Pro-business groups left out of Vermont decarbonization study hearings

MONTPELIER — As lawmakers begin evaluating the pros and cons of carbon pricing methods in Vermont, the House Energy and Technology Committee appears to have invited testimony mostly from individuals and groups who support a carbon tax.

This week, lawmakers are hearing from experts and advocacy groups regarding a state-commissioned study on decarbonization methods in Vermont. But while proponents of CO2 reduction policies have been well represented in the hearings, critics appear to have been frozen out, perhaps by design.

Rob Roper, president of the Vermont-based Ethan Allen Institute, said his organization was not invited to talk with lawmakers in the House Energy Committee. EAI, a free-market think tank, has consistently opposed carbon taxes and other government-mandated measures to reduce fossil fuel use in Vermont.

Bruce Parker/TNR

Ethan Allen Institute President Rob Roper

“It’s not particularly surprising to me — the majority parties in the legislature don’t want to hear from us,” Roper told True North.

Since the Ethan Allen Institute is a 501(c)3 education organization and not a lobbying group, leaders have to be invited.

“We never got an invitation,” Roper said, adding that the hearings have been little more than “a cheerleading squad” for a carbon tax.

Democratic and Progressive party leaders at the Statehouse have been reluctant to discuss carbon tax proposals openly due to widespread opposition from voters and pro-business groups like EAI. However, a wave a progressive freshmen lawmakers could force the issue back into the spotlight.

“Some of their more conservative members don’t want a carbon tax,” Roper said, “but there are now some 30 new Democratic members who are younger and farther left; they not only ran on a carbon tax, but they received money from the Vermont Conservation Voters group to help them get elected. I am sure there must be a sense for some payback for the help.”

EAI was not the only group kept out of the discussion.

Matt Cota, executive director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, said his industry group, which supplies 99 percent of the state’s transportation fuel and 80 percent of the heating fuel, also was left off the committee’s invitation list. Cota made it a point to contact committee members this week to make sure VFDA is included in a House session scheduled for Jan. 29.

Michael Bielawski/TNR

Rep. Timothy Briglin, D-Thetford, is chair of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

“We’d like to be a part of this discussion and the decision making since the legislature wants to eliminate the products we sell,” Cota said. “I don’t know the committee chair very well, but I contacted him and said, ‘Listen, there’s an excellent opportunity here to see how our industry members distribute … fuel here in Vermont.’ He said, ‘fair enough,’ so I’ll give him credit for that.”

Cota said he plans to brings several points to the attention of legislators, especially after reading the House-commissioned 146-page report on decarbonization methods in Vermont.

“These methods (in the report) will not solve climate change,” he said. “According to the analysis, Vermont will not meet climate goals by implementing a carbon tax. And it will not benefit the economy — a carbon tax could lower Vermont’s GDP nearly 1 percent.”

Cota stressed that large employers and low-income Vermonters will “feel the pain” of the approaches many legislators are considering.

“Low-income and rural households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy,” he said. “A carbon tax is regressive, particularly in rural areas of Vermont, where people are more dependent on gasoline to get to work and heating oil to stay warm.”

He also worries about the impact carbon pricing policies might have on energy intensive industries.

“A carbon tax will signal to large employers not to move to Vermont — or current employers to move out,” Cota said. “Due to the sales tax, pollution fee and fuel tax, Vermont businesses already pay 7 percent more per gallon than our neighbors in New Hampshire (based on $3 gallon heating oil). A carbon-pricing policy that levies a $100-per-metric-ton tax would make the same fuel 50 percent more expensive. Raising the cost of energy purchased in our state will provide an economic advantage for businesses to operate outside of Vermont’s borders.”

Other concerns from Cota and Roper include the loss of competitiveness Vermont could suffer relative to its neighbors.

“Half of Vermont’s population lives near the border of New Hampshire, Massachusetts or New York. The carbon tax study recognizes that liquid fuels are easily transportable, delivered directly to a tank at a home or business,” Cota said. “Out of economic necessity, carbon tax avoidance will become widespread. There is no prohibition on consumers purchasing untaxed fuel outside of Vermont and transporting fuel in cars, trucks, cans or portable tanks in their personal vehicle. This method of transporting fuel is inherently unsafe.”

The report itself lists various red flags to decarbonization policies. For example, the report found that rural households are hurt worse than residents living in more urban areas, such as Chittenden County.

“No wonder the mayor of Burlington called for a carbon tax back in December,” Cota said. “Urban areas where homes employers are more concentrated and where public transportation is readily available will do better than those living in the ‘other Vermont.'”

Most groups invited to appear before the committee support climate action policies, including carbon pricing. They include, among others, the Energy Action Network, VPIRG, Capstone Community Action, the Energy and Climate program of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont Business for Social Responsibility, and Energy Independent Vermont.

“Notice anything interesting about this lineup?” John McClaughry, vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute said this week on a local radio broadcast. “These groups are the carbon tax spearhead in Vermont. They’ve worked furiously for four years to peddle the carbon tax, the ESSEX Plan, and numerous variations. Now the committee wants their views on this latest boondoggle study, but not from the organization that has led the charge against a carbon tax, the Ethan Allen Institute.”

Lou Varricchio is a freelance reporter for True North Reports. Send him news tips at

Images courtesy of Michael Bielawski/TNR and Bruce Parker/TNR

11 thoughts on “Pro-business groups left out of Vermont decarbonization study hearings

  1. Vermonters for a Clean Environment was also left off the invited “energy advocacy groups” by the House Energy & Technology Committee.

  2. Lobbyist and Liberal Politicians promoting another Boondoggle proposition,
    It’s the best things since sliced bread and it will save the world !!

    Follow The Money !!

  3. Here is an example of what happens when RE DREAMERS in the legislature receive ONE-SIDED “testimony” from pro-RE entities that echo what the dreamers want.

    The heat pump rah-rah troika, GMP, VPIRG, Efficiency Vermont got what they wanted from legislators in the same manner so years ago.

    That time Mr. Cota, VT Fuel Dealers Association, was allowed to testify during heat pump hearings, but his testimony was completely ignored.

    Because of the lack of BALANCED input during hearings, the VT-DPS, AFTER many complaints from heat pump owners, was obliged to perform a survey which found:

    – A heat pump in an average Vermont house will provide annual FUEL COST savings AVERAGING about $200/year/heat pump, based on a VT-DPS survey of about 140 EXISTING installations.

    – An average Vermont house would need its EXISTING heating system for about 66% of its heating requirements; the heat pump would supply the other 34%.

    That means eager-beaver contractors installed heat pumps in energy-hog houses that were unsuitable for them.

    But what about other heat pump costs, such as for leasing or amortizing, and for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance?

    Add those costs and the heat pump would be a net loser.

    Now the duped/befuddled Vermonters have TWO heating systems, each with an amortizing cost, plus costs for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.

    That was an example of what happens when RE DREAMERS in the legislature receive ONE-SIDED “testimony” from pro-RE entities that echo what the dreamers want.

    This one-sidedness is not only undemocratic, but leads to stupid definition making.

  4. Where is all this miracle electric power coming from?
    Neighbors solar panels haven’t been visible over 3/4ths of the winter,
    We closed nuclear – our most valuablable, powerful and reliable source.
    Driving about after our snow, all the solar panels were covered with a foot of sticky snow, That could last for days.
    -30 degrees with “feels like” below that, reliant on solar for overnight!! no heat, no water, no lights. Snowy day. How do we replace millions of gallons of gasoline, and millions of fuel oi???, with sunshine or wind.-
    Where do the rare eath minerals come from for all these wonder batteries – if we intend to have 100,000’s more electric cars just in vermont?

    No answers – Just “it feels good” We don’t ask questions, so we don’t worry about answers!!

  5. The Democrats in Vermont must be cut from the same mold as the ones in DC.
    They don’t care what the opposition thinks.

  6. I’ve told you so time after time. These clowns are only interested in rubber stamp testimony. They have no desire to let the opposition’s point of view be presented in their hearings. What else is new?

  7. It would seem one of the things we get wrong is allowing lobbyists in Montpelier in the first place.

    A government that sets goals to favor their collaboration partners and then manipulates the free market sector to disadvantage their competition is not working in the best interest of its citizens who toil for their sustenance.

    If we are perhaps wondering where our work ethic has gone, look no further than how our government has abandon our free market principles of capitalism and squandered our incentive and ability to produce!

  8. Clearly it is not representative government and it is a disgrace to even call this democracy. I served as Clerk the education committee back in another era when both sides or all sides of any issue that wished to be represented in committee would be given a fair opportunity to do so that was our mandate that was our oath to the people that we served and that was the way we conducted business. Now that doesn’t mean that a majority of one party or another party couldn’t have their way in that committee room or on the floor of the house or the Senate. That’s not the point. The point is that all sides had a fair opportunity to present viable and important facts that many times led the committee to modify legislation change Legend silly legislation or indeed even totally redact legislation. Now we are in a situation where when an election is one by one party and right now it’s the Liberals everyone else in the state is inconsequential has lost their voice and has no representation and this is pure and simply as about as wrong as any democracy could be.

  9. No surprise here. The progressive VT legislature is not interested in the opinions of people in the real world. They always solicit testimony from those who support their position and virtually no one else. They are hypocrites.

    In the recent legislative session, when reviewing the tax bill (H.911/H.16) they did not request testimony from those in the tax business who know the game. And even when they do, they rely on taking shots at those who testify when they do not agree with the testifiers comments.

    Their mantra seems to be “Don’t confuse me with any facts.”

Comments are closed.