|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
Implementing the Clean Heat Standard could increase the cost of heating by more than $4/gallon, data in a new study released by the State of Vermont shows.
$1000 more to fill up the average residential oil tank – An average home heating oil fuel tank has a capacity of about 250 gallons. Using the $4.01 estimated in the study, filling up a tank will cost more than $1,000. It remains to be seen if the implementation of the Clean Heat Standard (CHS) would place all of that added burden on the homeowner, or shifts some costs to taxpayers or some other source of funding.
$9.6 billion total cost – The $1000 per fill-up is the the micro view – what the CHS will cost the average homeowner. Here’s the macro view. The study projects the total cost of Clean Heat Standard implementation at $9.6 billion. It also projects ‘societal benefits’ of $11.7 billion – with a net benefit of $2.1 billion. But the makeup of the benefits, including “avoided social economic and environmental damages,” are unclear.
NV5 prepared the study, titled ‘Clean Heat Standard Assessment,’ for the Vermont Department of Public Service, which released it on September 1.
The future of the Clean Heat Standard depends on a ‘checkback’ vote of Legislature. An affirmative vote is required before any CHS plan to transition from fossil fuel heat to alternatives can be implemented.
Getting to $4.01 gallon – In Graph One, the typed figures signify CHS impacts on fuel prices per million BTUs ( (British Thermal Units, a measurement of heat). The figures in red ink signify the added price per gallon, based on the per million BTU price. Generating a million BTUs requires burning 7.22 gallons of home heating oil.
Total cost of filling tank could top $2,000 – Graph Two adds the August price per gallon of Vermont’s three major fossil-based heating fuels with the study’s low and high estimates of the Clean Heat Fee. At $8.18 – the top estimate, based on current per/gallon cost of heating oil – filling up a tank would cost $2,045.
State officials advise caution in interpreting data
That stark data of projected per gallon price increases and billion-dollar overall costs comes with caveats and qualifiers, state energy officials advised Vermont Daily Chronicle today. Most of all, it remains to be seen just who will be paying how much for the $4/gallon increase.
“The cost values described in the table below are generated from the perspective of ‘society’ and are meant to assess relative cost effectiveness of an investment made by ‘society’. The plan does not assess the costs of various pathways – or specifically the pathway that may be reasonably taken by the Clean Heat Standard – available to capture credits from the market, nor does it consider how the costs will be shared by obligated parties, liquid fuels customers, tax payers, and other stakeholders,” T.J. Poor, Vermont Public Service Dept. Director of Regulated Utility Planning, and Alek Antczak, PSD Director of Efficiency & Energy Resources, told VDC today.
“NV5 described the reported Act 18 scenario as “an upper-bound of program cost assumptions”, noting current programs, lower incentive levels and potential implementation savings could lower costs,” the state energy officials said.
The study isn’t an implementation plan, but rather an explanation of the potential costs and benefits, Poor said.
NV5 projects a $9.6 billion cost but a $2.1 billion net benefit due to avoided fossil fuel cost savings, and ‘avoided social economic and environmental damages.’
What are the ‘avoided social economic and environmental damages? The NV5 study does not dwell much on the avoided SEE damages. In comments to VDC, Poor alluded to information in another state study, the Pathways report, which sets “the total value of social, economic, and environmental damages avoided by the mitigation pathway” at $7.4 billion. For example, the report cites cumulative health care savings of $161 to $362 million between 2025 and 2050. The monetized benefits accrue because of the prevention of 13 to 29 premature deaths between 2025 and 2050 and a reduction in hospitalizations and emergency room visits.”
The larger number of $7.4 billion is determined by a set SEE cost estimate per unit of carbon emissions avoided, as determined by the Stockholm Institute. The U.S. government has used widely diverging per-unit estimates on carbon emissions cost reduction avoidance.
Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Energy, Legislation
Send your fuel bill to your democrat rep and senator who voted for this travesty. And VOTE THEM OUT.
Good idea but watch them all get reelected. I can’t see why people vote for the same people.
The Vermont voter has to be blamed for alot of the sky rocketing costs in Vt.
I foresee tons of fires destroying older homes due to alternate ways of heating a freezing house.
https://www.reformer.com/opinion/columnists/phil-savoy-humans-have-no-effect-on-climate whatsoever/article_l ff87375-394a-5df9-8cOa-d8d149016614.html
Phil Savoy: Humans have no effect on climate whatsoever
By Phil Savoy
Apr 7, 2019
Our planet goes through changes in the climate on a regular basis. About 11,500 years ago we were under a mile and a half of ice right here in New England and before that there were palm trees growing here. Every 11,500 years the climate cycles due to sun spot activity. Within this climate cycle there is another smaller cycle referred to as the Little Ice Age Cycle. This changes the earthfs temperature about 1 degree Celsius.
This cycle changes every 1,500 years and happens within the larger cycle. In this letter I am including excerpts from a publication I was sent by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” November 2007.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3 degrees Celsius during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1 degree Centigrade below the 3,000 year average. We are currently still on the rise in this Little Ice Age cycle with a few hundred years to go of minor warming until it heads back down again. Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity by the greenhouse effect, which is largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H20); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H20 substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as C02 have little effect. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and C02 production since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier reduction. The amount of C02 produced by humans is negligible compared to what the earth itself produces. There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of C02, CH, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed. We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more C02 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The C02 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like C02 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The bottom line is that humans have no effect on climate whatsoever. Carbon Dioxide release into the air only helps the planet and humans. We should be increasing the use of fossil fuels, which will bring energy costs down and help build strong economies with strong infrastructures.
The reference paper on this subject goes into detail and provides the sources of its research.
Professional Engineer Phil Savoy, a consulting engineer, writes from Westminster. The opinions expressed by columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of the Brattleboro Reformer.
“Consumers” and “Taxpayers” are one in the SAME! Why are they noted as separate entities?
Ah what to heck, it’s only money. The tax paying resident is Montpelier’s bank and they can charge any interest (tax) on anything at any time. Population under the golden dome is 180, state population (2024) is 647,818. 0.028% controls the population of Vermont. Huge imbalance and they vote their own salaries, and increased it. Lousy choice forced by the 0.028%. Welcome to Vermont says the Montpelier kingdom to their serfs and subjects. The court jester is P. Scott mainly for entertainment. The real world in Vermont. Point being they want to tax you to freeze or move to warmer states, others will buy the empty properties and the continuation goes on. Vermont, the green money state. MVRA (Make Vermont Real Again)
Our legislators won’t have any trouble filling their own residences fuel tanks, they’ll just vote themselves another raise.
Bottom line, no matter what the increase, the TAXPAYER will foot the bill!!! There are no money trees in Marxpelier, and there are definitely NO lawmakers smart enough to tend the orchard if there were. ATTENTION PEOPLE: vote OUT everyone who had anything to do with this catastrophe!
The State of Vermont is expensive enough with the large increase in property taxes without adding to the cost of heating our homes too. They should be looking for ways that us seniors can afford to own our homes and live in this state and affort to live. Now many people are having to chose between buying meds or food and now you want to add a 3rd think for them to have to choose from. We should be a state to help them out instead of driving people out because of the high prices.
Fact is, VT “lawmakers” who supported should be charged with assault. When you take someones food, their heat, their medicine, how can it be viewed as anything else?? How is this any different than breaking and entering, and stealing???
There is no more talking, negotiating, compromising with these f’n traitorous communists. They need to be removed from leadership
There really should be a bounty on them.
The liberal leftist Dems have gone out of their minds period!! Nut job at best period!
Wake up Americans wake up Vermonters and get out and VOTE Red, Red vote Red period folks! You have the power to make change people! Get-R-Done Patriots Get-R-Done 🇺🇸
Some one in Vt voted for the tiny group of people wrecking the state. Why?
The Legislature seems to enjoy soaking us working stiffs. Why stop now?