|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Joe Gervais
The PUC presented its 18-month-in the making report to the legislature on Thursday, January 16, about the Clean Heat Standard. Their conclusion: the program would drive up the cost of home heating oil by 58 cents per gallon, would cause considerable harm to low-income and rural Vermonters, and, given its complexity and redundancy, “is not well suited to Vermont.”
Recently, I wrote to the chair of the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure, Kathleen James (D-Manchester), requesting her support for H.16, an act relating to the repeal of the Affordable Heat Act. Her non-answer to my question demonstrated the continued arrogance of the progressive left, who believe they know better than their constituents—even in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Vermont Democrats passed Act 18 in 2023 by overriding Governor Scott’s veto, insisting since then on a number of talking points that we now know were and are unequivocally not true. How many times did we hear during the campaign, “Act 18 is just a study”? But the first point PUC Chairman Ed McNamara made in his testimony on Thursday was, “We were not asked to do a study of the Clean Heat Standard, we were given a design of the Clean Heat Standard and told to build it.”
We were told the Clean Heat Standard wasn’t a tax on carbon. So, what is the PUC recommending to replace it? A carbon tax on home heating fuels. Why? Because once you strip away all the bells, whistles, and unnecessary complexity of “clean heat credits” and “credit exchanges,” the Clean Heat Standard is and always was just a “Rube Goldberg” carbon tax on how we heat our homes.
How many times were we told this was a program designed to help low-income Vermonters? But the Equity Advisory Group final report to the PUC concluded, “[M]any disadvantaged communities, including Vermonters of color, low-income households, moderate-income households, renters, and residents of mobile homes, face significant challenges in accessing clean heat measures in their homes…. [T]hese households will struggle to experience the benefits available under the Clean Heat Standard while bearing a disproportionate share of the costs.”
It’s time to end this charade, which has cost Vermonters over $2 million and three years of wasted time studying and implementing a program that was never a good fit or an affordable one for our state. The voters spoke loudly last November, expressing that we do not want Act 18, or as it should have been more accurately named, The Unaffordable Heat Act. The 55 sponsors of H.16, an act relating to the repeal of the Affordable Heat Act (all Republicans), heard that message.
Please join me in reaching out to those Bennington County Representatives who have not yet signed onto H.16 and urge them to do so. They are Jonathan Cooper, Timothy Corcoran II, Will Greer, David Durfee, Robert Hunter, Kathleen James and Michael Nigro. Bennington’s two senators Seth Bongartz and Robert Plunkett will have the chance to vote on similar legislation. Legislator contact info can be found at https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/, or a message can be left with the Seargent at Arms at (802) 828-2228.
The author is an Arlington resident, 2024 candidate for state senate, and chair of the Bennington County Republican Party
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Energy
Clean heat has and always was about controlling the populace, just like Cuba, where they ration the electricity and water. This is just more sophisticated; it also rewards those minions for doing as their told and penalizes anyone for freedom.
It’s all under the cover of the world is going to end and we care about the planet, both things are the biggest lie on the planet.
If the leaders truly believed and cared they would lead by example, no? Because the world is going to end right?
How many have a net zero home?
How many ebike to the capital?
How many don’t eat meat?
Then ask how many promote food sovereignty?
How many promoting organic in Vermont?
How many promoting organic children, not drugged up kids?
How many support not tax on fuel efficient, modest affordable cars?
How many support modest home ownership?
See, they are liars. Hypocrites.
Traveling by private jet to their islands and ocean front properties. You can tell a tree by it’s fruit.
All I needed to calculate that The Affordable Heat Act was doomed to fail was determine how much it would cost to do my home. Then I walked around my rural neighborhood and saw it would be equally expensive for most of my neighbors. I did not need million dollar studies to determine this. All I needed was common sense. I spoke out about this multiple times along with thousands of other Vermonters but the Vermont Legislators did not listen to us. Now, they must admit their mistake and repeal the Affordable Heat Act. I appreciate Vermont Daily Chronicle, Rob Roper and all the others who kept this an issue.
And don’t think for a minute when the car odometer reading at inspection is staging you for your vehicle use carbon tax. Vermont will be a utopia .
If we use typical “government” run programs or investments the end cost is usually 6X the original estimate. The $0.58/gal. guesstimate is more likely $3.60/ gal. or very close to the Ethan Allen estimate from a year or two ago.
And as usual, supported by most of the most recent actual science of climate and physics, the “carbon” problem is not. CO2 cannot warm the oceans or Earth, nor can it cause “greenhouse” warming effects at current atmospheric levels (CO2’s effects taper of quickly beyond 100 ppm).
The drive to rid the Earth of human “carbon” (CO2) emissions is a fool’s errand both ethically and financially!
Big E
Please provide some explanation of ” (CO2’s effects taper of quickly beyond 100 ppm).”
Thank you.
Where is the Republican plan to cut spending? There is a plan..?
How much money is being cut from spending and current budget?
How much lower will be next year’s budget?
Which legislator is compiling and reporting the savings?
We didn’t vote you in to keep current spending levels.