House Republicans urging Scott to veto H.688

This article by Lou Varricchio originally appeared Sept. 14 in the Vermont Eagle. It is republished here with permission.

On Sept. 14, Vermont House Minority Leader Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney) issued a statement urging Gov. Phil Scott (R) to veto H. 688, Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA).

state of Vermont

House Minority Leader Patricia McCoy, R-Poultney

“Vermont House Republicans have stood united against the GWSA, which includes several untenable and unacceptable provisions,” she said. “The grant of immense authority to implement a Climate Action Plan to an unelected council represents an unprecedented violation of both Legislative and Executive authority. Further, the cause of action created by the bill will expose the State–and by extension, Vermont taxpayers–to massive legal liability that we cannot predict or control.”

McCoy has acknowledged that climate change is a scientific fact, however, she has said this climate change bill presents serious economic-impact challenges and that it offers no solutions as far as state policy goes.

“Let me be clear: climate change is real and must be addressed. Ironically, despite its name, this bill includes no real policy solutions; (it’s) just talking points and a flashy headline. It does not actually solve the problem or do the real policy work necessary. In a large sense, the legislature is bucking its responsibility to an unelected council.”

McCoy added that Vermont House Republicans have repeatedly laid out climate solutions that have been ignored by Democrats and Progressives.

“…Rather than focusing on bipartisan incentives and programs, the Majority party has made it clear that they prefer power grabs and government intrusion. For these reasons, the Vermont House Republican Caucus urges Governor Scott to veto H.688,” she said.

Image courtesy of state of Vermont

5 thoughts on “House Republicans urging Scott to veto H.688

  1. If the governor let’s H.688 become law, he will have committed THE BLUNDER of his tenure in office. Governor do your duty to care for Vermonters and VETO this rediculous piece of legislation dreamed up by a bunch of folks totally out of touch with our state.

  2. I hope every Vermonter reads the attached post from Willem ” Thanks” this is what
    the progressive legislators don’t want you to know or see !!

    I assume the Governor will ” Veto” H.688, Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA),
    but we also know this is futile, as Vermontre’s have allowed Progressive Democrats
    to hold the upper hand, and will push this nonsense bill into law.

    Citizens of Vermont, your ” lively hood ” is about to take a major hit in order to fund
    this nonsense you will be your demise, having to pay for this boondoggle of a bill for
    your remaining life.

    Put this to perspective ” Global Warming Solutions Act ” in Vermont,
    when the rest of the world talks a good game, but do nothing for Global Warming and
    those promoting this, are flying around in there ” Lear Jets ” …… Hypocrits.

    Vermonter’s make you Vote count, vote these inept fools out, we deserve better than
    the cancer we have killing this state and it’s citizens, Aka ” Democrats “


    The Vermont House passed the bill of the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and sent it to the Vermont Senate, which also passed it. The bill, if enacted, would convert the aspirational goals of the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, into mandated goals, with penalties. GWSA has been called “must pass this Session”.

    In Vermont, the only thing that makes any sense is to stop “emulating” California, immediately scrap GWSA, and concentrate on:

    1) Energy conservation
    2) Energy efficiency
    3) Building net-zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses and other buildings, by the thousands, each year. See Appendix
    4) Provide incentives to buy vehicles that get more than 35 mpg, EPA combined; the more above the limit, the greater the incentive.
    5) Charge annual fees, paid at time of registration, on existing and new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg, EPA combined; the more below the limit, the greater the fee.

    The above 4 items would save money for Vermonters, and make the state economy more competitive
    Most of the other energy measures is just expensively subsidized hogwash that would not make one iota of difference regarding climate change.


    In reality, the CO2 reduction of the EAN plan would not be achieved, because the analyses are flawed.

    EAN, with help from VT-DPS:

    – Used fudged emission data for electricity, grams CO2/kWh
    – Did not consider upstream CO2 for heat pumps and electric vehicle analysis
    – Did not consider embodied CO2 of electric vehicles
    – Did not determine the amortizing cost of the short life assets.

    That means:

    EAN claimed a CO2 reduction per EV much higher than in reality.
    EVs compared to 30 mpg vehicles, such as a Subaru Outback, have a CO2 reduction of about 2.13 Mt/y, much less than the 4.50 Mt/y claimed by the flawed EAN method.
    EAN would need 90000 x 4.50/2.13 = 190,141 EVs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.405 MMt/y, at end 2025

    EAN claimed a CO2 reduction per ASHP much higher than in reality.
    ASHPs, in average Vermont 2000 ft2 houses, have a CO2 reduction of about 2.389 Mt/y per ASHP, much less than the 4.111 Mt/y per ASHP claimed by the flawed EAN method.
    EAN would need 90000 x 4.111/2.389 = 139,385 ASHPs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.37 MMt/y, at end 2025

    The EAN-claimed energy cost savings per heat pump and per EV were overstated, as confirmed by the CADMUS survey

    Additional explanation is in this URL, which also shows turnkey capital cost estimates:

    EAN performed the flawed analysis to:

    – Bamboozle legislators to get them to vote for GWSA (“all we need is this and that, and we will get these fabulous results”)
    – Bamboozle/befuddle the rest of Vermonters, who will be suffering GWSA-induced headaches for decades to come, and who would see no discernible effect on the Vermont climate….

    NOTE: I sent this and other articles to VT-DPS, VT-PUC, VT-ANR, and VT Media, who likely will not read them.
    I almost never receive a comment!!

    Artificial Emissions of Vermont Electrical Sector

    The CO2 reduction from 9.99 MMt in 2015 to 9.02 MMt in 2018 was artificially “achieved” by basing the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector on power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants.

    All utilities, which draw almost all of their electricity supply from the NE grid, must have such agreements, per ISO-NE requirements, as otherwise they would be stealing from the grid.

    EAN/VT-DPS concocted an artificial value of 34 g CO2/kWh, based on PPAs, about 8 times less than NE grid CO2/kWh, to “evaluate” the CO2 reduction of heat pumps and electric vehicles to make them look extra good!!! Sheer chicanery. See Appendix and URLs

  5. Per GWSA, a 23-person Council deciding how hundreds of millions of $dollars are to be spent, EACH YEAR, FOR DECADES, WITH NO RELIEF EVER, BECAUSE OF LAW SUITS by any Tom, Dick, and Harry?

    And all this, without any ELECTED Governor, and his administration, having NO EFFECTIVE/DECIDING VOICE?

    This off-the charts outrageous.
    That travesty can only come about due to UN-AMERICAN, UNDEMOCRATIC, ONE PARTY CONTROL.

    On the face of it, it has to be unconstitutional!!!
    GET AT LEAST 3 or 4 rational legislators to change their minds, so they will vote NO.


    Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years, per Energy Action Network annual report, not counting financing and replacements of short-life systems, such as EVs, heat pumps, battery storage systems, etc. See URLs.

    Most legislators have not a clue regarding the reductions of CO2 and the turnkey capital cost to achieve them.
    This article has some background numbers regarding GWSA.
    This article includes observations regarding the Energy Action Network CO2-reduction plan for the 2020 – 2025 period

    In 2006, the Legislature passed a law that called for CO2 reductions:

    25% below 1990 by 2012, i.e., 8.59 – 2.15 = 6.44 million metric ton.
    50% below 1990 by 2028, i.e., 8.59 – 4.30 = 4.29 MMt
    75% below 1990 by 2050, i.e., 8.59 – 6.44 = 2.15 MMt

    Vermont Gross Emissions, actual

    9.00 MMt in 2012
    9.99 MMt in 2015
    9.76 MMt in 2016

    See fig. 1 of URL

    Vermont Gross Estimated Emissions for 2017 and 2018

    9.41 MMt in 2017
    9.02 MMt in 2018

    See page 18 of URL

    US Gross Emissions

    About 6,700 MMt in 2018
    Vermont emissions are just a tiny fraction of US emissions.

    Enforcement of CEP, courtesy of GWSA mandates

    Emissions in 2028 SHALL be 4.30 MMt, or 50% below 1990
    Emissions in 2050 SHALL be 2.15 MMt, or 75% below 1990, aim-low target
    Emissions in 2050 SHALL be 1.72 MMt, or 80% below 1990, aim-medium target
    Emissions in 2050 SHALL be 0.43 MMt, or 95% below 1990, aim-high target

    See fig 16 of URL


    EAN listed the measures required to reduce CO2 from 9.76, in 2016 to 7.46, in 2025, for a reduction of 2.281 MMt.

    The CO2 result would be 8.59, in 1990 – 7.46, in 2025 = 1.13 MMt below 1990, or 13% below 1990

    However, GSWA mandates emissions of 4.30 MMt by 2028, 50% below 1990, just three years later, which surely is a physical and financial impossibility.

    Capital Cost Estimate

    I made a turnkey capital cost estimate of the EAN plan, because EAN did not, but should have.

    EVs: 90,000 x $40000/small EV = $3.6 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 750/y, at present
    High-speed in-house chargers: 90,000 x $2000 = $0.18 billion

    “Deep” retrofits: 90,000 x $30,000/housing unit = $2.7 billion
    ASHPs for space heat: 90,000 x $5,000/housing unit = $0.45 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 2900/y, at present
    ASHPs for DHW: 90,000 x $3,000/system = $0.27 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 1000/y, at present

    Wind turbines: 250000/(8766 x 0.30) x $2.5 million/MW = $0.095 Billion
    Solar systems: 700000/(8766 x 0.14) x $3.5 million/MW = $0.57 Billion
    Expanding/augmenting of the grid: $0.1 billion
    Fortress Vermont to deal with excessive DUCK-curves, due to midday solar surges.
    Energy storage: $0.9 billion
    Curtailment payments: $0.3 billion

    Hydro power plants: 50000/(8766 x 0.40) x $6 million/MW = $0.086 billion

    The turnkey capital cost would be exceeding $9.25 billion, during 2020 – 2025, about $1.85 billion/y.

    NOTE: EAN-proposed solar build-outs would be from 438.84 dc, at end 2019 to at least 1000 MW dc, at end 2025
    Solar is the most expensive electricity on the Vermont grid. It would not be smart to have more of it.
    It requires about 3.5 acres per MW, and is charged to the utility rate base at 11 to 21 c/kWh

    NOTE: Current cost shifting to rate payers for solar production of 473,686 MWh, at end 2009, was about $64 million.
    The cost shifting would be at least $130 million, if solar production were increased by 700,000 MWh during the 2020 – 2025 period. See table 4 in URL and Appendix

    Amortizing Short-Life Items

    EVs, heat pumps, battery storage systems, etc., have lives of less than 15 years.
    Amortizing the cost of the short-life assets, $5.7 billion, at 3.5% over 15 years, would require payments of $489 million/y for 15 years, more than offsetting the EAN estimated energy cost savings of 800/5 = $160 million/y, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

    Vermont’s existing RE spending is about $210 million/y, including Efficiency Vermont.
    The additional spending, during 2020 – 2025, would be about 489 – 160 = $329 million/y, per EAN plan
    Annual costs are higher, because the amortizing of long-life items is excluded.

Comments are closed.