Roper: Start saving for your government-mandated kitchen remodel

By Rob Roper

The Vermont Climate Council continues its discussions about what they plan to do — or more accurately, what they are going to force you to do — in order to lower Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Public domain

If your home or restaurant uses gas for cooking today, you better start planning to rip that system out and replace it with electric.

During the Sept. 2 meeting of the Cross Sector Mitigation subcommittee, talk turned to eliminating fossil fuel use for cooking 100% by 2035 (44–55 minute mark). This means that if your home or restaurant uses gas for cooking today, you better start planning to rip that system out and replace it with electric.

While you’re ripping out your gas stove, you might as well replace your oil and gas water heating systems, which will be illegal by 2035, and oil and gas space heating systems, which will be illegal by 2040. “Ozone depleting substitutes” are also on the list, so that could mean a new refrigerator and freezer.

That’s for existing structures. If you’re starting from scratch, any new construction will have to be “net zero energy” by 2030. How exactly that is to be achieved remains unclear, but it doesn’t sound cheap.

If any of these people realize that we have an overall housing shortage and an acute shortage of affordable housing in Vermont, they clearly don’t care. That maybe unfair — the Global Warming Solutions Act passed by the Legislature really doesn’t allow them to care. The council’s role is to reduce GHG levels to a legally mandated level regardless of any damage done to other aspects of the economy, individual households, or other government priorities.

This is a horrible way to govern. If a committee were charged with finding a way for you to reduce your weight by 40% by a deadline in the not too distant future, they could achieve that goal by chopping off your legs. You’ll bleed to death, but they can check their box. Mission accomplished.

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.

Image courtesy of Public domain

14 thoughts on “Roper: Start saving for your government-mandated kitchen remodel

  1. How will they enforce this?
    Will they show up at my house with a search warrant?
    We are just here to look around to make sure you are in compliance.
    Will they limit delivery of propane to my house?
    Will they mandate that I use a certain amount of electricity per month to verify I am not supplementing with propane?
    Maybe they can check my vaccine passport and poke around for any other type of subversive material like the American Flag while they are here.
    Sig Heil

  2. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) confirmed Sunday that he will not vote for a $3.5 TRILLION “budget reconciliation” bill that contains a number of climate, social welfare, and other initiatives, arguing that the price tag is far too high. He would CONSIDER $1.5 TRILLION
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/manchin-confirms-he-will-not-vote-for-3-5-trillion-budget-bill-sanders-fires-back_3993422.html

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) won’t “have my vote on” the package, Manchin said during a CNN interview, adding that “Chuck knows that, and we’ve talked about this.”

    The West Virginia senator argued that too much money been spent by the federal government in recent years and expressed concerns about further increasing the national debt.

    “We’ve already put out $5.4 trillion and we’ve tried to help Americans in every way we possibly can, and a lot of the help that we’ve put out there is still there, and it’s going to run on and on until next year, 2022, so what’s the urgency?”

    Manchin told the network. “What’s the urgency that we have? It’s not the same urgency that we had with the American Rescue Plan. We got that out the door quickly. That was about $2 trillion.”

    At the same time, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described Democratic Socialist, who celebrated his honeymoon in the USSR more than 30 years ago,, told ABC News on Sunday, he disagreed with Manchin’s call for a pause to debate the measure.

    Sanders, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, keeps on saying, not only the $3.5 TRILLION will get passed, but he also believes the infrastructure bill will also pass.

    “I think we’re gonna work it out, but it would really be a terrible, terrible shame for the American people if both bills went down,” Sanders said. HE LOVES INCREASING THE FEDERAL DEBT TO $35 TRILLION

    Speaking to CNN, Sanders, in a panic, also said that it’s “not acceptable” that Manchin will not vote lockstep with ALL other Democrats on the measure. In the equally divided Senate, even one Democrat senator’s defection could doom the spending package, and Republicans have signaled they will not support the legislation.

    Finally, there is a big payback for the evil of stealing elections and perpetrating a coup d’etat.

    Democrats also hope to pass the bill via budget reconciliation, which allows a party to pass a bill with a simple 51-vote majority instead of a supermajority.

    The Senate returns on Monday and the tentative deadline for the committees to turn in their 2500-page draft bills is Wednesday.

    US Senators have complained they would need a lot of TIME just to read and digest all those 2500 pages, but they have gotten almost NOTHING this far.

    Also in the CNN interview, Manchin disputed a Sept. 27 deadline that was publicly proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    She wants to start spending $3.5 + $1.2 = $4.7 TRILLION dollars by then. That is of-the-charts NUTS

    “There’s no way we can get this done by the 27th if we do our job,” Manchin remarked. “There are so much differences that we have here. There’s so much apart from us to where we are, i.e., Bernie is, as usual, way out there in left field.

  3. Help required:

    I remember reading, some while ago, the experience required to become a Climate Change expert.

    In a discussion with a friend (more alarmist then skeptic), yesterday evening, I stated that to become a ‘learned fellow’ in Climate Change, you probably needed some post-graduate experience in the following fields (ologies).

    His partner was even more alarmist, believing every word that David Attenborough has ever muttered on the Climate!

    The first six, I reeled off, but I will return and highlight others.

    Have I missed any other important ‘ologies’?

    Climatology
    Meteorology
    Glaciology
    Heliology
    Geology
    Oceanology

    Paleoclimatology
    Aerology
    Geobiology
    Helioseismology
    Nephology
    Planetology
    Seismology
    Selenology
    Volcanology

    Please help.

    I’m unsure, if the following “ology” should have been included

    Proctology

  4. HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

    EXCERPT

    Wind Solar and Battery Projects are Tax Shelters for the Wealthy, whether Domestic or Foreign

    Per standard Wall Street practice for tax-shelters,

    – The cash value of the subsidies to Owners has to be about 45 to 50% of the turnkey cost of RE projects
    – The subsidies are “front-loaded”, i.e., in the first 5 years, to enable Owners to shelter as much income as possible in the early years; aka harvesting subsidies.
    – The entire project cost has to be written off in about 5 years, no matter the length of the project, per MACRS IRS rules. See URL.
    – Owners or VT utilities receive 9%/y on their invested capital, per Vermont Standard Offer RE-Promotion Program.
    – Owners or VT utilities may finance up to 50% of the project cost, currently at about 3.5%/y, per Vermont SO program
    – Owners or VT utilities are paid about 11 c/kWh (solar), 9 c/kWh (wind), delivered as AC to the grid, per Vermont SO program; the NE grid electricity wholesale price has been about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009.

    This explains why Wall Street investment bankers, such as Bloomberg, Lazard, Morgan, etc., are in favor of more and more RE projects for their wealthy clients, such as Warren Buffett.

    https://solarplusllc.com/macrs-and-bonus-depreciation/
    https://norwichsolar.com/vermont-commercial-and-industrial-solar-incentives/
    https://vermontbiz.com/news/2019/october/22/owner-gmp-and-vermont-gas-will-get-new-ceo

    Warren Buffett Riding the Subsidy/Rapid-depreciation Gravy Train

    Quote: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate, for example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment

    Green Mountain Power, GMP, Riding the Subsidy/Rapid-depreciation Gravy Train

    Vermont utilities buy about 1.4 million MWh/y of hydro power, at 5.7 c/kWh, under a 20-y contract, from Hydro Quebec. The HQ electricity is not variable, not intermittent and does not cause midday solar bulges

    GMP, a Canadian company, refuses to buy more hydro electricity from HQ, because that electricity would just be a “pass-through”, on which GMP would make minimal profit. HQ has plenty of electricity and is eager to sell it. This approach requires no subsidies!!

    GMP rakes in millions of our hard-earned money, by investing in: 1) utility-scale solar/battery combos, 2) leasing heat pumps and 3) wall-hung Tesla batteries for playing “catch the peak games”.

    GMP rides the subsidy gravy train, and plays the “green, forward-looking utility” role.

  5. Here is another example of burdening Vermont’s economy with BS energy systems

    The below excerpted article has cost analyses of wind, solar and battery systems.

    Only part of the analysis of a battery system is excerpted

    US electricity would be one hell of a lot MORE expensive, than at present, if the liberal-arts, Socialist/Communist, nutcases “handling” senile, in-the-basement Biden have their way.

    Excerpt from

    HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

    Economics of Battery Project

    If a bank makes a $3.0 million loan at 9%/y for 15 years, it would require annual mortgage payments of $365,136, to recover the loan, plus interest.
    If GMP makes a $3.0 million investment in a battery system at 9%/y for 15 years, it would require annual payments of $365,136, to recover the investment, plus a 9%/y return on invested capital.

    Cost of financing would be 5,477,040, total payments – 3,000,000, turnkey cost = $2,477,040, paid over 15 years.
    It is assumed GMP finances the battery from its own resources
    It is assumed the value of the battery system is about zero at end of Year 15.
    https://www.myamortizationchart.com

    Revenue is $179,880/y, RNS and FCM reduction + $7,653/y, arbitrage gain = $187,533/y.
    Revenue shortfall is 365,136, required by GMP – 187,533, revenues = $177,604/y

    Subsidies need to be 177,604, revenue shortfall + 102,468, bulge control loss + 18,899, battery loss = $298,971/y, which would be charged to ratepayers and taxpayers and added to government debt. See Notes and table 4

    Battery average draw from grid is 859,068 kWh/y / 365 d/y = 2,354 kWh/d
    Battery rated capacity is 4000 kWh/d as AC
    Battery average CF = 2354/4000 = 59%, which is within the 65% working range

    Cost of paying GMP = (365,136, required by GMP) / (859,068, annual throughput) = 42.50 c/kWh.
    Cost of subsidies is 298,971/859,068, annual throughput = 34.80 c/kWh
    Total cost of battery operations 70.31 c/kWh. See Note

    NOTE: This report shows values of battery owning and operating costs of 46 to 65 c/kWh, which are similar to the 70.31 c/kWh of this analysis. See page 19 of URL
    https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1254196/FULLTEXT01.pdf

    Ignored Costs of Solar and Battery Systems

    1) O&M, which includes on-site use of electricity, labor and materials
    2) Miscellaneous costs, such as insurance, etc.
    3) Decommissioning and disposal of battery plant
    4) Build new battery plant to serve for 10 years, i.e., 25y, life of solar plant – 15y, life of battery plant

    NOTE: A minor revenue could be obtained by using the battery for frequency regulation, i.e., rapidly absorbing and discharging very small quantities of electricity to maintain the grid frequency and voltage within the prescribed ranges.

    NOTE:
    – The GMP battery project is similar to a person buying a big house, without having enough income to make the monthly mortgage payments. Luckily, that person has parents, who voluntarily make up the shortage each month!!
    – The GMP battery project does not have enough revenues. Luckily for GMP, ratepayers and taxpayers are coerced to make up the shortage each month!!
    – GMP wants to spread many heavily subsidized solar/battery combos all over Vermont, as part of its expensive “micro-grid, climate fighting” strategy, which will be good for GMP financial results, but not good for ratepayers and taxpayers and the Vermont economy.

    Comments on table 4

    1) Gain from FCM and RNS Reduction

    Significant revenue can be obtained by having the batteries reduce GMP peak demands, and thereby reduce RNS and FCM charges. These charges, imposed by ISO-NE, are a major expense of any utility.

    The “Game of Picking Peaks” amounts to cost shifting from clever, early-adopter utilities, onto other utilities.
    The ISO-NE costs of running the grid do not decrease. They continue to be spread among utilities.
    The Game will end after more utilities learn to play the game.

    The RNS value is $116.11/kW-year, or $9.68/kW-month, for 2020/2021
    The FCM value is $5.30/kW-month, for 2020/2021

    RNS reduction would be 1,000 kW x $9.69/kW-month = $9,690 for a month, or $116,280 for 12 months
    FCM reduction would be 1,000 kW x $5.30/kW-month = $5,300 for a month, or $63,600 for 12 months.
    Total reduction = $179,880/y

    https://www.sandia.gov/ess-ssl/publications/SAND2017-6164.pdf
    https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2017/02/20170228_pr_fca11_final_results.pdf
    https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets/

    2) Gain from Arbitrage

    A very minor revenue can be obtained by “buying low, at night-time, and selling high, during peak hours”.

    The battery could be partially charged from the grid from 10 pm to 6 am, at about 4 c/kWh, and be charged some more by absorbing a part of the bulge from 8 am to 4 pm, after which it would be discharged to the distribution grid from 4 pm to 10 pm, when, on average, grid prices are 7 c/kWh.
    The arbitrage gain would be $7,653/y.

    3) Loss due to Midday Solar Bulge

    The battery could absorb 0.45 MW of solar output from 8 am to 4 pm = 0.45 x 8 h = 3.6 MWh as DC; which after a 7% loss, would add 3.35 MWh DC to the battery charge, which after a 10% loss, would deliver 3.01 MWh AC to the distribution grid, from 4 pm to 10 pm, when, on average, grid prices are 7 c/kWh.
    The bulge control cost would be $102,468/y. See Note

    Expensive solar electricity at 17.27 c/kWh, of which 20% is lost, due to charging/discharging, with the left-over sold at 7 c/kWh!!
    Would that loss be charged to owners of solar systems, who are the grid disturbers?
    Oh no, because that would “rain on the solar parade”

    The bulge electricity costs 17.27 c/kWh. The quantity should be determined by measurement.
    This calculation uses 4 c/kWh for all charging, i.e., the arbitrage gain is overstated!!

    4) Battery loss is $18,899/y, as shown under Here is a More-Detailed Analysis

  6. This morning I saw the news that our local hospital has shut down its maternity ward, due to multiple healthcare professionals quitting, rather than being forced to get an experimental injection!

    They have bills to pay, a family to support, yet they have said: enough!
    Kudos to these brave, principled people, some of whom have resigned from a position that they have been involved with for decades.

    How about the rest of us? At what point do we say that we’re not going to take it any more?

    It seems like most citizens will tolerate a loss of their rights and freedoms, if it is done gradually — like slowly turning up the temperature of a pot with a lobster in it.

    Most citizens have already looked the other way about innumerable recent liberty extractions:

    — like a state mandating that wind energy must provide 30% of the electricity. What happened to the free market?
    — like the federal government demanding adherence to “climate change” policies. What happened to real Science?
    — like universities forcing “woke” propaganda into the curriculum. What happened to critical thinking?
    — like the Attorney General attempting to block forensic election audits. What happened to election integrity?
    — like governments requiring that certain citizens must get an experimental injection. What happened to our body, our choice?
    — etc., ad nauseam.

    When is enough, enough?
    Maybe it’s when we realize that there is a pattern here, and that these are not random abuses.

    Maybe it’s when we realize that the direction these are taking is towards Socialism/Communism.

    Maybe it’s when we realize that the only power that governments, etc. have, is what we have voluntarily granted them.

    Maybe it’s when we realize that by tolerating these abuses, that it’s perceived as compliance and weakness — which invites more injustices.

    Maybe it’s when we realize that good people are in the majority — and that working intelligently together, we can defeat these assaults on our rights.

    Maybe it’s when we realize that we need to collectively and aggressively push back against these attacks on our freedoms.

  7. Do not worry.

    There WILL be many more unconstitutional mandates, such as for EVs and Heat Pumps, both of which:

    1) Reduce LESS CO2/year, if the analysis is based on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis.
    2) Are a VERY EXPENSIVE solution to space heat buildings.
    3) There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would EVER pay for themselves.

    Here is may PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with HPs, which is supported by the VT-DPS survey of 77 HPs in Vermont houses. See below.

    Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people’s houses)

    I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
    The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-ashps-is-based-on-misrepresentations

    Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House:

    The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3500 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

    I do not operate my HPs at 10F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures. The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my highly efficient propane furnace.

    High Electricity Prices:

    Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would: 1) increase electric rates and 2) worsen the already poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

    Energy Reduction and Cost of Energy Reduction

    Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

    After HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,244 kWh of electricity.

    My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
    My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
    My electricity cost increase was 2244 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $449/y
    My net cost savings due to the HPs were $253/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

    Amortizing Heat Pumps:

    Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
    This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
    https://www.myamortizationchart.com

    Other Annual Costs:

    There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
    This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

    CO2 Reduction and Cost of CO2 Reduction

    CO2 reduction of the displaced propane would be 300 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal = 1.728 Mt/y, and the CO2 of the increased electricity would be 2244 x 317 g/kWh = 0.711 Mt/y, for a net reduction of 1.728 – 0.711 = 1.017 Mt/y, if based on the realistic ISO-NE value of 317 g/kWh

    Cost of CO2 Reduction would be (2,059, amortize – 253, energy cost saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/1.017 Mt/y, net CO2 reduction = $1973/Mt, which is similar to money-losing, very expensive, electric school buses. See URL
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at

    Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing

    If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house, for starters, would use very little energy for space heating, i.e., not much additional energy cost saving and CO2 reduction would be possible using HPs

    If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system down to 5F (which would involve greater defrost losses), I likely would displace a greater percentage of propane, and have greater annual energy cost savings; much would depend on: 1) the total energy consumption (which is very little, because of my higher-efficiency house), and 2) the prices of electricity and propane. See Note.

    I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced (low COP), would be about 34,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

    However, any annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, and parts and service costs. i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

    NOTE:

    1) About 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Vermont houses are highly sealed and highly insulated
    2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poor people.

    Heat Pump Evaluation in Vermont

    VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses:

    – The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200.

    – 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 report.

    – Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 24F, and very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL

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

    1) Operation of 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) Operation in standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;
    3) Operation in defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

    – Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP. See URLs.

    On average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.

    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou
    https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20

    NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP
    See page 10 of URL
    https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf

  8. Since most electricians and plumbers have fled the state due to the ridiculous laws requiring insurance they don’t need, no one will be able to have the required electric appliances installed that use coal instead of gas. By the way, where does Vermont get their electricity? Ohio? West Virginia? Are these people serious? If I sue, I will win. Don’t they know that?

  9. These people are insane . Too bad there are so many ‘useful idiots’ to carry out their plan to ‘fundamentally change America’…..in other words,destroy America.

  10. This is the worse piece of public policy legislation I have ever seen come out of Montpelier. Gov. Phil Scott had the common sense to veto the bill but his veto was overridden.

    When are voters in this state going to have the common sense to vote these bought and paid for politicians (bought by special interest groups) out of the legislature.

    In the end if these committee recommendations are enacted, Vermonters will pay dearly and Vermont will have had zero effect on the total global carbon loading. Everything always falls on the backs of working Vermonters, while the wealthy feel little impact but will feel so good about accomplishing nothing.

  11. By 2035 there should be no police departments left in the State, so who’s going to stop the delivery of propane from free states?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *