Vermont and Massachusetts compete to leave taxpayers with the largest climate bill

By David Flemming

Twelve years before Vermont passed the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2020, Massachusetts passed its own GWSA in 2008. The two policies mirror each other closely. Perhaps that’s irrelevant, if you discounted politicians’ need to one-up each other.

Vermont’s GWSA requires us to reduce our carbon emissions 26% below Vermont’s 2005 levels by 2025. Massachusetts’ GWSA requires that the state reduce emissions 25% below its 1990 levels, five years sooner, by 2020. Also set out in that 2008 bill, Massachusetts hopes to get to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the exact same goal as Vermont’s GWSA.

And while many have called into question the feasibility of Vermont’s GWSA goals in the past, Massachusetts state Sen. Michael Barrett believes Massachusetts will reach its GWSA 2020 goals. However, Barrett notes that “a bitter consequence is that we’ve met our climate (GWSA) goals by bringing an end to all kinds of human behavior. This isn’t the way you want to meet your goals.”

Public domain

Vermont’s and Massachusetts’ so-called climate leaders are paying more attention to the ambitious “climate action” plans of other states than the costs that they will force their own taxpayers to shoulder.

Massachusetts only reached its 2020 goal because of Covid-19 restrictions on travel. If it takes a pandemic for Massachusetts to reach it goals, that should tell you how many sacrifices Vermonters must prepare to make to reach our 2025 GWSA goals, never mind the 2050 goal.

While Barrett cites Massachusetts’ return to normal CO2 levels in the second half of 2020 as a reason for seeking a more ambitious GWSA, other, more nefarious forces could be to blame.

Massachusetts lawmakers and lobbyists are seeking to create stricter sanctions for their GWSA by instituting an “independent climate policy commission to monitor the state’s progress in achieving its goals … (composed of) scientists, journalists, academics and representatives from organized labor and minority communities.” Sound familiar? Vermont’s 23-member Climate Council comes to mind.

And months ago, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker announced the state’s plans to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. This will require more sacrifices from industry and taxpayers than the Massachusetts 2008 GWSA’s 80% reduction goal.

Since the Massachusetts Legislature and governor are on the same page, it seems inevitable that Massachusetts may soon leapfrog Vermont for title of State Climate King by turning the net zero 2050 proposal into law.

But lobbyists are never satisfied with what the political status quo, however hurtful to taxpayers it may prove to be. “I worry that (Massachusetts is) slipping away as a leader,” said Sam Payne of 350 Massachusetts. Payne and other lobbyists are calling for net zero carbon emissions in Massachusetts 20 years sooner than Baker’s proposal. Such a costly goal is “entirely achievable” if you take Payne’s word for it.

You can bet that Vermont’s 2020 GWSA will soon become the “lightweight climate position,” and Vermont’s green lobby will look to retake our climate leadership mantle from Massachusetts by somehow surpassing net zero by 2050, rather than a “mere” 80% by 2050. Vermont temporarily gained the advantage for most powerful unelected state bureaucracy when the Vermont GWSA created the Climate Council. Our legislators will need to keep crafting climate legislation if they hope to keep pace with Massachusetts.

Although there is a political appetite for zero emissions by 2030, it would be economically devastating. An upgraded electric grid equipped to handle thousands of small solar generators comes with a  $1.2 billion price tag — and that doesn’t include the unknown higher cost of renewable electricity. The grid upgrade proposal last saw action in committee in March 2020, but now that GWSA is law as of September, no doubt our legislators will give it greater consideration in 2021.

Vermont’s and Massachusetts’ so-called climate leaders are paying more attention to the ambitious “climate action” plans of other states than the costs that they will force their own taxpayers to shoulder. But real leaders don’t feel the need to constantly re-commit their followers (many of whom are unwilling taxpayers) to seek grander goals with each passing year — especially not when successively larger swaths of each state’s respective economies would need to shut down to achieve them.

David Flemming is a policy analyst for the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.

Image courtesy of Public domain

7 thoughts on “Vermont and Massachusetts compete to leave taxpayers with the largest climate bill

  1. DAVID F

    The largest climate bill?
    Here is a PARTIAL estimate.
    It likely is too low.

    Very few legislators have any idea how much it will cost to MANDATE the implementation of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

    Phase 1
    26%+ below 2005, i.e., (1 – 0.27) x 10.22 = 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, to “meet Paris”.

    The Council would take about a year to develop plans, which means most of 2021 would have elapsed before any action.

    The actual CO2 reduction would be from 9.02 million metric ton, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46 MMt, Jan. 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period.

    The turnkey capital cost would be about 1.56/2.28 x 13.70 = $9.37 billion, or $3.12 BILLION/y

    Currently, Vermonters and the VT and federal governments spend about $200 MILLION/y, on heat pumps, electric vehicles, insulation/sealing, solar systems, wind turbine systems, grid extension/augmentation, battery systems, etc.

    The GSWA-MANDATED CO2 reduction appears to be a physical and financial impossibility.

    See table 1 and Note in URL.
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warming-solutions-act-a-disaster-in-the-making

    Phase 2
    40%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 – 0.40) x 8.59 = 5.15 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2030
    The CO2 reduction would be 7.46, Jan 1, 2025 – 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 = 2.31 MMt, during the 5-y period
    No capital cost estimate was made by me, or anyone else.

    Phase 3
    80%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 – 0.80) x 8.59 = 1.72 MMt, by January 1, 2050
    The CO2 reduction would be 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 – 1.72, Jan. 1 2050 = 3.43 MMt, during the 20-y period
    No capital cost estimate was made by me, or anyone else.

    • ADDITION

      Reducing such a large quantity of CO2, about 1.56 MMt at the start of 2025, requires ramping up capacity, MW, during 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.

      Hopefully, there will be enough capacity to reduce Vermont’s annual CO2 to 7.46 MMt, at the start of 2025.

      I have about 40 years experience in all phases of energy systems, analysis, design and construction.

      Vermont will not be able to do that, i.e., the resources far exceed what is available to Vermont.

      Mandating such build-outs, because of GWSA, would be far beyond irrational.

      Any rational engineer at the VT-DPS would agree, but likely would not, because he might be out of a job.

      • ADDITION:

        In general, almost all people have not a clue regarding how much it would cost to “meet Paris by 2025”.

        Luckily, EAN has a plan, but did not provide a capital cost. See URL.
        https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-final.pdf

        Luckily, I have about 40 years of experience estimating the cost of energy systems, so I prepared an estimate of the capital expenditures, CAPEX.

        Based on my experience, I judge EAN’s measures to “meet Paris by 2025” a complete fantasy.

        However, such nonsense is accepted by VT Legislators, who know next to nothing about energy systems, and by the GWSA Climate Directorate Committee of 23.

        1) EAN wants to have on the road 90,000 additional EVs, at a cost of $3.6 billion, plus chargers, at a cost of $0.18 billion, to reduce CO2, but if the CO2 analysis is performed on an A-to-Z basis, 190,141 EVs would be required, at a cost of $7.61 billion, plus 190,141 chargers, at a cost of $0.38 billion.

        2) EAN wants to perform 90,000 deep retrofits of houses, at a cost of $2.7 billion; regular weatherization, at $10,000, is grossly inadequate.

        3) EAN wants to install 90,000 air source heat pumps for space heating in the 90,000 upgraded houses, at a cost of $0.45 billion to reduce CO2, but if the CO2 analysis is performed on an A-to-Z basis, 139,385 ASHPs would be required, at a cost of $0.7 billion

        4) EAN wants to install 90,000 ASHPs for domestic hot water in the 90,000 upgraded houses, at a cost of $0.27 billion

        5) EAN wants to increase wind turbines on pristine ridgelines, at a capital cost of $0.10 billion
        6) EAN wants to increase solar systems from 438.84 MW of panels at end 2019 to 1000 MW of panels, at a cost of $0.57 billion
        7) EAN wants to increase grid expansion/augmentation, at a cost of $0.1 billion
        8) EAN wants to install battery systems to fight DUCK-curves, at a cost of $0.9 billion, and pay solar system owners $0.3 billion for curtailments, as part of “Fortress Vermont”.
        9) EAN wants to increase in state hydropower, at a cost of $0.09 billion

        Total CAPEX would be $9.25 billion, of which short-life systems would be $5.7 billion, but if the CO2 analysis is performed on an A-to-Z basis, the CAPEX would be $13.7 billion, of which short-life systems would be $10.15 billion.

        All that from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2025, 5 years, to meet Paris, per EAN, and as mandated by GWSA to implement the VT-CEP!

  2. Oxygen to CO2, then CO2 to Oxygen. That is the tree (plants) of life.
    Eliminate CO2 and the creation of oxygen ceases, as do the Regulators lives.

    Nothing new, 5th Grade Science.

  3. Maybe more abortions, euthanasia for all older than 75, and death camps for the appropriately “selected ” will do the job. Why not? Dictators love control and have hated humans throughout history, so why not destroy a designated percentage of humans to achieve their crazy climate change goals ? 1984 and Brave New World and Solent Orange all at once! The perfect solution!!

Comments are closed.