent of program costs, passing on 75 percent of costs to customers. But fuel dealers who testified before lawmakers said they will have to pass on 100 percent of those costs. That would mean Moore’s 70 cents estimate is 25 percent too low.
Additionally, both Stebbins and Sibilia attacked Moore’s assumption that the subsidies necessary to incentivize Vermonters to adopt clean heat measures, such as installing heat pumps and weatherizing their homes, would have to be as high as 90 percent.
“If you’ve ever gotten anything from Efficiency Vermont, it’s never 90 percent,” said Stebbins. “It’s never 90 percent because they can only provide the size of an incentive as based on what is identified as being cost effective.”
What Stebbins leaves out is the fact that S.5 mandates that 16 percent of all clean heat measures performed each year must occur in low-income households, whether such actions are cost-effective or not. Another 16 percent must take place in low- or middle-income households.
However, multiple witnesses who testified over the past several months — including social justice advocates, installers of clean heat measures, and fuel suppliers — said that low-income Vermonters cannot afford any of the upfront costs of installing these measures. A job of installing heat pumps, which often requires weatherization and electrical upgrades as well, can cost between $5,000 and $40,000 depending upon the condition of the existing home.
Under Moore’s assumptions, a low-income household requiring two heat pumps and some improvements in weatherization totaling $15,000 would have to front $1,500 in order to participate in a clean heat upgrade. If Stebbins is correct, that “pay to play” percentage will be even higher. Jay Green of the Office of Racial Equity testified on March 23 that more than one-third of low-income adults could not afford a $400 emergency expense “without having to borrow money, skip payment of monthly bills, or carrying a monthly balance forward on their credit cards.”
If low income Vermonters can’t afford $400 for an emergency, rationalized Green, how can we expect them to come up with 10 percent or more of the installation costs of a clean heat measure? And, If low and middle income households can’t afford the upfront costs, how does Stebbins expect the 16 percent mandates to be met? If Green is correct, then Moore’s cost estimate is low by a little, and Stebbins’ by a lot.
Stebbins next pointed to a credit program in Oregon designed to switch drivers away from gasoline and diesel motor fuels to make her case that the cost impacts would be inconsequential. While admitting the comparison between a motor fuels program and a thermal program was not “apples to apples,” Stebbins touted the mere $0.07 per gallon increase on gasoline as a result of the Oregon standard as a more realistic figure than Moore’s.
There are major problems with this comparison beyond apples and oranges.
First, as Stebbins later notes, the Oregon program “ended up generating $50 million for cleaner transportation options.” That $50 million is one-tenth of what Moore estimates the cost of total clean heat measures necessary to meet the goals of the clean heat standard, which she places at $2 billion over the first four years of the program. So, in order to generate $500 million per year, the cost impact would have to be 10 times higher — or $0.70 per gallon.
Second, the population of Oregon is 4.25 million people, nearly seven times the size of Vermont, at 640,000. This means that for Vermont to raise a similar amount of money the per capita contribution would have to be seven times more, or $0.49 per gallon.
Even as the advocates for S.5 try to attack the cost estimates of the program made by others, they still will not or cannot provide any reliable estimate for what a clean heat standard will cost either state government to operate or home heating fuel customers to pay for in the form of higher bills. They argue we will have a better understanding of that in 2025, after all the key elements of the program have been put into place by the Public Utilities Commission.
The full Vermont House of Representatives is set to vote on S.5 this week, with second reading on Thursday and a final reading on Friday.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. © Copyright True North Reports 2023. All rights reserved.
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel
HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-losers-in-my-vermont-house-as-they-are-in
HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-losers-in-my-vermont-house-as-they-are-in
I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
The HPs last about 15 years.
Turnkey capital cost was $24,000, less $2,400 subsidy from GMP
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-HPs-is-based-on-misrepresentations
My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House
The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house.
The basement, 1,200 sq ft, has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.
I do not operate my HPs below 10F to 15F (depending on sun and wind conditions), because all HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing outdoor temperatures.
The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3
High Electricity Prices
Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:
1) Increase already-high electric rates and
2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
My Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal
– HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills, and an HP system electric meter.
– Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are assumed at 20 c/kWh.
– My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house
– Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
– I operate my HPs at temperatures of 10 to 15F and greater (depending on wind and sun conditions)
– I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 10f to 15F and less
– My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64
– My HPs required 2,489 kWh to replace 35% of my fossil Btus.
– My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fossil Btus.
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y
https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf
Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y
After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.
My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of $2.339/gal (buyers plan) = $702/y
My displaced fossil Btus was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y
My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
Amortizing Heat Pumps
Amortizing the 24000 – 2400 = $21,600 turnkey capital cost at 6%/y for 15 years costs about $2,187/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
Other Annual Costs
There likely would be annual cleaning of HPs at $200/HP, and parts and labor, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.
My Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs
Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu. However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all ethical engineers know is an absolute no-no.
A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A
BTW, almost all RE folks who claim a major energy reduction from HPs, do not know how to compose this table, and yet they mandate others what to do to save the world from Climate Change.
Addition to above comment
Comparison of CO2 Reduction in my House versus EAN Estimate
My CO2 emissions for space heating, before HPs, were 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y
My CO2 emissions for space heating, after HPs, were calculated in two ways:
1) Market based, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs
2) Location based, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid
See Appendix for details.
Market Based
Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and biomass, in-state and out-of-state.
Utilities crow about being “low-CO2”, or “zero-CO2” by signing PPA papers, i.e., without spending a dime.
Energy Action Network, a pro-RE-umbrella organization, uses 33.9 g CO2/kWh (calculated by VT-DPS), based on utilities having PPAs with low-CO2 power sources.
Using that low CO2 value makes HPs look extra good compared with fossil fuels.
My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y
Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y
CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh
Location Based
Utilities physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the high-voltage grid
If utilities did not have PPAs, and would draw electricity from the high-voltage grid, they would be stealing.
ISO-NE administers a settlement system, to ensure utilities pay owners per PPA contract.
Electricity travels as electric-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1,800 miles in 0.01 second.
There is no physical basis for lay RE folks to talk about there being a “VT CO2” or a “NH CO2”, etc.
All electricity on the NE grid has one value for g CO2/kWh.
ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, calculated that value at 317 g CO2/kWh, at wall outlet, for 2018
My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y
Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.937 Mt/y
CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.937 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 “real world” value of 317 g CO2/kWh, as calculated by ISO-NE
Cost of CO2 Reduction is ($2059/y, amortizing – $204/y, energy cost savings + $200/y, service, parts, labor) / (0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction) = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim to Hype HPs
EAN claims 90,000 HPs, by 2025, would reduce 0.37 million metric ton of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y.
https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-final.pdf
EAN achieves such a high value, because EAN assumes 100% displacement of fuel (gas, propane, fuel oil), which is completely unrealistic, because the actual fuel displacement in Vermont houses with HPs was only 27.6%, based on a VT-DPS-sponsored survey of HPs in Vermont, and 35% in my well-insulated/well-sealed VT house, as above stated.
The EAN 100% claim would be true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 2% of all Vermont houses.
In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs, with 4 to 6 heads, at a turnkey cost of at least $20,000, to achieve 100% displacement. See URL
Table 1/CO2 Reduction With HP With HP
Fuel displaced 35% Electricity Electricity
Market based Location based
Electricity CO2, g/kWh 33.9 317
CO2 of 2489 kWh, Mt/y 0.084 0.789
CO2 of 550 gal of propane, Mt/y 3.168 3.168
Total CO2 with HPs, Mt/y 3.253 3.957
CO2 of 850 gal of propane, Mt/y 4.897 4.897
CO2 reduction by my HPs, Mt/y 1.644 0.939
.
Fuel displaced 100%
CO2 reduction by EAN, Mt/y 4.111
Coddling RE Businesses
Heavily subsidized businesses selling/installing/servicing HPs, etc., will be collecting hundreds of $millions each year over the decades, while already-struggling, over-regulated, over-taxed Vermonters will be further screwed out of a decent standard of living.
HP boosters Sens. Bray, McDonald, etc., know about those dreadful HP results in Vermont, and yet they continue shilling for HPs.
All these expensive Vermont GWSA efforts will be having ZERO IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING.
rep.’s stebbins and sibilia have been trotted out by leadership to continue the virtue signaling.
Facts are not the democrat/progressive strong points, as evidenced by the evidence Mr. Roper and others continue to supply. Emotion will rule the day- S.5 will pass the house tomorrow.
If Scott vetoes and the veto is overridden, the economic impact to every Vermont household will be disastrous. Even those with very comfortable incomes will directly feel the effect of this legislation- as consumer prices rise, rents both residential and commercial rise, restaurants and retail stores close-
unable to generate enough sales- and the inevitable tax increases hit, just after the elections in 2024.
The real cost, per gallon will be way over the $0.70 figure, it will require $2.00 + per gallon- as the level of subsidy increases well beyond the “assumptions” made today. Even Mr. Roper’s figures are low, there is no allowance for the demanded decrease in gallon sold of heating energy- and wasn’t that supposedly the point?
And these climate buffoons haven’t even started on the transportation sector yet.
This is a disguised welfare program to weatherized the houses of low income people.
I KEEP REPEATING
WEATHERIZING DOES NOT DO A DA…D THING FOR HEAT PUMPS.
MY HOUSE IS MORE THAN WEATHERIZED, AND I DISPLACE ONLY 34% of my fossils Btus with electricity Btus.
A house has to be highly insulated and highly sealed to displace 100% of fossil Btus
Weatherizing does not come anywhere near to highly insulated and highly sealed
VERY DEEP RETROFITS WOULD BE REQUIRED, COSTING $50,000 and up, WHICH WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR OLDER HOUSES
And a tightly sealed house is a germ/virus breeding ground. So in essence they would rather you remain sick and not use much energy to absolutely accomplish NOTHING… My house is a 1870’s old farm house and you’d have to shrink wrap the whole house to to seal it up…plus it big and would probably need 3 or 4 HP’s to even try and keep it 69… the warming hoax is a fable and the unaffordable heat standard is THEFT.
DBean,
As part of “highly-sealed/highly-insulated” you MUST have an air-to-air heat exchanger to refresh the inside air without losing Btus.
HVAC standards require 0.5 whole house air changes per hour.
A house built to PASSIVHAUS standards has such a system, and is suitable for heating with heat pumps in cold climates.
If fact, such a house usually is electric resistance heated, which has far lower owning and operating costs than heat pumps, because such a house is an energy sipper, instead of an energy guzzler.
The state government heat pump/weatherizing approach to space heating of housing and other buildings is the most expensive of all schemes, BY FAR, if A-to-Z costs are taken into account.
Imposing such an insanely expensive approach on already-struggling, over-taxed, over-regulated Vermont households, is the epitome of climate wokeness.
The tragedy is, it will have absolutely NO IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING MITIGATION.
Punishing honest citizens is a lousy system for bettering the world.
They act as though it is ok if low income families to go further broke,
It is ok for those already $truggling – live unhealthy in an Ice box!
So Sad, Too Bad, who cares!
Only Government money grows on trees !!??
But they aren’t bettering the world, they admit it does nothing for “world warming”. Their content to screw you so they feel like they have done something and that’s good enough for them…
Damn the facts, full speed ahead !
We need to remove these idiots from OUR government. These socialists love to spend other people’s money and need to be gone.