Roper: Gas stove ban? Vermont is way ahead of the feds

By Rob Roper

The Biden administration caused a major outcry last week when Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka suggested that a federal ban on gas stoves may be in our near future. The president and his communications team quickly scrambled to deny and distance themselves from the wildly unpopular policy, and a number of major media outlets are pumping out “nobody is coming for your gas stove” stories in an attempt to put out the fire. But this is clearly not true.

Several cities have already implemented bans on the installation of new gas stoves, and Vermont is on track to do so as well according to the Climate Action Plan created by the Vermont Climate Council as directed by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020.

Speaking to the full Vermont Climate Council as far back as Oct. 21, 2021, David Hill of Cadmus, the consulting firm hired to help the council develop its plan to reduce Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, explained the requirement for a 100 percent phase out of fossil fuel use for cooking (and water heating, by the way) by 2035.

A ban on gas stoves, even phased in over the next dozen years, would be highly disruptive — and expensive — for Vermonters. About 40 percent of homes cook with gas, as do 90 percent of restaurants.

According to Vermont Department of Taxes data there are over 2,600 restaurants (or businesses that sell food) in our state, and they brought nearly $1.3 billion into our economy between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, not including alcohol sales. It goes without saying that food tourism is a big part of Vermont’s destination appeal.

The reasons restaurants use gas rather than electric stoves are multiple. The first is quality. There are many cooking techniques that require an open flame to create certain flavors and textures as well as more accurate temperature control.

Another big reason is cost. As well as being more effective, gas stoves are cheaper than electric induction stoves. And that doesn’t factor in the reality that for a restaurant currently cooking with gas, switching to electric induction doesn’t mean just getting a new appliance. Electric induction stoves require entirely different types of pots and pans and, if the restaurant is in an older building, could require electrical capacity upgrades to the infrastructure as well.

So, this policy is basically mandating that a key industry in our state’s economy put out a lower quality, higher cost product to its customers — the result of switching to a less efficient and effective system of producing their product. And this is at a time when many restaurants are already struggling with higher food and labor costs driving up menu prices to levels where more and more customers are balking at the bill of eating out.

There is a safety consideration for homeowners as well.

Over the Christmas holiday we all saw how a winter storm knocked out power to 75,000 customers across Vermont, leaving some households without electricity for a week. This writer’s own home was without power for about 18 hours, during which we were, thankfully, able to cook hot meals on our gas stove and boil water — something we would not have been able to do if we had an electric stove.

Make no mistake: environmental activists have put gas stoves in their sights for elimination as part of their climate agenda. They will use their various megaphones to call this misinformation and a fear tactic right up until the point where the ban goes into effect.

When the Global Warming Solutions Act was being debated on the State House floor, then Chairman of the Energy & Technology Committee Rep. Tim Briglin was asked if passage of the bill could lead to a ban on internal combustion engine vehicle cars. Briglin laughed it off. Less than three years later, Vermont just banned the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. That’s the same year they expect to have totally zeroed out any fossil fuel use for cooking.

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.

Image courtesy of Public domain

17 thoughts on “Roper: Gas stove ban? Vermont is way ahead of the feds

  1. The state of Vermont has been utterly captured by Marxists that are using every tool in the toolbox to just empty out the entire state–apparently.

    • I read something about the want/need to depopulate ALL of New England. In particular, Vermont is considered a designated playground for the elites. Think Alec Baldwin.

  2. Meanwhile, over in Davos, Switzerland, strategies and plans are underway to depopulate and subjugate those of us who are not down with enslavement or serfdom. A report in the Daily Mail says demand for escorts and prostitutes has sex workers booked into the same hotels and stationed near the meetings and at local restaurants. Climate change is a lucrative, sick, twisted business and there is much blood on many hands near and afar.

  3. I have been digging deep into the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the World Economic Forum. These entities, and their stakeholders, including activists, government officials, international companies, NEA and National Education Association Foundation, UNESCO, Work Bank, universities and many others, are working collaboratively towards one goal, implementing the SDG goals to end soveirn nations in favor of a global government and global citizenship. These entities are creating a new social contract (as stated by the WHO), which gives them control of all people and resources on the planet. Stakeholder capitalism will replace capitalism. Stakeholder capitalism is a neo-Communist, fascist system, which will allow for the political and financial control of the population. The WEF and the Journal of Educational Policy have stated that Social Emotional Learning is important as a tool, with AI and Tech Ed programs, to phycho data mine children for the political and economial management of the population.

    Social Emotional Learning is a brainwashing tool to create perfect and predictable, controllable economic units (aka people), starting in childhood. The UN through UNESCO is remaking higher education and k-12 in the service of the UN Sustainability Goals. UNESCO had created documents to this fact instructing universities and k-12 education settings. The NEAF recently created a k-12 classroom workbook, with the help of Harvard. These classroom guidelines are to brainwash children to believe they are global citizens (founded in marxist educator, Paulo Ferrarie’s work) and to be activists for the UNs sustainable development goals. For example, kindergarten instruction focuses on starvation and hunger and what it is like to starve.

    The Biden Administration and NEA has directly partnered with UNESCO, a United Nations organization. UNESCO is the organization that created the Comprehensive Sex Education program, promoting queer theory, gender theory and pornographic images. The Common Core program was also created by the UN.

    I would really like to start a collaborative group to discuss the above issues, as nothing will change until parents understand the true intent of Society-Emotional Learning, as a tool to brainwash and control the population to accept and function in the new social contract referenced by the WEF in service of the United Nations.

    Please reach out to me if you would like to be part of this group.

    • Project Veritas just dropped a bomb on critical race theory continuing in Georgia in spite of Governor Kemp’s law to remove it. No matter the law as written, no matter parents objections, no matter that is wrong and detrimental to humanity…the demons will do whatever they want until they are removed – whether that means defund them or build a new school system separate from the current system. The war is real and children are the main targets.

  4. We currently have a fully dysfunctional government that’s trying it’s hardest to make the whole country dysfunctional. Lefts get 100% of items we use on electricity when we have a grid that will only support 40-50% of everything when it fully working. What a marvel idea of immense stupidity. Elec. stoves are the worse to cook on had one in a rental unit the burners were always going bad and the food was getting scorched. You can’t regulate the heat like a gas stove which has been in production since the 1830’s without any health issue warnings. This was all brought to the forefront by some green weenie company from CO. who presented it to the WEF. One world bull crap.

  5. Thanks for writing this Rob. All important points. This is just crazy thinking that gas stoves mist be banned to be replaced by electric stoves that will be at least partially powered by coal or natural gas power plants!

    • I wonder if our governor has any executive power or can he do a executive order disbanding this climate council

  6. Bob Roper,

    GWSA also want to replace the heating systems of Vermonters with HEAT PUMPS.

    Here is an excerpt from an article regarding HPs in Vermont houses.


    This article should be read by the Vermont Environment and Energy Committee and all Vermont legislators, so they understand the short-comings of HPs at low temperatures, when operated in houses, other than highly sealed and highly insulated houses.

    Air source HPs will not economically displace anywhere near 100% of fossil Btu in existing Vermont buildings, weatherized or not.

    The Vermont clean heating standard, CHS, modified or not, is deeply flawed. It is putting the horse behind the cart, because they are blinded by generous subsidies for HPs.

    Average Vermont House

    Based on my many years of energy systems analysis experience, I claim, the average Vermont house is totally unsuitable for HPs.

    It is down-right criminal for New England governments to cajole/browbeat/scare/force people to install HPs in such houses

    Summary of CADMUS Report

    – The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200/y, but the annual maintenance, and annual amortizing costs (at 5.5%/y for 15 years) would turn that gain into a loss of at least $500/y.

    – On average, the HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%. These numbers are directly from the survey data. 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.

    – 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.

    – Very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL.
    – At those temperatures, the hourly cost of operating HPs exceeded the hourly cost of using a traditional heating system.
    – This statement is true for average Vermont houses, which comprise about 90% of the Vermont housing stock.

    – On average, an HP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season, of which:

    1) To 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%. The HP cycles to “heat on” to “heat off”, but the fan keeps running
    3) Defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

    The HP overhead was (2085 – 205)/1880 = 10.9%, i.e., 10.9% more electricity was fed to the HP than was converted to space heat.

    – Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500 (2017 pricing); almost all surveyed houses had just one HP, which would be far from sufficient to heat an entire house. See URLs.

    CADMUS Survey of Vermont Air Source HPs

    CADMUS, an energy consultant hired by the Vermont Department of Public Service in 2017, performed a survey of 77 HPs at 65 sites, in Vermont. See URL of CADMUS report

    VT-DPS was advised by the Vermont Legislature to obtain an “independent” study, because many people with HPs had complained, they did not get anywhere near the annual energy cost savings stated on websites, etc., of GMP, BED, VPIRG, VT-DPS, EAN, EFFICIENCY VERMONT, etc.,

    NOTE: The CADMUS report was written in such a confusing way, the average Vermonter, including almost all legislators, would not be informed by it, and would be more confused by it, unless they had a mechanical engineering degree, with applicable experience.
    I do have the degree and experience, so I could analyze it.

    HP Operating Data from Survey

    Figure 14 in the CADMUS report shows, the measured total electricity consumption, kWh, of all HPs was 8 kWh at 66F, then increases to a maximum of 97 kWh at 28F, then decreases to about 5 kWh at -12F. That kWh includes about

    Whereas the building heating load was increasing, because it was getting colder, the measured electricity to the HPs was decreasing!!

    That decrease could only happen, if Vermonters turned off their HPs, to save on electricity costs.
    Instead, they used their less-costly-to-operate traditional heating systems, such as oil, gas, propane and wood stoves.

    Deceptions by HP Proponents

    Vermonters operate their HPs mostly above 28F, which yields an average coefficient of performance, COP, of about 3.0. See figure 14

    HP proponents brag Vermonters get about 3.0 x 3412 = 10,200 Btu/kWh of electricity.
    However, proponents do not mention, if Vermonters had operated their HPs below 28F, the COP would become less and less
    Vermonters would get only 2.0 x 3412 = 6,824 Btu/kWh of electricity at 10F, or 1.6 x 3412 = 5,460 Btu/kWh at 0F

    The lower COPs occur while the building heating load is increasing, i.e., it is very expensive to operate an HP at low temperatures.

    Computer Program to Determine Heating Consumption

    CADMUS used a decades-old, standard, HVAC computer program that takes the hourly temperature history of one heating season (or averages, say 5 years of heating seasons).
    The temperature history is obtained from US weather data.

    The computer program allocates the frequency and duration of temperatures to two-degree temperature intervals, also called “bins”.
    See URL of CADMUS report; horizontal axis of figure 14

    The space heat to a site is calculated for each two-degree bin, say 32 F – 34 F; 34 F – 36 F; 36 F – 38 F, etc.
    The total space heat to a site is obtained by adding the space heats for all two-degree bins.

    The computer program calculated the following values, as stated in the CADMUS report:

    – Space heat to a site was 92 million Btu, of which 25.35 million from HPs (27.6%), and 66.65 million from other fuels (72.4%)
    – Space heat to all sites was 65 sites x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu. See CADMUS URL, page 22
    – Space heat from HPs was 77 HPs x 21.4 million Btu/HP = 1,648 million Btu. See CADMUS URL, page 21
    – Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72.4% of the total space heat.
    – HPs provided only 100 – 72.4 = 27.6% of the total space heat for an average Vermont house. See table
    – Heating season average COP = 21400000 Btu/HP x 1/2085 kWh x 1 kWh/3412 Btu = 3.0

    Energy Cost Savings

    The energy cost savings averaged about $200/y, instead of the $1,200/y to $1,800/y grabbed out of the air by GMP, VT-DPS, VPIRG, etc.

    After the CADMUS report, those overblown estimates disappeared from their websites. See URLs.

    The CADMUS report data is summarized in the table


    I have three Mitsubishi HPs ($24,000 – $2,400 subsidy from GMP) in my well-insulated/sealed house.
    I displace only 35% of my propane Btus, based on MEASURED consumption data during 3 years.
    I do not use my HPs below 15F, because they are less efficient PER HOUR than my efficient propane furnace.
    I save about $200/y in energy costs, but if I amortize the cost of the HPs over 15 years, I lose about $2,000/y

    NOTE: Due to recent increases of propane prices, I will operate my HPs down to about 10F to 15F (depending on wind conditions and passive solar gain), which means, I will:

    1) Displace more than 35% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus,
    2) Have a greater CO2 reduction.
    3) Have a much greater monthly electric bill.

    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.

    • Thank you for the extensive information on Heat pumps. Vermont as with other northern states can be a challenging area for HPs and Solar due to our climate and lack of sun. If it works here, it could work anywhere I believe. I noticed your start up costs for the Mitsubishi models, the leader in quality of HPs, was certainly higher than I experienced with my lesser quality brands by about $18,000. I am going into year 4 with my 3 units and have yet to turn the oil on, using firewood for half of my house and HPs for the other half. My electric bill has increased $50 per month with the one unit running 24/7 and one running 2 hours per day, to get the chill out. Running the oil during this same time last year with wood stove, was approx 65 gallons per month. That would be $325 with my present fill cost, for a savings of $275. With a 6/7 month heat that would be a savings of close to $2,000, the cost of one HP recouped and after year 4 I will be close to flush. All HPs are rated at 5 above min outdoor temperature and as you say lose most efficiency as the mercury drops. However my experience has been running these in 10-25 degree cold weather has little increase in kw hours. I believe now many HPs are rated at -5 to -18, and yes the efficiency decreases with colder weather, however minimally, IMHO. This of course is impacted by each start up cost and until that is comparable to fossil fuels, you are correct in your assessment of low usage vs clean fossil fuel and firewood.

      • James,

        Your installed turnkey cost was $18000 for three HPs, with THREE heads?
        My turnkey cost was $24000 for three 24,000 Btu/h HPs with SIX heads.

        My results are based on measured data, i.e., logging the kWh to each HP, and logging the Btu sent to indoor space.

        I also have the performance curve of my propane furnace, and by logging the feed and return temperature and time, I get the Btu sent to indoor space

        I calculate the fuel used from the performance curve

        After the first season a heating system performance curve was developed, and used during the second and third season

        The operating numbers agree with my bills.

        The CADMUS study and DPS found the average saving of 77 heat pumps at 65 sites was about $200/y per HP

        It would be a total miracle to have savings of $2000/y from 3 HPs, unless you were living in a super-insulated/sealed house that uses very little heat to begin with.

        • “Your installed turnkey cost was $18000 for three HPs”. No, mine were $18k less than your cost. 3 units totaling 40k BTU for $6,000 after rebates. 1 was installed and 2 were DIYs with a small electric install cost. My home is small of course with a total of 2000 sq and mostly heating half with HPs weather permitting. Still have not turned on the fossil furnace to date. Im guessing with your install you have a larger footprint.

      • All HPs are rated at 5 above min outdoor temperature?

        No manufacturer states such a rating

        What do you mean by that?

        Industry standard rating, Btu/h, of HPs, IN A LABORATORY, is at 47F

        • That is the min outdoor temperature rating for HP heating operation. Many being manufactured now are as low as -18. Again, mine have run all winter 24/7 with no issue.18,000 Max Btu/h @5℉
          27,000 Rated Btu/h @47℉
          27,000 Rated Btu/h @95℉
          COP @5℉: 1.87
          HSPF: 10.3

  7. You are spot on Mr. Roper. The Left get’s all it’s “power” by creating “fear” onto the (ignorant) masses…and climate change is how they do it. Almost all of it is scientifically false…the climate is controlled by ever changing Mother Nature, almost totally…. but if people believe it’s “man-made”, they get scared & then they vote for those that created the fear (all Dems, Libs, Progressives and Socialists) tio SAVE THEM… – and then place blame where….guess where!…You say this:

    “Make no mistake: environmental activists have put gas stoves in their sights for elimination as part of their climate agenda. They will use their various megaphones to call this misinformation “and a fear tactic” right up until the point where the ban goes into effect.”

    Go back and see what Machiavelli wrote hundreds of years ago…from Italy. Create “fear” and you gain “power” (and, with power usually comes money and fame)

    “Machiavelli’s historical observation that “whoever controls the people’s fears becomes master of their souls.” The formula for achieving such mastery has not changed in millennia: stoke any fear, turn the fear to hate of whomever and whatever you accuse of standing in the way of safety, and make yourself the agent of that hate.”

Comments are closed.