VT carbon 51st in nation, heating oil consumption dropping
By Rep. Art Peterson
The Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2020, was the reason I pursued a House seat that same year. In my mind there was no possible way that emission reductions in Vermont would affect the world climate. They would, however, have a very noticeable effect on all of our pocketbooks in the form of a carbon tax on fossil fuels.
I I strongly opposed this act and got elected to a House seat. Now, three years later, we have bill S.5 that establishes the “clean heat standard” in line with Act 153. It says:
“Under this program, obligated parties shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Vermont thermal sector by retiring required amounts of clean heat credits to meet the thermal sector portion of the greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations of the Global Warming Solutions Act.”
This monster bill is 38 pages long, filled with the complicated legal framework necessary to purge Vermont of fossil fuel usage. It establishes “clean heat credits” and “clean heat measures” that will be used by fuel dealers to wean their customers off fossil fuels.
In theory the way it works is that the fuel dealer will be required by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to purchase and then retire a yet to be determined number of clean heat credits every year by convincing their customers to install costly “clean heat measures” like electric heat pumps or solar hot water systems. In effect, dealers are putting themselves out of business but will also be forced to pass the cost of the credits on to their fossil fuel customers.
That added cost to the customer is unknown at this time. An estimated cost of $.70 per gallon has been used; Democrats claim that is too high, some claim it isn’t high enough. The lack of specifics is troubling. The bill gives broad powers to the unelected PUC to run the show and, of course, expands state government by adding six new positions to the tune of $1.725M annually. It defines what is and is not renewable fuels and measures, sets up rule-making, and establishes a “check back” in Section 6 of the bill by February 15, 2024 to determine how badly the plan will hurt the consumer. Supposedly at that time things can be adjusted.
A study was done in 2017 that listed carbon emissions by state for the United States and all its territories. Vermont ranked 51st in the nation in emissions according to the information on Wikipedia. Here are the stats of the last few states on the list:
Annual CO2 emissions in 2017 (millions of metric tons), Wikipedia:
- #43 Puerto Rico 19.8 (territory)
- #46 Maine 15.4
- #47 S. Dakota 14.5
- #48 N.H. 13.4
- #49 Delaware 12.3
- #50 R.I. 10.0
- #51 Vermont 5.8 (.1% of total U. S. emissions)
On top of this Vermont accounts for .0014% of worldwide carbon fumes. Does it make any sense for the least polluting state in the nation to take the kind of draconian approach to emission control that S.5 dictates? Requiring Vermonters to reduce carbon emissions to stop climate change is like pouring a bucket of water in Wallingford’s Lake Elfin and expecting to see the lake level rise. It’s not going to happen.
Last Thursday when debate over S.5 raged in the House chamber, the representative reporting on the bill freely admitted that this program would not have any effect on the climate. If that’s true then the results of this undertaking will not be a “global warming solution” and so the primary purpose of the bill is debunked.
Vermont is already doing its part to convert to cleaner energy without the state telling us to do so. According to the U.S. Department of energy in 2003 Vermont homes used 112 million gallons of heating oil and kerosene. By 2019 that had been reduced to 84 million gallons. Meanwhile the supposed “clean” electricity is still 88% produced by non-renewable resources.
Innovation and competition will change and improve the heating and utilities industry, leading to less polluting products and fuels in the future. To this legislator that approach is far preferable to any state mandated program like S.5, which is a solution in search of a problem. I voted no and I hope Governor Scott vetoes the bill.
The author is a Vermont House Representative for Clarendon and West Rutland.