By Michael Bielawski
Burlington’s carbon tax on buildings that don’t follow the city’s carbon-free energy goals for heating takes effect on Jan. 1.
The “carbon pollution impact fee” applies to developers seeking permits to work on new or existing buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger, with an exception for existing housing and historic buildings. The fee is set to be $150 per ton of emissions.
This occurs while online pundits note that the Green Mountain State seems to be following closely California’s costly green energy policies. The Essex GOP noted the trend on X (formerly Twitter.)
“What do you think? Will Vermont learn from the mistakes of others or will we just do it ‘better’?” Essex GOP wrote.
Californians paying 27% more for energy
The Essex GOP was commenting on a The Washington Examiner story headlined, “California admits its reckless renewable energy dream is failing.” Zachary Faria wrote that as the true costs of carbon-free energy came to light when state energy regulators recently voted to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant until 2030.
Faria wrote, “The renewable energy dreams that Democrats are selling are frauds, and even California Democrats have shown that to be the case now. The rapid transition to unreliable forms of energy is not possible in its current, dreamed time frames.”
According to a report by EnergySage.com, Californians pay $2,712 per year on electricity, about 27% above the national average of $2,141. Energy affordability has become so serious that the state is planning to redistribute the cost based on income.
Short on megawatts?
Vermont similarly shut down 620 megawatts of nuclear power when it closed up Vermont Yankee in 2014. To put that power into perspective, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, all five of Vermont’s wind farms combined today for 150 megawatts. All of Vermont’s solar capacity currently combines for 288 megawatts
The true cost of all these turbines and panels is sometimes underestimated because they receive massive state and federal subsidies. A report by the Institute for Energy Research indicates that in 2022 energy sources considered renewable by the state got $15.6 billion, while much more widely used carbon-based production only got $3.2 billion.
City counselor wants higher tax
Even before the tax has been implemented, Gene Bergman, P-Burlington City Council, wants the carbon tax to be higher.
“Everybody has got to do their share. This is a share that we can do,” he said to WCAX.
He wants the tax to go up another 35% to $234 per ton of carbon and he also wants to expand the number of buildings that would be held to this requirement.
Vermont’s green ambitions unattainable?
Vermont’s Climate Council, an unelected body of policymakers tasked with coming up with a plan on how to reduce carbon emissions by various checkpoints in the coming decades, may have failed to achieve this goal.
According to commentator Rob Roper of Behind the Lines at Substack.com, rather than come up with a tangible and measured plan to achieve these reductions, they rather came up with a laundry list of unrealistic suggestions.
“It was/is an a la cart menu of pretty much every climate-related boondoggle policy they could think of dropped into an Excel file with no cost analysis, timeline for implementation of programs, etc. Not a plan,” Roper wrote.
Lawmakers getting cold feet?
The economic reality of converting all of Vermont’s energy into carbon-free sources of energy has prompted lawmakers to make reviewing the state’s Renewable Energy Standard a priority for this legislative session.
All this is to try and have Vermont get 75% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2032, with 10% from in-state, with more benchmarks to be sought in the decades to follow.
For homeowners, to achieve these goals home heating is largely expected to switch over to highly subsidized cold-climate heat pumps. Similarly, drivers are expected to switch over to EVs, despite a recent study showing that the true cost of a new electric car is nearly $50,000.
The author is a reporter for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Burlington, Business, Energy, Environment, Local government
Big question:
What did Socialist’s have before Candles?
Answer:Electricity!
The socialists used to refer to themselves as “liberals” until that word developed a taint, then they switched to “progressives”. Now with demands for such backward steps in technological evolution, can we now refer to them as “regressives”? Before there was fossil fuel indoor lighting such as natural gas and kerosene, there was whale oil, but we can’t even use that now…
this is how they do it, can’t get it done on a state level, advance it locally, same with LOT tax, same with 2a and article 16, etc, etc. they are organized, no doubt
I think Gene Bergman should donate all of his wealth to help all of the initiatives he wants to fund. If it’s so existential then he surely should do that for his family and community he cares so much about.
Progressive means a march right to poverty.
“Progressive means a march right to poverty” Except for Boinie, He’ll still be a millionaire, with three houses ! The duplicitous d bag !
Well I feel like that was to keep the rest of the progressive Clinton’s (err Democrats) out of prison for cheating him out of a potential presidency run (God forbid he ever got in)
“God forbid he ever got in” Amen !
Do the people of Burlington not realize that they dieing the death of a thousand cuts, and that they are delivering them to themselves ? (commiting economic and political suicide) Wake up Burlington ! Your present politicians and their politics are killing you. I have to admit that if it wasn’t for the fact that as Burlington, and the rest of Chittenden county goes, so goes the rest of Vermont, that I’m really at a point where I would say “You are unnecessarily hurting yourself. Allow me to sharpen your knife so it cuts more cleanly” you dumb ____s !
Burlington’s progressive leadership, again more liberal nonsense being shoved down taxpayers’ throats, a city ridden with Debt, Crime, Drugs, and Homelessness and this is a priority……..Oh yeah, Vermont is leading in saving the planet, with all nine thousand square miles of land within its border…………If you spit in the ocean, that’s what all this BS will amount to……………………………
So when all this new magical building ends, who is going to pay for the so-called carbon-free energy goal ?? Yes, yes that will be anyone renting these properties,
the old saying Sht-runs downhill, so get ready !!
Build it and they will come, but not to Burlington.
In a latest fox news survey based on web searches, Burlington was listed as the 7th most crime ridden place in the nation. I guess they’re shooting for number 1.
I think they’ll succeed. And then Vermonters will be so proud they’ll vote Miro Slimeberger in as Governor.
Vermont is already the most carbon neutral state in the nation. It also has the smallest impact one way or the other. All of these taxes are nothing but feel-good, emotionalist, virtue signaling nonsense. If you really think carbon is causing catastrophic global warming, and you really want to stop it, you’re going to need to starve a few billion POCs to death in the Eastern hemisphere.
And who really pays in the end?
Correct! You and me!
Big business will never allow themselves to bite the bullet; it always comes back to higher prices for the consumer.
It is a trickle down catastrophe. The people on the bottom will end up paying for this.
Yup the people at the bottom get tinkled, er trickeled down on .
Why isn’t it reported over and over that Vermont is already at net zero carbon neutral. Actually it is better than that. We take out a lot more carbon than we put in because of our forests, ag land and wetlands. There is nothing that we can do to actually have an impact on the environment.
I’m a bit worried. You see, us humans are remarkably efficient CO2-enrichment machines to the tune of 100x. We inhale 0.04% CO2 but exhale 4% CO2.
So how long before they tax our very exhalation? Or……..??
It’s not a climate tax but a fleecing scheme. If this doesn’t put a fork in Burlington, I’m not sure what will. Lack of housing, homelessness, overtaxed businesses, rampant illegal drug use, assaults, murders, and overall general mayhem. Why would anyone want to patronize this once great City? Those that do are supporting the Regressives who are only interested in further using the city as their Marxist training ground.
And the fools in local government can’t figure out why people leave the state after college and why companies don’t open factories here. I’ve been in Vermont all my 53 yrs and will be out of Vermont by my 55th if not sooner.
The state representatives and Burlington city council should pack up and move to California or wherever they came from.
According to EPA and disputed by Burlington, the McNeil power facility emits 440,000 tons of carbon annually. A question for our Chittenden County legislative elected officials. How much of an increase will the Chittenden County taxpayers pay for their electric use for the carbon tax created by the emissions from the McNeil Power plant?