By Rob Roper
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed out the ‘UnAffordable’ Heat Act (S.5) on Feb. 28 by the slimmest of margins, 4-3. It will now go to the full Senate for a vote most likely on Thursday.
The 4-3 squeaker came despite major changes to the bill that would require first a study to determine if a Clean Heat Standard is even feasible, followed by a proposal from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) outlining how the program would work and what it would cost (due in January 2025), and then require the legislature to vote again on a separate bill, subject to gubernatorial veto, to put the Clean Heat Standard fully into effect.
This is a major retreat by supporters of the Clean Heat Standard, especially Natural Resources & Energy Committee chair, Chris Bray (D-Addison) who has been dismissive, even contemptuous, of the idea that rules created by the PUC should ever be voted on by legislators. Nevertheless, even with these changes, Senators Dick Sears (D-Bennington) and Bobby Starr (D-Orleans) joined the lone Republican on the committee, Richard Westman (R-Lamoille) in voting no.
Why the retreat, dare we call it a rout? (Think Custer at Little Big Horn.) The public/voter backlash opposing what is essentially a Rube Goldberg carbon tax on home heating fuel, to steal Senator Dick McCormack’s description of the bill, has been massive. Legislators reported receiving multiple thousands of emails and phone calls protesting the attempt to purposefully increase the already high cost heating homes with fossil fuels – something an overwhelming majority of Vermonters do and is rather important in a state where winter temperatures are typically below freezing. At its heart this is a cruel and unusual piece of legislation, and the lawmakers pushing it for once got found out in time.
And why were the three no votes still skeptical of the bill even as re-written? As some good questions from Senator Sears revealed, although the amended bill requires a check-back and a separate vote regarding whatever rules the PUC comes up with to govern a “carbon credit” system, S.5 still establishes the unwanted credit system upon its passage, regardless of any future vote. In addition, S.5 — not the check-back vote —sets the requirement of the credit system it establishes as having to meet the greenhouse gas reductions mandates called for in the Global Warming Solutions Act regardless of whether the future study finds those goals feasible or not.
When Senator Sears specifically asked Senator Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia), chair of the committee and sponsor of the study/check-back amendment, if the credit system would still be baked into Vermont law regardless of new future actions required by S.5, she confessed she didn’t really know.
Sears asked, “If the study finds [the credit system] is not workable, would it be thrown out or still be part [of Vermont law per S.5]?… I can certainly support the amendments that have been proposed here, but whether I can support the bill or not—”
Kitchel admitted that S.5 still envisions a carbon credit system for Vermont and that she sees the amendment as a way to “move forward,” only in a more informed way. She also said her intent with the amendment was that a credit system would not move forward if it was found to be not feasible, but she admitted, “We need to be very clear on it.” And, “I need to have confirmation” that that’s what the language actually achieves. It doesn’t.
Even without that clarity or confirmation, she and three committee members, Senators Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden), Andy Perchlik (D/P-Washington) and Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden) voted to advance the bill — along with its $1.75 million price tag.
Just kill the bill!
With due respect to Senator Kitchel, a feasibility study is a waste of time and money. The people have spoken. They don’t want a carbon tax on home heating fuel. And we don’t need to spend $1.75 million ($250,000 of which is specifically allocated for the study, and the rest for bureaucratic support of the CHS) to find out that this whole scheme is unrealistic and unaffordable. It’s not.
We know for a fact that, based on the Energy Action Network and the Climate Council’s own data, that there are about 700 trained workers in the state able to do the work of installing heat pumps, weatherizing homes, etc, and 5000 are necessary by 2025 to meet the goals in S.5. Those 4300 workers aren’t going to materialize. Ergo, the plan is not feasible. End of story.
Even if those workers did exist, the cost of weatherizing 90,000 homes and installing over 120,000 heat pumps by 2030 – which together are only part of the work that must be done – is in excess of $2 billion by the most conservative estimates. We know for a fact that federal subsidies for these types of activities don’t approach that amount and they dry up in 2026. After that, there is no revenue source to pay for this – unless you plan to implement the same $0.70 to $4.00 “carbon credit” fee per gallon of fossil heating fuel that has the politicians running for their political lives today. So, again, neither economically nor politically feasible. End of story.
Senator Sears said at one point that this whole experience reminded him of Peter Shumlin’s attempt to enact a single payer healthcare system in Vermont. I share his sense of déjà vu.
Between 2011 and 2014 Vermonters spent multiple millions of dollars to study of how the program would work and what it would cost, only to conclude what critics had been saying all along: that it was unworkable and unaffordable. Shumlin ended up pulling the plug on the whole thing.
At the beginning of the single payer debate, my friend Wendy Wilton, who at the time was Treasurer of Rutland City, sat down at her kitchen table and – for free and in one weekend — crunched the numbers on Shumlincare and came up with a price tag that turned out to be almost exactly the same as what the multi-million dollar team of “experts” took three years to come up with.
Today, Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore provided a similar analysis of S.5, and Myers Mermel of the Ethan Allen Institute (the guy who has my old job) did an even more detailed and in-depth analysis that just shreds any argument that a clean heat carbon credit program like the one proposed in S.5 is possible or desirable. (See Mermel’s excellent report HERE.)
So, dear public servants, just kill the bill. Listen to your constituents and spend the $1.7 million earmarked for S.5 on something more worthwhile. That shouldn’t be hard to find.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
I don’t see any alternative being proposed that actually addresses the crucial issues.
I can certainly see the complications of this that make this legislation difficult to achieve the desired outcome.
So what is the alternative proposal that addresses the reality.
ignoring the reality of liars change and the potentially devastating effects is insane.
Fortunately the majority of Vermont voters understand that.
There need to be intense immediate errors to limit Fossil fuel
Use and translation to less destructive sources of energy as well as increased conservation and policy to promote those things.
We are already seeing the very first tentative effects worldwide. In 20 years they will be far worse.
I am Open to any suggestions that are more practical that fit with the scientific reality
What you read and what has lead you to your “reality” is not reality, it’s political BS. For every statistic or report you can provide that shows that “climate change” is an “existential threat” and can be controlled by the results of the “green new deal”, there is counter scientific evidence that refutes that belief. The current “climate change” political ideology is now (and has been for years) another tool for the UN to redistribute wealth while at the same time skimming off monies to perpetuate their existence.
The earth has, and continues to go through warming and cooling periods. Mankind’s time on this planet is but the blink of an eye. The whole “climate change” hysteria is nothing more that another tool to frighten people into doing what the government wants them to. The fools in the state legislature are going to destroy the Vermont economy, and as a result more and more people are going to be forced to move somewhere else. The problem with the Vermont legislatures is that they are so full of themselves that they cannot comprehend the results off their legislation.
Who gave them the authority to tell us how to heat our homes?
Nobody, the government serves us, we don’t serve the government.
But Rob how are we going to save the world if we don’t remove the 0.003% (probably a even lower percent) of carbon which is mostly consumed by our forests? You don’t understand the urgency to get it done while commies are still in control /s.
These people are clueless to the fact China India and most of the rest of world could give a crap how much co2 they put out which would negate our output savings in a day…
Conservation Law Foundation and the believers are always wrong, but never in doubt. — We need a law that makes them pay the cost for analysis of everything they want. And removes them as a non-profit, so they pay taxes on their endless money.
The sad thing is that the uber-enviro-activists with Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) have so much sway and power in Vermont…they zero in on every Dem/Liberal/ Progressive legislator….probably even some R’s….to cement THEIR agenda to follow ! The CLF is neither a populous “elected” entity, nor are they an “appointed” entity….the People/State of Vermont never authorized the CLF to have so much power in VT. But they do. And what the CLF can’t get “done” via “influencing” legislators….then, step B is to sue in court, tie a your TARGET up…make them pay $$$ to defend…..It is called “LAWFARE”..and history shows the CLF usually LOSES in the end….but they just do it again…keep appealing to higher & higher courts…until the Supreme Court makes them lose. This is what the CLF did in the cases of Lowes and Stowe Mtn (parking-lot-is-Bear-habitat), multi year lawsuits..
But even worse…the CLF did win one battle…the CLF single-handidly halted the Essex Circ Highway for almost TWENTY YEARS, in all kinds of courts. Finally after about 20 years, the State gave up…CLF won. Even tho’ the State had it ALL FUNDED & PERMIT APPROVED 20 years earlier. But after 20 years the costs became so great it was abandoned. And the State and Essex are worse off for it. It was a big part of the REASON why IBM left VT….VT had promised IBM they would get the Circ Highway built to their plant. The CLF refused and halted it….Lawfare….
I’ve said before, when the book/obituary is written on the collapse in VT…the CLF deserves a long chapter, IMO.
To all,
They just don’t care, about your financial situation or any Vermont citizen’s concerns
on or when this boondoggle is passed, they don’t care, constituents mean nothing all
what matters is an agenda, come hell or high water !!
Wake up people, they will kill this state if we let them…………………………………
After watching the video I am convinced that the liberal state legislature is comprised of a group of people who are so convinced that the world is going to come to an end because of “global warming”, that they are allowing themselves to be led by a nonexistent force that they only imagine exists. The bill is so full of dictates that are based on assumptions, that when someone actually asks for clarification on a potential result of the law, no one has an answer.
They are nothing but one big mutual admiration society that pats each other on the back every time they pass more laws that they believe will make the world a better place, with total disregard for the economic and financial reality of their actions.
Laura, you do not have to predict an exodus. It is already underway and I have many clients who are looking to get out of Vermont. The current legislature is creating a utopia for deadbeats, complainers and activists. The only problem is they can’t prevent the folks with money from leaving. Many of those folks are selling their homes in VT to non-residents, which of course is contributing to the housing shortage, but not to the income tax.
No, what these clowns are going to try to do next is tax those after they move out, as CA is trying to do.
A lot of this is a Democrat Jobs Bill… that is why they move on doing studies on a bill that the people have clearly stated they do not want.
And further.
Has the legislature even considered the fallout of “saving the planet” for the average Vermonters- who they work for and draw a salary from?
I predict a mass exodus of families and businesses out of Vermont because the legislature will perhaps be creating a state where there is little to no hope of survival- nevermind creating a decent life and future for the youth.
Home values will plummet as lawsuits stack up. People will leave because who wants to endure this failed state?
Laura, you do not have to predict an exodus. It is already underway and I have many clients who are looking to get out of Vermont. The current legislature is creating a utopia for deadbeats, complainers and activists. The only problem is they can’t prevent the folks with money from leaving. Many of those folks are selling their homes in VT to non-residents, which of course is contributing to the housing shortage, but not to the income tax.
No, what these clowns are going to try to do next is tax those after they move out, as CA is trying to do.
It’s time for common sense Vermonters to march on the capitol and demand this piece of liberal stupidity be shelved.
Mr. Roper…boy-oh-boy will the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) be furious if the bill fails. The CLF is the “Wizard Behind The Curtain” mandating all this of climate change nonsense. The CLF excels at lobbying Dem/Liberal/Progressive legislators…and they do what the CLF tells them and says.. If the bill fails, watch and see what the CLF does next….it will be all out “Lawfare-Warfare”.. They NEVER give up on their false ideology…and what they can’t get thru the legislature, it is Plan B next.. .they will tie up, in Courts, as many as possible… a myriad of bogus climate change lawsuits…and whomever they sue, will have to spend $$$ to defend. And the CLF will lose, but then just tie it up and appeal, appeal, appeal. They did that EXACT THING suing against the Essex Circ Highway, Lowes and Stowe Mtn parking lot. They have near unlimited resources to do it….while others suffer. It is a classic Saul Alinsky playbook. You wait and see.
Jeffrey is anyone learning the lesson here?
The voters of Vermont have for decades voted all their power away to the state and this is what they’ve gone and done with that power.
People in Vermont are now actually being controlled by unelected Zombies living who knows where..
Can anyone see yet what the purpose of Checks And Balances is all about? the dangers of being victim of a Super Majority?
Can anyone see where this unchecked power and control has led too?
Perhaps it time for a true opposition party? (notice I didn’t name it?)
With but 24 months left before the lawfare suits can begin, alphabet environmental groups have no doubt already begun drafting their torts.
Regardless of the outcome of S.5, these suits were written into the GWSA, by the same groups that will litigate in 2025. The 2020 legislature codified the GWSA over Scott’s veto, knowing full well the impact. That legislature’s leadership proved to whom legislator’s owe their allegiance to, and it ain’t the citizen. This legislature will compound the intentional damage to be wrought upon the taxpayer, the consumer and the ‘marginalized’ populations they loudly proclaim to be protecting.
Phil Scott is but another actor in this theatre of the absurd- from yesterday’s news conference: “So there’s no confusion, I want to be clear, my administration agrees with many of the same objectives as legislators, like reducing emissions from the thermal sector,” Scott said, “But, I firmly believe we need to help people make changes, not punish them.”
Very well, governor, when technology can provide the equivalent Btu’s of a gallon of oil, from equivalent cost of electricity- I’m in. Until then, it’s best you listen carefully to your constituents and veto accordingly. Just like senator ms. becca white’s family does- I’ll be my own fuel importer- Because the 2 ductless split HVAC systems I’ve installed in my own house, won’t heat my house at 15 degrees.
WHAT ELECTRICITY ??!!
250,000 ? ELECTRIC CARS?
100,000 ALL ELECTRIC HOMES
NO NUKES, NO DAMN DAMS NO NEW POWER DAMS
CLOGGING UP OUR RIVERS AND STOPPING THE FISH
BESIDES! WE ALL KNOW THAT ELECTICITY COMES FROM THE OUTLET ANYWAY!!