|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Paul Bean
Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard (CHS), is moving towards what some are calling a “soft repeal” following last week’s 4-1 vote by the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee to combine the repeal bill (S.68) with another bill (S.65) that seeks to expand Efficiency Vermont’s funding.
Tacked onto S.65, regarding Efficiency Vermont climate change priorities and spending, a small, recently-added section repeals the Clean Heat Standard (see pg. 187) would delay for two years the imposition of a CHS fuel dealers’ registry. S.65 was termed “legally unsound” by the Public Utilities Commission in a March 12 letter.
The bill went to the Senate floor Tuesday, where it was sent to Finance Committee for more work. It’s up for a run-through in Finance this afternoon, Wednesday March 19.
On Friday, Vermont Fuel Dealers spokesman Matt Cota described the repeal provision in S.65, and the registry delay, as “a small step in the right direction.”
Fuel dealers have been pushing back against a registry, which lawmakers say would be essential to collect what amounts to a carbon tax on home heating fuel.
The bill passed through committee Friday would remove the ‘de minimus’ registration requirement of single purchases of camp stove propane, and would delay the registry at least until after November, 2026.
Last month, Senator Anne Watson (D-Washington) described S.65 as “a great opportunity, and bipartisan opportunity to take on the work of seeing if we could use the same amount of money and align it towards our climate goals.”
Renewable-minded legislators are looking to battery storage as a way to provide electricity as needed from intermittent solar and wind power. Vermont currently has a small infrastructure of grid-level battery storage, deemed by critics as too expensive. S.65 would use Efficiency Vermont money to create more. Under S.65, Efficiency Vermont would provide “for the development, implementation, and monitoring of gas and electric energy efficiency, and conservation, electrification, active demand management, and energy storage programs.”
“The money that we give to Efficiency Vermont has certain rules around it that can be used,” said Watson in an interview outside the Senate committee room following testimony from Public Utilities Commissioner Chair Edward McNamara last month. Efficiency Vermont was established in 2000 to help Vermonters reduce energy costs and environmental impact through electrification and weatherization.
In McNamara’s testimony last month in reference to S.65 he warned “I think in Vermont, we tend to see a program that works and then either double down on it regardless of whether it’s the same work, or we take something else and slap it on top because we don’t wanna get rid of the existing program, So we end up with duplicate programs,” said Edward McNamara,
More recently Chronicle contributor Alison Despathy pointed out that Public Utilities Commission, which oversees Vermont’s public utilities and regulates their service, rates, and financial management, submitted a letter to Chair Watson on March 12 summarizing the what they see the core issues with S.65:
“S.65 is legally unsound because it contains internally conflicting standards and creates a regulatory morass likely to result in litigation as regulated monopolies compete over electrification and energy efficiency work. The PUC points out that this bill alters the “Longstanding legislative intent of the energy efficiency utilities and the energy efficiency charge” With S.65, “the energy efficiency charge becomes a tax to fund decarbonization programs.”
“The language of S.65 also creates direct competition among regulated entities in the provision of service to customers, creating higher costs and reduced efficacy of services.”
Due to concerns related to S.65, the PUC declared that “Vermont should keep electricity affordable because it is a relatively low emission energy source. Driving up the cost of electricity sends the wrong price signal during a time when the legislature is also trying to achieve greater electrification.”
“Anne Watson’s move to wrap a ‘Clean Heat Standard repeal’ into her heavily opposed and disruptive S.65 bill is weak and manipulative,” Alison Despathy criticizing the move. “Vermont can do better….Testimony against S.65 has focused on the bill’s unresolvable internal contradictions, distortion of the intended uses of the energy efficiency charge, interference in the services offered by Vermont electric utilities, and higher costs all around.”
Despathy criticized Watson’s comment to VT Digger where she said that repealing the CHS was “not really a big deal…we are not moving forward with the Clean Heat Standard at this time.”
“Key phrase ‘at this time,’” writes Despathy. “This is a gross distortion of reality.”
See all bills assigned to this committee here. Constituents may contact committee members (click link on name for bio, party affiliation, etc.) with comments, questions and information at the following email addresses:
Anne Watson, Washington County, Chair, awatson@leg.state.vt.us
Terry Williams, Rutland, Vice Chair, Twilliams@leg.state.vt.us
Ruth Hardy, Addison, rhardy@leg.state.vt.us
Seth Bongartz, Bennington, sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us
Scott Beck, Caledonia, sbeck@leg.state.vt.us
All committee transcripts are available at www.goldendomevt.com. Committee meeting video available at the committee’s YouTube channel. The committee meets in the morning in Room 8.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Energy, Legislation
If only there were a way to harness the friction between truth and lies as an energy source . . .
Why do democrats continually get away with these dirty tricks? They do it over and over and over again. Manipulative control freaks. We DON’T want this bill and we want the Global Warming “Solutions” Act reversed and we don’t want to be tethered to failing California’s asinine laws. We want the legislature to prevent CRIME, and to encourage the building of housing. We want them to get rid of the insane funding system for education and we want the teachers pensions to mirror what is in the real world so the state does not go bankrupt. Look at all the TIME they are spending on this nonsense. VOTE THE DEMOCRATS and PROGRESSIVES OUT!. And to think they want to be full time when they have no idea what to spend time on! It is so annoying. Why can’t people see through their blatant failure?
my feeling exactly. We have so many basic issues, yet they play around with stupid pet projects, wasting time and money. Its infuriating. I still think I’d like to see them go back to meeting every 2 years for 60 days and that it. Get the business done and get out.
Perhaps the writer of S65 knows that it is legally weak and likely to die. If the bill dies the everything within it no longer is valid, including the Clean Heat repeal. If this is the case, the Dems would succeed in killing the repeal. If S65 passes then the Dems still have until 11-2026 to kill the Clean Heat repeal. The Republicans might try a repeal referendum for the public to vote on, of start a statewide petition for passing the repeal and killing the GWSA. Getting rid of these will save a lot of money that can be put toward resiliency programs like flood controls.
Here’s a suggestion, strike all except for the sentence, “The Clean Heat Standard is Repealed”.
So simple!
Yo Carl.
Looks like the cave monkeys are still playing with your minds.
There is nothing more “legally unsound” than the Vermont Legislature and their fraudulent, corrupted, lawfare warfare against the People. No honor among thieves and reprobates.