By Rob Roper
On Thursday, the House Environment and Energy Committee approved S.5, the clean heat standard bill, in an 8-3 vote.
Both Republicans on the committee, Brian Smith of Derby and Paul Clifford of Rutland, voted no, along with one Democrat, Kristi Morris of Springfield.
According to a voter who contacted Morris to thank him for his vote, Morris attributed his “no” to overwhelming constituent opposition to what is in effect a carbon tax on home heating fuel.
Before the committee voted, members had to wrestle with a few points of contention. Rep. Seth Bongartz, D-Manchester, came back to an issue he had raised earlier in debate regarding language in the bill. That language reads:
The [Public Utilities] Commission may temporarily, for a period not to exceed 36 months, adjust the annual requirements for good cause. … The Commission shall ensure that any downward adjustment does not materially affect the State’s ability to comply with the requirements of [the Global Warming Solutions Act].
Bongartz rightly observed that it’s impossible to both reduce the greenhouse gas requirements and not materially affect the State’s ability to comply with the GWSA, which requires that greenhouse gas reductions take place along a specific timeline. The two positions are mutually exclusive, and this reality stuck in Bongartz’s craw.
Rep. Gabrielle Stebbins, D-Burlington, reminded Bongartz that S.5 and the clean heat standard only covers thermal sector emissions (home heating, water heating and cooking). So, if there is a downward adjustment in the thermal sector emissions requirements, that just means there has to be an increase in reductions somewhere else.
“I consider this bill focused on the thermal sector to be only a portion of what we need to do,” Stebbins said. “So, when I see this sentence as it is currently, I’m comfortable with it because next up we need to figure out something in transportation. And, next up we need to revisit the Renewable Energy Standard. So, for me, I see this as a sliver — well, not a sliver; it is thirty or forty percent — of our overall requirements. Just this alone is not going to get us to [compliance with the GWSA] because the analysis, presumably, is going to be for the entire picture of our overarching emissions reductions.”
WATCH VIDEO:
This should serve as a reminder to Vermonters that this bill, S.5, with its multi-billion-dollar price tag that by the most conservative estimates will add $500 a year to the average household’s annual heating bill, is just the tip of the iceberg for what legislators have in store. Once S.5 passes, the plan is to bring forward a similar carbon tax on gasoline and diesel motor fuels.
This motor fuels tax was supposed to take shape under the multi-state Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI-P), which collapsed in December 2020. But estimates showed the plan would have cost Vermont drivers between $20 million and $30 million a year. As big as those numbers are, they would not come close to funding the actions necessary in the Climate Action Plan to meet the transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
A Vermont go-it-alone motor fuels carbon tax will likely look more like the original VPIRG proposal in 2013 that would have added an $0.89 tax to a gallon of gasoline. VIPRG, it should be noted, is also a leading and influential advocate for S.5.
The current legislation along this line is S.24, introduced by Sen. Becca White, D-Windsor, but it has not been taken up — most likely because the majority party doesn’t want to deal with the backlash from both a motor fuel tax and a home heating tax at the same time.
But a motor fuels tax is coming and soon. The first target for the Global Warming Solutions Act arrives in 2025, less than two years away. According to the Energy Action Network, from their 2020 Annual Progress Report, to achieve the GWSA’s emissions reduction requirement for 2025, Vermont will need to put more than 46,000 electric vehicles on the road. There are about 7,000 on the road today.
Someone has to pay for all those new cars and the infrastructure necessary to service them, and that money will come from a new tax on motor fuels.
S.5 will make a brief stop in the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, and hit the full House floor on Wednesday, April, 19.
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.
Stupid begets stupidity, It is impossible to legislate stupid.
We are on the receiving end of stupid, because of voting last Nov. And there will be more to come.
Never without a crisis, we see them being made and molded every day up there in ‘ ‘Peculiar Land.
What a bunch of morons.
Thank your Democrat ‘friends’. They voted for this.
If CO2 is increasing it is because of deforestation and the increase in the global temperatures are due to the results of the downside of the last ice age. I so agree with Carol and the Mark Twain quote.
“No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot”………Mark Twain
The evidence of how this bill will affect Vermonters, particularly older people like my husband and me, on a fixed income, is so clear to normal, intelligent people. But, there lies the rub, are our legislators normal, intelligent people? and how much of this bill will affect the Legislators who are passing it?
This is so far beyond stupidity, it is unbelievable.
And sadly enough, we can’t afford to leave.
Motivating citizens to shop out of state, motivating businesses and private citizens to re-locate to other states will do much to achieve the Progressive goal of reducing carbon emissions. The intent of the nation’s founders, that we should be a union of semi-autonomous states, insures our ability to have a shoe-leather vote, to leave poorly managed states, to move to ones that economically serve the people, that attract business and manufacturing, In theory, this motivates state legislators to copy policy of successful states. It fails insofar as it cannot forestall takeovers by pathologically driven controllers. As we see, the irrational dogmatism of Progressive politics welds blinders to the heads of ideologically focused legislators, Fascists who view citizens only as obstacles in the path to their own Utopian concepts.
Comparison of CO2 Reduction in my House versus EAN Estimate
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel
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 = 3.897 Mt/y
CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.897 = 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.
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 1.5% of all Vermont houses.
In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs, at a turnkey cost of at least $20,000, to achieve 100% displacement. See URL
https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-final.pdf
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
PART 1
Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal
– HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills
– Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 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 15F and greater; less $/h than propane
– I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP
– 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.
– The average Vermont house COP is about 3.34
– The average Vermont house requires 2,085 kWh to replace 27.6% of fossil Btus, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey. See URL
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf
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, 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.
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.
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMP EVALUATION IN VERMONT BY VT-DPS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pump-evaluation-in-vermont-by-vt-dps
VT-Department of Public Service found, after the CADMUS survey of 77 HPs installed in 65 Vermont buildings:
Owning and Operating Loss:
– The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200/y
-The annual maintenance/cleaning, about $200/HP
-The annual amortizing costs $455.68; turnkey cost of a single head HP $4500 at 6%/y for 15 years
Displaced Fossil Btus by Electricity Btus is Minimal
– On average, Vermont HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%.
These numbers are directly from the survey data.
CO2 Reduction per HP is Minimal
The small percentage of displaced fossil fuel heat indicates HPs would not be effective CO2 reducers in the cold climate of Vermont, if used in average VT houses.
From CADMUS Report:
Figure 14 of below URL would have shown increasing electricity consumption by HPs, as outdoor temperatures are decreasing.
The inescapable rule of physics is, the lower the outdoor temperature, the lower the efficiency of the HP.
However, figure 14 shows the decreasing consumption by HPs at 28F and below.
Very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption on figure 14
Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 28F to 30F, because their past experience showed significant increases in electricity bills, if they had not turned them off.
Your house requires the most heat, Btu/h, at, say 0F, whereas your HPs would be least efficient, almost like electric resistance heating your house, which is great for GMPs profits, but disastrous for your financial well-being.
– At those temperatures, the hourly cost of operating HPs exceeds the hourly cost of using a traditional heating system.
– This statement is true for average Vermont free-standing houses
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf
From CADMUS report:
– On average, an HP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season, of which:
1) Outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used), to provide space heat 1,880 kWh;
2) Standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;
3) Defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.
– Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP, which would be insufficient to heat an entire house. See URLs.
On average, these houses were highly unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-source-heat-pumps-are-negative-in-vermont
NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP
See page 10 of URL
https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf
Displaced Fuel Percentage of Vermont Heat Pumps, based on CADMUS Report
As a result of a few years of complaints by various HP users, mainly about energy cost savings being much less than stated on the RE websites of Efficiency Vermont, GMP, VPIRG, etc., VT-DPS was ordered by the Vermont Legislature to hire a consultant to perform a survey.
CADMUS gathered the operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites, to determine annual energy cost savings of the heat pumps.
CADMUS calculated:
– Space heat to all sites was 65 x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu from all fuels. See URL, page 22
– Heat from HPs was 77 x 21.4 million Btu/HP = 1,648 million Btu. See URL, page 21
– Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72.4% of the total space heat.
This proves ASHPs, in average VT houses, are an expensive, non-solution regarding: 1) reducing CO2, 2) fighting climate change, and 3) saving the world.
Such “non-solutions” are the inevitable result of self-serving, subsidy-seeking, RE businesses working together with career RE bureaucrats, behind closed doors
The energy cost savings were an average of about $200/HP per year, instead of the $1,200/y to $1,800/y bandied about by RE folks and Efficiency Vermont, GMP, VPIRG, VT-DPS, VEIC, etc.
After the CADMUS report, those estimates disappeared from the websites.
All the data in Table 1 are from the CADMUS report. See URLs.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-and-wood-burning-appliances-for-vermont
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims-about-cold-climate-heat-pumps-for
So for the $500 in new heating oil taxes for the commie dream, I’m calculating the cost of containers and getting the oil in NH< MA or NY. It won't take long to recover the initial cost, and what these commies don't get is, they are forcing me to do it so I can survive.
I expect to see cooperatives created that are not selling oil, but sharing it, and this idiot law will not be able to stop it, since it will involve interstate commerce that they can't outlaw.
Ed, unfortunately if you did this the second you brought that fuel across the border to Vermont for consumption in this state you would be considered an “obligated party”, would have to register with the state and purchase carbon credits to offset the CO2 that your fuel caused to be released into the atmosphere. And if you failed to do so, you could be fined up to twice the cost of what the credit price would have been.
They better hire more ‘Fuel Police’ because there will be thousands of us doing the same thing.
Full Disclosure: Rep. Gabrielle Stebbins was a member of the private working group that developed the Clean Heat Standard entirely outside of the Climate Council, along with her colleague at Energy Futures Group Chris Neme; plus Regulatory Assistance Project’s Richard Cowart, David Farnsworth, Rick Weston; Energy Action Network’s Jared Duval and Leigh Seddon; Vermont Gas Systems’ Don Rendall, Neale Lunderville, Jill Pfenning, Tom Murray and Greg Morse, and Riley Allen (previously of RAP, then of DPS, now of PUC), the PUC’s Tom Knauer, VNRC’s Johanna Miller, Brian Gray whose energy co-op sells no fuel oil, propane or kerosene, and a few others from time to time. This private group created the legislation. The Climate Council was just a tool to advance the CHS agenda of the private group, which RAP is now marketing (i.e. making money on) to Massachusetts, Maryland, and Europe.
Alison Despathy interviewed me about what I learned from the public records VCE got from the PUC recently (read them here, dive in, it’s quite revealing: https://vce.org/Clean%20Heat%20Standard%20Meeting%20Notes%20with%20TOC.pdf) after we learned that state agency staff were involved in the previously-undisclosed membership of the working group. You can listen to the interview here https://vce.org/CleanHeatStandard_Interview.mp3
I’m pretty sure that one of the people you list harassed and threatened brave Rep. Tom Bock (a Democrat, now retired) after he cast the deciding vote against this monstrosity last time around.
Dark Money
Cast downwards with their slighted lord
From heights to make a seraph dizzy,
Dark angels fell — an angry horde —
And they’ve been busy!
A thousand fabricated gods,
And paths to Hell, in blood and honey —
Aghast, I ask: What are the odds
That Hell is printing money?
“I consider this bill focused on the thermal sector to be only a portion of what we need to do,” Stebbins said.
So buckle up butter cups… the worst has yet to hit us. With the passage of this bill to tax for a hoax has only set presence for taxing us to oblivion for NOTHING… a lie, They can no more “FIX” the climate then they can be censored for the taxpayers plight.
And because of their assault on the taxpayers for the warming hoax I went out and bought a new gas fired auto that gets under 30 mpg and barely 22 around town.. Take your EV’s and shove up your azz you commie pukes…
This is what you get when you have inept fools in charge, all they know is what’s
in the agenda……………. they have no common sense or any sort of compassion
for low to middle-class citizens………………. it all for a useless agenda !!
Wake up people, send these fools packing
And my country went to war with England over a tea tax? I suggest that us normal Americans go to the capitol and do what is necessary to stop this madness.
This life long Vermonter will be leaving for the hills of Tennessee as a result of this. My little parcel there will become my permanent home. At least there I don’t have to pay these ridiculous taxes and my military pension is all mine.
Thanks for taxing me out, Democrats.
Stebbins is a moron and/or Manchurian Candidate.
These wingnuts have lost their senses. Nothing but dictators.
We will be leaving this state as soon as we can. These people are so short sighted. It is true that these politicians do not represent their constituents but the Democrat agenda. We once joked that the only future for VT would be adopting a state run an open air museum.
With the cost of living getting so out of control retirees on fixed incomes will have to leave because their budgeting did not include this insanity. There will be no real jobs, no careers to develop, entrepreneurs won’t even bother coming here for the same reason big business stays away – the cost of doing business is too high and there’s no one to employ! There will be Ben & Jerry’s painted cardboard cows standing in the fields bc there won’t be any dairy farmers left. All there will be is Loosestrife and poisonous parsnip and some granny knitting on her front porch being paid in carbon credits issued by the Gore and Gates Family and redeemable through the CCP. Thank goodness there are other beautiful states with sane politicians. I’m not saying they will be perfect but anything is better than this.
Despite all of the citations from people speaking on behalf of the people of Vermont, I can’t believe they went ahead and approved this bill. It’s so sad.
Here is a quote from a very early 1900’s French philosopher,,and applicable today, 115 year later:
““It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.”
― Charles Péguy
Exactly. The VT legislators know what great harm this bill will do….to almost all VT residents. But elected Dems & Progressives are basically forced, by the “party agenda”, to vote for it & not act with their hearts,,, (they don’t have much in brains). Vote for it and they keep their job & power….”cowardice for sufficiently progressive”.
We are being led by dictators that only do what’s good for them. They have no concern for us. I have been going to NH for food and gas and if it gets any worse, I will have to move out of VT, just like they are doing in California ;o(
I can’t believe how bad this state has become…..
We are being led by dictators that only do what’s good for them. They have no concern for us. I have been going to NH for food and gas and if it gets any worse, I will have to move out of VT, just like they are doing in California ;o(
I can’t believe how bad this state has become…..
I tried to input my info and as correct as is was, they won’t allow it as they say it is duplicate….
I never posted anything before, so I guess the dictators no like the truth…