By Rob Roper
It looked like the Clean Heat Standard bill, S.5, was going down to potential veto defeat in the Senate after massive public backlash over the estimated cost the program would have on home heating fuels. Then the Senate Appropriations Committee amended the bill with what they called a “check back” clause, by which — so they claimed — all the research would be done into what the bill would actually cost to implement and the rules governing the credit system would be fully formed and evaluated before the General Assembly would then have to vote on whether or not to move forward.
State Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison
Senator Chris Bray (D-Addison), chair of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, assured everyone that this meant we would be making a “full stop” before adopting a Clean Heat Standard. Some claimed that the provision turned S.5 into just another study bill, which is often a face-saving way to kill an idea. Anyway, the amendment assured that votes from key senators were secured, and the public breathed a sigh of relief.
But, as Behind the Lines warned at the time, do not believe all this. Re-inhale that sigh!
First point you need to know: Passage of S.5 ensures Vermont will adopt a Clean Heat Standard and its home heat “carbon credit” scheme. The “check back” does not in any way reconsider this point. It only ensures that the full legislature has to review and vote on the rules package the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) comes up with to oversee the program, as opposed to those rules being reviewed and passed by the eight member ( four senators and four representatives) Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules.
But now that the Clean Heat Standard bill is in the House, we are getting some clarity as to just how hollow even that level of “check back” really is. For one thing, it isn’t really a “check back” or a “circuit breaker” at all, it is a — new term — “throttle down.” Definitely not a “full stop,” and it can’t even be called a pause. And, most important, the “throttle” has a serious regulator on it, much like the bus in the movie Speed.
Kyle Landis-Marinello and Thomas Knauer, General Counsel and Policy Director respectively for the PUC testified before the House Energy & Environment Committee on March 30 to weigh in on S.5 as it passed the senate.
In discussing the “check back” Landis-Marinello explained, “There are a lot of unknowns about what the ultimate cost is going to be of the Clean Heat Standard, so when we dive into this, if we’re given this to implement, we may find there is good cause to pause the implementation until there is a larger work force or for different reasons.”
Knauer corrected his colleague’s use of the term “pause,” instead preferring to say, “throttle down.” Knauer went on, “We want to achieve the full amount of emissions reductions, but a potential study or market factors might indicate it’s not technically feasible. The workforce isn’t there, there might be other factors that indicate getting 100% of our goals over the next three years just isn’t there. So, we say ‘throttle down’ to some fraction – 90%, 80%, something like that.”
Okay, so that is not the “full stop” Senator Bray and company promised. But at least there is some responsibility built in for the legislature to re-evaluate whether or not to go forward with a Clean Heat Standard given the facts on the ground, right? Nope. Not really. In fact, kind of the opposite.
Rep. Seth Bongartz (D-Manchester) astutely pointed to the sentence in the bill that states, “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].”
“What if you had to throttle back to 50% or whatever. That actually would materially affect [our ability to meet the mandates in the GWSA], so is there a conflict?” asked Bongartz.
“Yeah, there could be,” agreed Landis-Marinello, at least regarding the 2030 and 2050 target mandates in the GWSA. “If we have a pause – not a pause, a ‘throttling back’ – in the early stages, how much we throttle back will be dependent upon whether it can be done and still meet the 2030 [mandate].”
Bongartz continued to wrestle with this obvious Catch-22. “And yet if it’s not feasible—I mean is it possible you can have a conflict where you determine for whatever reason it is not technically feasible and yet, if you do [throttle back to an extent] because it’s not technically feasible it would materially affect – is there a conflict in that?” Yes, and this is a feature, not a bug.
Landis-Marinello later confirmed, “As this is written, it is clear that any ratcheting down that we make cannot materially affect our ability to meet those Global Warming Solutions Act requirements.”
So, to use the train-leaving-the-station metaphor that has been used with this issue before, the way this so-called safety measure works in practice is the S.5 train leaves station A at full speed upon passage this year (2023) in order to get to Station B on time in 2030. In two years (2025), we come to the section of tracks where the lights blink and bells ring to say potential danger ahead, consider “throttling down.”
But – and here is the big catch our lawmakers hope the public misses — the lights and bells are largely decorative. Even if there’s a bridge out and the train will crash killing all aboard, the conductor can’t legally slow down if it means you might be late to station B. And there is no feasible scenario where those two things can both happen. So the train blows through the barrier.
Now, as Landis-Marinello pointed out, the legislature can at any time pass a law saying “The PUC shall not implement the Clean Heat Standard.” True. Just as true, the legislature can pass a law at any time repealing the Global Warming Solutions Act. But they never mention this option, do they?
No, the Democrats and Progressives who passed the Global Warming Solutions Act did so in a manner calculated to avoid, at least rhetorically, their own accountability for whatever happens after. Rest assured, they are crafting S.5 in the same devious fashion.
Today they are saying, we have to pass the Clean Heat Standard because it’s the law under the Global Warming Solutions Act. Don’t blame us, our hands are tied! In 2025 they will say, we have to approve the rules put forward by the PUC because to change them or to not approve them would “materially affect the State’s ability to comply with the requirements of [The Global Warming Solutions Act].” Our hands are tied!
If voters do, in fact, want a true check back before a Clean Heat Standard becomes law, then we must demand that the legislature really make this a two year study of the concept. Then in 2025, revisit the Clean Heat Standard in total, not just the rules. That would be an honest policy. The safest policy would, of course, be to just vote the thing down tomorrow.
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
What do they think will happen to the people who cannot afford heat pumps and thousands to weatherize? Are they going to fine them for not having the money to life the liberal dream? — It appears the commies want to drive those people out of the state.
In the saga on the Affordable Heat Act, there has been much said about the future cost of fossil fuel, the upfront cost of weatherization, heat pumps, EV vehicles and whether there exists sufficient resources to install the huge numbers of these devices, to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction requirement. But there is another potential problem. It is the amount of electrical energy and the source of this energy that will be needed to replace the energy that was eliminated from burning fossil fuel.
According to the “Vermont Pathways Analysis Report 2.0”, prepared for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the demand for electrical energy will increase from 5,500 GWh/yr (in 2020) to 12,000 GWh/yr by 2050. Of the 5,500 GWh/yr, about 38% is generated in Vermont. The remainder is purchased from Hydro Quebec or through the grid (ISONE).
Looking at the amount energy not generated (burning fossil fuel) to meeting CO2e reduction requirements versus the estimated additional electrical energy (adjusted for efficiency), the 2050 estimate of 12,000 GWh/yr is conservative. By using this comparison, the estimate the 2050 figure needs to increase by 20-25% (meaning 14,400 to 15,000 GWh/yr).
The real potential problem shows up from the assumed sources for this increase demand for electrical energy. From the “Vermont Pathways Analysis Report 2.0”, for both years 2030 and 2050, they show a predominate dependency on “Off Shore Wind” as the source (purchased through ISONE). In 2030, “Off Shore Wind” energy accounts for 26% of the demand. By 2050, it accounts for 63% of the demand. Just as a side note, the percentage of electrical energy generated in Vermont drops from 38% in 2020 to 14% in 2050.
As other New England states convert from fossil fuel to electric energy (EV vehicles and heat pumps), their demand for electric energy will also increase in the future. Add to this, almost all of these states require that 100% of their electrical energy comes from renewables by 2050. And they are expecting “Off Shore Wind” to by their predominate source.
It is projected that by 2050, New England will need 45 GW of “Off Shore Wind” power to generate 181,000 GWh/yr. The other New England states, excluding Vermont, will demand all of this power (180,000 GWh/yr). And they are closing contracts to make sure they receive their share.
Add to this, the timeline to install all these “Off Shore Wind” turbines is staggering. By 2028, there are proposed plans to have 584 operational “Off Shore Wind” turbines (about 80 exist today but not all are operational). By 2050, the need will be to have 3,750 turbines operational. This is especially troubling since the BOEM (U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) timeline from ‘proposal’ the ‘operational status’ is 10-11 years. From a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, half of the U.S. offshore wind energy projects in the pipeline are at risk of being delayed beyond 2030 because of limited port and vessel infrastructure.
So Vermont may have ‘saddled’ itself to an electrical energy source with limited quantity availability and on a risky operational timeline.
Lance,
And that is all going to be built by a state that wouldn’t build a Hannaford in a food desert?
The “check back” is more PR bull sh..
There will be no moratorium on heat pumps, I.e., stop installing them, because that would interrupt the subsidized installer gravy train, and make the pie in the sky/grabbed out of the air heat pump target by so and so date even harder to achieve, because of a lack of qualified workers.
Based on my 3-y experience with three 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps with 6 heads, I was using 850 gal of propane for space heating, now use 550 gal, a reduction of 300 gal, but my electricity use and cost increased.
The net result was about $200/y in energy savings for each of the three years
But, that gets offset by annual cleaning of the heads and checking the heat pumps for $400, plus the annual payments of about $2300 for amortizing of ($24000 – $2400 subsidy from GMP) at 6%/y for 15 years
My house is well insulated and well sealed, much better than “weatherizing” an old house.
Heat pumps can be used in only highly-sealed/highly-insulated houses.
Vermont housing stock has only about 3 percent of such housing
I do not operate my heat pumps at outdoor temps below 10 F, because operating my efficient propane furnace would cost less per hour.
My next-door neighbor converted a garage into living space. She put in a wood stove and a heat pump. I forewarned her.
She was looking at her spinning electric meter when it was 10 F and quickly turned off her heat pump and started up her wood stove she had as back up.
She said: Heat pumps are nice for air conditioning, and heating in spring and fall, but when it gets cold, it is best to turn them off, otherwise my electric bill would go through the roof.
What is left to say?
I myself is thinking as running as a try independent as soon as I get a good campaign manager. Number one thing no new fees or increase start by stopping waste full spending on 1 time appropriations and finds ways to save make vermont financially better and more affordable and work with federal law makers to bring in high paying jobs and manufacturing into Vermont
Great job Mr. Roper. The GWSA’s “so sue me” provision must be scrapped in the next session of the legislature for the reason’s mentioned by PUC, ANR, EVT, Fuel Dealers, Plumbers, Burlington Weatherization program – “no workforce to meet our current demand, let alone a 1000% increase”. PUC Commissioners are hard working public servants but they are not magicians.
Senator Dick Sears asked about the checkback provision on 2/28 in Senate Appropriations, “I don’t understand why we’re studying something when we’re already putting the mechanism in place to change the standards and acquiring the fuel credits and all the things that are in this thing when it came to our committee.” He then voted against the bill in Committee, but had his arm twisted when it came to a vote on the floor of the Senate. His concerns with the “checkback” have only been confirmed as you have clearly shown. Will he do the right thing when Governor Scott’s presumed veto comes back for a vote in the Senate? His vote may be the deciding one. If he listens to his constituents it should be an easy decision.
It’s time to round up the liberals destroying vermont and either send them to Ukraine or euthanize them.
Option B.
They voted for it- so it’s good.
These kinds of maneuverings leave constituents in a “what’s
-gona-happen” fog. Perhaps that’s the intention. Wouldn’t it be useful if House and Senet rules called for a sunset provision attached to any law passed? The law expires on a give date unless there is impact evidence from the constituents to convince the legislators to re-endorse it?
It seems that the very easy way to avoid all of this corruption and misery to come from it, is to vote each and everyone supporting this lie out of office. Every candidate in 2024 needs to be asked if they support this monstrosity. What’s happening here and now should be remembered in ’24. The pressure to rid this abomination is in our hands as voters. Haven’t we seen enough from this group yet?
In order to vote them out, you have to have someone to vote in. Last November, Republicans didn’t have candidates for half of the seats. Recruitment has to start now!
I agree, but that’s nothing I can do and the blame for that is the republican party leaders including our republican governor who does nothing to support more candidates. We all know the problem and that is the leadership of the republican party.
Given what it costs to live now in Vermont, very few Normies (if any at all in many areas) have got the time to dedicate to this endeavor.
This isn’t an excuse, just a reality.
I can imagine that this point alone is how we wind up being controlled by rich, retired outta staters.. it’s not like Vermont produces lots of rich retirees..
Vermont is ruled by rich out of staters now. baruth, krowinski, bray and many others are where they are because of the donor class and the dollars this group brings to Vermont politics. Very successfully, Vermont has been manipulated into a totalitarian leftist state, with we the peasants having been distracted by inane things, like life and working (to pay taxes) and support Vermont’s high cost of living.
S.5 is only the next step in this totalitarian experiment. 2025 brings the Lawfare to Washington County courtrooms- and a brutal increase in gas and diesel fuels to “comply” with the GWSA.
Vermont, with it’s 600,000 population is but the testbed to see how far the marxist/liberal cabal can go in altering America.
Remember obama’s “fundamental transformation” promise?
We are the test case, and the only way out is move out.
Bob Roper
It is not about voting, but about COUNTING ballots and “registered” voter list, now under centralized control, I.e., control taken away from all Town Clerks
Mail-in ballots with dubious names and addresses, are sent to fictitious area codes.
They come back as “undeliverable”
A “trusted” universal ballot harvester obtains these ballots from the Post Office.
Those ballots get filled in
Those ballots are distributed to districts with close elections to tip the scales
They are fed into vote counting machines when no one is paying attention
In Texas, remember the Alamo, in Vermont, remember EB-5
In Texas, remember the Alamo, in Vermont, remember EB-5
S.5, nothing but smoke & mirrors for an agenda, citizens beware your so-called elected
officials, they really don’t care about you or your finical means, it’s an agenda, and your
concerns irrelevant !!
Wake up, people………………………
You can always count on a politician to lie.