Major overhaul in climate legislation expected in 2025

By Paul Bean

Over the past few years, the energy battle in Vermont has been intense, and following the November election it’s about to get even more interesting.

So, if you’re sitting by your Christmas tree, get cozy, throw another log on that wood-stove before it gets regulated into oblivion, and let’s revisit some of the most important energy stories of 2024!

Then they came for your firewood
This FYIVT.com article by Dave Soulia highlights the push by environmental groups to exclude firewood from Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard (CHS), despite it being a renewable and essential heating option for many Vermonters. Soulia warns that such policies, along with aggressive regulations on vehicles and energy systems, are driving up costs and creating unnecessary burdens for working- and middle-class families. Soulia calls for a more balanced approach that supports local energy solutions, strengthens infrastructure, and reflects Vermont’s values of independence and resilience, rather than relying on symbolic, one-size-fits-all environmental initiatives to appease energy special interests.

Roper: Clean Heat Standard comes with $17 BILLION price tag!
Behind The Lines Author and Chronicle contributor, Rob Roper explains how the Clean Heat Standard (CHS) program in Vermont was initially estimated by Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore to cost Vermonters $2 billion over its first five years, with a 70¢ per gallon increase in heating fuel costs. However, a later report revealed that the program’s actual cost would be far higher—$17.3 billion between 2026 and 2050, including $7.25 billion for the first five years.

Roper explains that critics believe Moore’s estimates were too low, and the costs for Vermonters could be even worse, with a projected $3.20 per gallon carbon tax. Roper highlights concerns that these calculations omit administrative and social safety net costs, which could further exacerbate the financial burden. Roper argues that the lawmakers who passed the program without a full cost analysis acted negligently, if not fraudulently, and warned that the overall cost of the program could lead to economic disaster for Vermonters.

Despathy: Clean Heat Standard unworkable, threat to businesses, frustrated fuel dealers tell State
Chronicle Contributor Alison Despathy explains that Vermont’s small fuel dealers are strongly opposing the proposed Clean Heat Standard (CHS), which they argue threatens their businesses and livelihoods. Act 18 requires fuel dealers to either provide non-fossil heating alternatives or pay a surcharge, which will fund subsidies for these alternatives. Dealers are worried about the difficulties of predicting fuel sales months in advance, fearing significant penalties for inaccurate predictions.

Despathy explains their argument that the proposal unfairly favors large businesses over small, locally-owned businesses and could force them to sell out to larger companies, limiting competition and harming rural Vermonters that rely on these small companies for heat.

Critics also call the program a disguised tax and warn that it will drive up costs for consumers and burden small businesses. Many feel that the program’s complexity and the Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) lack of understanding of the fuel industry will only make these issues worse, potentially eliminating vital small local providers.

As $17B cost of Clean Heat Standard becomes news, House Speaker blames Koch Brothers PAC
VDC’s own Guy Page reported back in July on Vermont Speaker of the House Jill Krowinski addressing concerns about the Affordable Heat Act, following a state report revealing that implementing the law would cost $17 billion over the next 15 years.

Krowinski criticized what she called ‘misinformation campaigns funded by out-of-state groups,’ particularly the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, which have ‘spread false claims’ about the bill, including misleading information about mandatory heat pump installations.

She argued the Affordable Heat Act, passed in 2023, aims to protect residents from volatile fossil fuel prices, for example the increase of heating oil costs from $2 per gallon in 2020 to $5.87 per gallon in 2022. Krowinski emphasized that the bill is still in the drafting stage, with public input and legislative review to follow. “Our mission is clear: adapt to climate change, lower our emissions, and promote sustainable and affordable energy options for heating and transportations. This is imperative to support an economy that works for all Vermonters,” said Krowinski.

Report: Clean Heat Standard could add $1000 to filling oil tank
Page reported back in September on a study released by the State of Vermont explaining that implementing the Clean Heat Standard (CHS) could lead to an increase of more than $4 per gallon for home heating fuel, potentially adding over $1,000 to the cost of filling a typical 250-gallon heating oil tank.

The study estimates the total cost of implementing the CHS at $9.6 billion. However it also projects societal benefits of $11.7 billion, resulting in a net benefit of $2.1 billion. These benefits include “avoided social, economic, and environmental damages.” However, the exact distribution of costs and benefits remains unclear, particularly regarding who will bear the burden of the increased fuel prices. State officials caution that the figures presented in the study represent ‘upper-bound’ estimates, and the final costs will depend on other factors, including market credits and potential savings on implementing the CHS.

State foresees fraud in carbon credit scheme

The Vermont Public Utilities Commission (PUC) raised concerns back in October about the feasibility of the Clean Heat Standard’s proposed ‘carbon credit’ exchange system, which it deems costly, complex, and prone to fraud. The PUC suggested shifting away from this system and instead implementing a simpler “thermal energy benefit charge,” which is basically a carbon tax on heating fuels like oil and propane.

This charge would help fund clean energy technologies and carbon-reduction projects, attempting to avoid the high administrative costs of managing a carbon credit market. While the PUC is also exploring biofuels as a potential cost-effective alternative, critics warn that the carbon tax could lead to significantly higher heating costs for Vermonters, potentially in the billions.

Study: 80% carbon cuts in New England means doubling electricity rates, rolling blackouts
A new report from several New England think tanks, including the Ethan Allen Institute, warns that the region’s aggressive carbon reduction goals, such as Vermont’s target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, could lead to unaffordable electricity rates and rolling blackouts. Through reliance on weather-dependent renewable energy like wind and solar, rates could double and cause rolling blackouts due to the region’s volatile weather.

The study estimates that complying with New England’s decarbonization plans across multiple states will cost $815 billion by 2050, driving up residential and commercial energy bills, with potential cumulative costs of up to $51,914 per person by 2050. The report argues that the costs of renewable energy policies may outweigh the environmental benefits, leaving New England with an unaffordable and unreliable energy grid.

Beck: It isn’t Moderate to crush Vermonters
State Rep. and soon-to-be elected State Senator Scott Beck (R-St. Johnsbury) explained back in August that initially, estimates of the carbon ranged widely, with some predicting it would be minimal, while others feared it could be as high as $4 per gallon. A study, commissioned by the Public Utility Commission estimated the cost will be far higher than anticipated—$7 billion from 2026 to 2030, and an additional $10 billion between 2031 and 2050. These costs are projected to burden Vermonters with a per capita fee of $11,058. He points out that, despite these findings, there was little opposition from the supermajority, with many legislators still framing themselves as ‘moderates.’

“One might expect that members of the super majority or any candidate hoping to join the super majority would reject the Clean Heat Standard as poor policy and pledge to oppose it in January after hearing NV5’s estimate,” writes Beck. “I haven’t heard a peep. Instead, I hear existing super majority legislators and aspirants repeatedly claim they are moderate. It isn’t moderate or compassionate to crush Vermonters because they can’t afford an additional carbon fee to stay warm in the winter.”

Roper: The real misinformation about the Clean Heat Standard
Just before the November 5 election. Behind The Lines author and Chronicle contributor, Rob Roper explained the argument by supporters of the CHS that the program will ‘only add a small fee’ to home heating fuels and help lower-income Vermonters. Roper explains the program’s costs are expected to cost way more initial estimates, with administrative costs alone potentially surpassing $20 million annually.

Additionally, the program is viewed as ‘regressive,’ meaning it would disproportionately burden low/moderate-income Vermonters who rely on fossil fuels, as wealthier Vermonters have already transitioned to alternative heating because they can afford it. The PUC has raised concerns about the complexity, cost, and potential for fraud in implementing the Clean Heat Standard and has recommended replacing it with a simpler “efficiency charge” on heating fuels.

Critics (including Roper) argue the program’s mandates are unrealistic and unaffordable, urging lawmakers to repeal Act 18, amend the Global Warming Solutions Act, and adopt more practical, achievable goals for Vermont’s carbon reduction efforts.

PUC “strongly recommends” against Clean Heat Standard
And finally, I reported earlier this month that even the The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) draft report on Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard strongly recommends rejecting the equity and reporting obligations in its current form, indicating significant flaws in the plan.

The PUC argues that prioritizing low/moderate-income Vermonters as required by the CHS is just plain impossible, as it would require subsidies and early distribution of clean heat credits, which could only be achieved if fuel dealers cooperate, and so far they are not, seemingly accidentally… The PUC also highlights critical issues with fuel dealer registration data, where many dealers are unregistered or report inaccurately, undermining the validity of the data and the clean heat credit obligations based on it. These issues prevent accurate calculations of fuel sales and credits, further complicating the program’s implementation. The legislature must review the Clean Heat Standard in the upcoming session if it is to move forward.

Senate and House Republicans to propose changes to Global Warming Solutions Act
House and Senate Republicans in 2025 plan to push for significant changes on the Global Warming Solutions Act (Act 153). Specifically, Republicans criticize the Clean Heat Standard as ‘unworkable and unaffordable,’ and they believe it will be repealed by the legislature in 2025.

While still acknowledging the dangers of ‘the reality of climate change,’ Republicans argue that the goal for zero carbon emissions by 2050 is just plain not possible, expensive, and unrealistic. Not to mention the need for removal of the provision within GWSA that allows any third party to sue the State of Vermont for not meeting the mandated goals of the GWSA at the taxpayer expense.