By Alison Despathy
As the eye-opening details of the proposed Clean Heat Standard surfaced over the past several years, many Vermonters perceived this law would hinder their ability to afford heat, run a small business and/or pay for other living expenses.
However, their concerns had trouble breaking into the sunlight of public opinion because the law was hidden behind deceptive names and messaging – Affordable Heat Act, ‘renewable’ energy, and questionable promises of support for low and moderate income Vermonters.
Nevertheless, a surge in public understanding about the Clean Heat Standard is now profoundly apparent. During the recent public comment session with the Public Utilities Commission tasked with designing this policy, a wave of Vermonters shared concerns about the danger of the Clean Heat Standard. Rejecting this legislation was the resounding theme.
All of the comments – pro and con – can be seen here. But as many Vermonters’ expressions of concern were under-represented for so long in the public discourse, and because the 2025 Legislature must consider whether and how to proceed with CHS implementation, here’s a sampling of some of the concerns.
John Burns shared, “The Clean Heat Standard is an experiment on Vermonters, and those who can least afford it will suffer the most. Do not proceed with this.”
“We don’t live under a dome in Vermont, we all care about the environment, but we are the mist of a drop in the water on this issue. The ridiculous cost of this to already over taxed VT’rs is not reality. While the USA ships coal to China/India to help fuel their old and new forthcoming coal plants, our legislators think it’s a good idea to force this down our throats when it will do nothing to improve the situation. We are all in this together globally and until we are all in it together this bill is insane.” Ray Keefe
“Repeal Act 18 and disband the unelected Climate Council.” John Lincoln
“The CHS is overly complicated, has a lack of agreement on emissions accounting, has different models giving different results, has a lack of clarity on costs and has the potential for fraud as the PUC has pointed out. Administrative costs are likely to be enormous to meet the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act, most of the emissions reductions will come from biofuels. Biofuel costs are just as volatile as fossil fuels. Also, recent science shows that biofuels create just as much if not more pollution and greenhouse gases as fossil fuels.” Mark Nelson
“It takes a very special kind of stupid to even consider adding a greater cost to heat our home. As a fixed income family, the current inflation rate has almost doubled our heating estimates. We have had to lower our thermostat and wear extra clothing due to the cost increases from D.C. As bad as that is, we are even more upset that people in control of Vermont are now going to make the situation worse….Congratulations to the ignorant people in the Vermont House and Senate who are more concerned with the appearance of controlling climate change than the wellbeing of their constituents. You all deserve the stupid of the decade award. Disgusted and colder again.” Arnold Clough
Erika Walch explained that this CHS is “Wrong in every way. Trying to force people to use electricity by raising the cost of wood, oil and propane is just plain crazy and shows how out of touch the legislature is from regular, working-class Vermonters and elderly people.”
Walch explained that “People are going to be forced to choose between heat and food/rent/mortgage/housing. She stated, “The electrical grid is profoundly unreliable. I am a customer of Green Mountain Power and my power goes out at least once a month. I have had several multi-day outages including two five-day winter outages…. if I had electric-dependent heat during this time, my water pipes would have frozen and the house would have been damaged….”
Jim Peabody broke down the unrealistic goals of the GWSA which is the driving force behind destructive legislation such as the Clean Heat Standard.
“The Global Warming Solutions Act is law and mandates that Vermonters lower our greenhouse gas emissions to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Those dates and targets are not negotiable. These dates and targets cannot be met without spending millions or even billions of dollars from Vermonters….”
Mary Beerworth’s submitted comment stated, “Our son and his family have moved out of Vermont two months ago. My husband and I cannot pay ANY increased fuel costs living on a fixed income. NO MORE of the NONSENSE. Scrap the plan and stop the MADNESS.”
Rene Carpenter acknowledged that, “The PUC has been put into a difficult position by the Vermont Legislature which failed to listen to thousands of constituents who tried to explain why the Clean Heat Standard will not work for us. It is offensive that our leaders have chosen to attribute our comments to the corporate propaganda of the likes of the Koch brothers –as if we can’t think for ourselves and/or don’t understand the economies of our own households.”
Vermont Departments and Non-Profits Chime In
The Vermont Department of Mental Health, the Department of Labor and Vermont non-profits have also commented on the devastating impacts of this proposed Clean heat standard.
Emily Hawes, Commissioner at the Department of Mental Health stated, “As heat is an essential need in Vermont, rising heating costs have significant implications for mental health across communities. The inability to maintain safe and warm living environments can lead to feelings of helplessness and isolation. As affordability decreases, individuals and families face heightened stress and anxiety related to financial instability.”
Michael Harrington, Commissioner at the Department of Labor explained that many costs associated with the Clean Heat Standard will be shouldered by employees. This additional overhead could have negative effects on wages, future wage growth, and the total number of workers in Vermont.
Harrington noted that, “Any added costs to Vermonters receiving unemployment benefits will diminish the level of support those claimants receive as they search for new employment. It will also inhibit the ability of employers to increase wages and expand employment opportunities.”
A devastating story of poverty and heating struggles was submitted by Pete Antos-Ketcham who works at New Community Project (NCP), a non-profit dedicated to social justice and ecological healing to promote a more peaceful world. NCP focuses on developing responses to climate change and helping rural, low income Vermonters save energy and money. They are deeply concerned about the financial impact of this CHS because their target group live in poorly insulated structures and already spend a disproportionate amount of income on energy costs.
Antos-Ketcham told the story of a woman whose furnace died in the middle of the winter. She could not afford a replacement and did not qualify for assistance. “For several months, this woman lived with an electric space heater in a closed off part of her trailer with blankets to retain warmth. Her pipes froze while she waited for someone to help”
If it wasn’t for the work of NCP, she would have not received a new furnace. Unfortunately because of the conditions of her trailer, heating was inefficient and continued to be expensive. Due to his work and understanding of Vermonters’ situations and compromised housing stock, Antos-Ketcham urged the PUC that:
“A big push and broad weatherization of Vermont’s most inefficient housing stock will make the greatest improvements in the lives of Vermonters while creating jobs and meeting our carbon reduction targets in a much more effective and equitable way than the clean heat standard would.”
This overwhelming public response to the PUC demonstrates the deep-seated and legitimate concerns of this proposed CHS legislation as well as the unnecessary stress it is causing Vermonters. It is actually quite disturbing that the CHS made its way through the statehouse despite major attempts by constituents to urge elected officials to vote no. Fortunately many Vermonters are wide awake and taking action to work to end this Unaffordable heat act, including voting to dissolve the supermajority responsible for this nightmare policy which would only contribute to the existing affordability crisis.