|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Offers Orwellian argument that adding a massive tax to heating fuels will lower heating bills
By Rob Roper
A key architect and proponent of the Unaffordable Heat Act, Rep. Laura Sibilia, recently penned a defense of the program, and since she likely speaks for all or most of the 107 members of the Vermont House and 20 members of the Vermont Senate who voted to override Governor Scott’s veto of this absurdly expensive law and wish to see it move forward in January, it’s worth taking the time to dissect her argument line by line.
As such, this is a longer than usual piece, so I’ll provide a spoiler alert right here at the beginning: the woman is more full of bovine manure than a Vermont cow pasture.
She says….
“Affordability is a real problem for many Vermonters right now. Everything from food to healthcare to heating fuel has gotten more expensive, and it’s hitting people hard. Big Oil companies and their backers want you to believe that enacting the Clean Heat Standard in 2025 will make things worse by raising your heating costs. But that’s not true—and doing nothing will hurt your wallet far more.”
First, the Unaffordable Heat Act WILL drive up your oil, kerosene, propane, and natural gas costs significantly. It has to because the program is funded by a “Carbon Credit” (de facto excise tax) on those fuels. If your prices didn’t go up beyond market rates due to the Carbon Credit mandate (estimates are between $1.78 and $4.03/gallon), there would be no program. So, she’s just lying there. Second, “Big Oil” – the largest sellers of these products in VT – are FOR the law because they know it will drive the small mom & pops out of business giving them a larger market share, less competition, and higher profits. And lastly, “doing nothing” – I guess she means nothing beyond the $250 million we already spend on climate change programs in VT – will save Vermonters $10 billion in unnecessary higher home heating costs.
“Since 2020, grocery prices have gone up nearly 25%, and Vermont’s unsubsidized health insurance premiums are among the highest in the nation. Schools are also struggling with rising costs following the pandemic. Add to that, the cost of heating oil skyrocketed more than doubled in just one year, and right now, prices are still 20% higher than they were before the pandemic. Families all across the state are feeling the pressure. It’s getting harder to afford the basics“
This is true. But worth noting that rising health insurance costs in the Vermont Health Exchange are in large part the result of the policies passed by the legislature. The rising costs for schools are also heavily influenced by the policies passed by the legislature – not to mention the property tax bill they just passed along with new taxes on internet-based services and short-term rentals. It is getting harder for families to afford the basics – like heating oil, kerosene, propane and gas – so adding a Carbon Credit tax to these basics at this point seems incredibly cruel. And what does she think will happen to prices for other goods and services when businesses have to pass along the higher costs of heating and cooking on to customers?
But what’s really behind these rising heating costs? Global oil prices, which are completely out of our control. Big oil companies set prices that Vermonters have to pay. And while small, local heating oil companies are doing their best to help, six have closed this past year alone. These closures mean fewer choices for Vermonters and more dependence on big companies that raise prices whenever they want.
Yes, global markets determine prices based on supply and demand. Fossil heating fuel prices are now going down. “Big Oil” does not set the prices, the markets do, and no they cannot raise prices whenever they want, otherwise prices would not be coming down now. And electric utilities (via the PUC) don’t set prices consumers have to pay? When was the last time electric rates went down? Ever? Six small, local heating oil companies have closed this year alone? Yeah! Because they are anticipating the Unaffordable Heat Act will destroy their businesses, and they’re getting out when they still can! Just ask them.
“Small heating businesses in Vermont are struggling with the same challenges many local companies face—an aging workforce and the pressure to transition to cleaner energy solutions. As baby boomers retire, gaps are left in the workforce, and adapting to offer new, cleaner products may require specialized skills and training that are harder to find and take time to learn. For some, selling to larger distributors has become the most practical option, leaving Vermonters with fewer local options and less choice on price and service.”
Yup. Because policies like the Unaffordable Heat Act, draconian property tax increases, skyrocketing health insurance premiums, a new payroll tax, jacked up DMV fees, and the general tax and regulate environment this legislature has imposed is driving away skilled middle class workers who can no longer afford to live here, or have realized they can enjoy a higher standard of living out from under the thumb of these far-left ideologically driven politicians.
“Now, critics of the Clean Heat Standard—like fossil fuel-backed Americans for Prosperity—want you to think this policy will increase your heating bills. They conveniently avoid the real issue: the current fossil fuel market is unregulated, volatile, and leaves you vulnerable to constant price spikes. Doing nothing about this is exactly what will keep your heating bills high.“
It will increase your heating bills, and that is the real issue. Sibilia ignores the many local critics of the Unaffordable Heat act from right here in Vermont – including our Governor, who vetoed the idiotic scheme twice. She ignored them when they testified before her committee, ignored their thousands of phone calls and emails urging her and her colleagues to vote ‘no’ when the bill was up for passage. Her argument that adding $$1.79 to $4.03 per gallon to your heating fuel will lower your heating bill is just #$%^&! ridiculous. And, contrary to her last statement, we are currently doing nothing, and your fossil fuel heating bills are, in fact, coming down.
“The Clean Heat Standard is a strategy to help us break free from the grip of global oil markets. It would require fuel sellers to reduce emissions by investing in cleaner options, like home weatherization and heat pumps, that can lower your heating costs. This approach isn’t about raising prices—it’s about making Vermont less dependent on oil and helping Vermonters afford better heating solutions.“
“This approach isn’t about raising prices.” Yes, is absolutely is! Again, it has to be. The money — your money — she wants to “invest” comes from a ludicrously high carbon tax on the fossil heating fuels that over seventy percent of Vermonters use to survive winter. The program requires that people keep burning fossil fuels and pay the carbon tax for doing so. And those people who can’t transition to heat pumps, etc, or can’t do so quickly – mostly low and moderate income Vermonters – are going to be absolutely, monumentally, royally screwed by this dumber than dog doo law.
“Governor Scott talks a lot about affordability, and he’s right—we need to work together to keep costs down. But he’s missing the point. Inaction won’t protect Vermonters. In fact, with a global energy transition underway and larger states and countries acting to reduce their fossil fuel usage, inaction is the biggest threat to fixed income and working Vermonter’s pocketbooks. The clean heat standard aims to provide stability in a chaotic market, and with proper oversight, it will ensure you don’t have to rely on unpredictable oil prices.“
First, the “global energy transition” is imploding. Offshore wind projects are being abandoned due to high cost and ecological concerns. Nobody wants large-scale solar in their communities, and projects can’t be sited. States like California are facing rolling blackouts. The EV market has plateaued and is falling off as car companies are losing billions…. But, if Sibilia is right and other states are buying into this snake oil (maybe wrong word, snake renewable?) scheme, Vermonters’ pocketbooks would best be served by sticking with fossil heating fuels as demand will drop and then prices will follow.
“There are three paths forward when it comes to the Clean Heat Standard: do nothing, pass the plan as-is, or work to make it even stronger. But doing nothing would leave Vermont more exposed to price hikes in the oil market, while passing the policy without improvements may miss the mark. The best option is to work together to act now, refine the plan if needed, and ensure it truly delivers for Vermonters by providing energy savings and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.”
Nope. The best option is to scrap this monstrosity now – and fire on November 5 every politician who voted for it so they can’t keep pushing it forward in any way, shape or form. Which, as Sibilia’s essay here testifies to, they will do.
“It’s easy for big oil-backed groups to make this debate sound simple. But it’s not. The current market is stacked against you, and without government intervention, you will keep paying the price. The Clean Heat Standard or a comparable approach is part of the solution. It offers Vermonters a way to break free from the current system, reduce energy costs in the long run, and protect against the instability of fossil fuel prices.“
Without government intervention you will keep paying the price? Yeah, right! For the last thirty years we’ve had plenty of government intervention on healthcare. Is it cheaper, better and more accessible? Or the opposite of that? For the last nearly two decades we’ve had government intervention in early childcare. Is it cheaper, better and more accessible? Or the opposite of that? Act 250 has given us plenty of government intervention in the housing market. Is housing cheaper, better and more accessible as a result? Or the opposite of that?
But over the past several decades the fossil fuel heating market in Vermont has, through efficiency and innovation, reduced the amount of oil the average household uses by over half, from over 1600 gallons a year to about 700. That amounts to an annual saving today of about $3200. And as more users switch to cleaner burning propane and natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions are coming down as well. And that happened without government intervention!
I’m going to skip her closing paragraphs as they are repetitive and this is already a very long post. But I do want to revisit one telling line, “and with proper oversight, it will ensure you don’t have to rely on unpredictable oil prices” Proper oversight? From Laura Sibilia? Good luck with this. She and her left-wing colleagues think they know best. They don’t. They’re nitwits. If you think people who passed a mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an impossible amount with no idea how it would work, if it could work, what it would cost, how it would impact real people – and three years later can’t even explain to you in the most basic terms the answers to these questions – are going to provide competent oversight of an industry they clearly don’t understand, all I can say is you deserve what you vote for.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
Apparently krowinski and baruth have appointed her spokesperson- as she is unopposed for her house seat.
Let the pretending continue….
As of 1 pm today, per ISO New England- Natural gas and nuclear produce 89% of the electricity in New England. That statistic is pretty average. Gas and nuclear generation will remain the heavy lifters for decades to come- regardless of sibilia’s pretending.
Good point Frank. If Sibilia is the designated red herring to be be blamed for this mess, voters might give the others the benefit of the doubt. Every Democrat except the few who supported Scott’s veto of the Clean Heat mess need to be voted out.
Forcing the many low income people to either get new $$$$$ heating systems or pay the price of a tax is insane. Little Vermont is not going to make a dent in the global problem of pollution. Factories in China and India are the biggest polluters. So sad what has happened to Vermont.i was forced to move from my beautiful state as it was not affordable. I litterally could not find a place to live in my area. A life long renter, service insidtry worker in various careers taking care of tourists, I felt I was kicked out. I miss it everyday and glad I lived there in the 80s -2017. The pre internet days were the best.
Hope everyone checks the issues and knows what they are voting for.
In the past, I would have afforded people like Sibilia the benefit of the doubt – that they were simply making an error in judgment. But with the mounting evidence presented by Rob and others, that their policies will not only cause a financial Armageddon, but that those policies are based on the false premise that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are causing climate change, I really have no other option but to characterize their motives as blatant, totalitarian thievery. In the common vernacular, we’re being scammed.
Jay
Clearly, the climate is not normal and repeated flooding is tearing homes, bridges, roads, farmland apart. Spending that $9.8 billion is no remedy. Rather, we have to accept the fact it is a foolish attempt to “save the planet”.
The International Energy Agency reported global CO2 emissions, in 2023, was 43.7 BILLION tons. Vermont’s was 8 million tons. Residential, industrial and commercial emissions is 31% of that total or 2.5 million tons. Weatherization, heat pumps, etc. will reduce those emissions by 40%; or, one million tons at a cost of $10 billion.
John: Climate Change *Is* Normal. Your citation is a classic false dichotomy, based on a premise that erroneously limits the options available for consideration. Yes, repeated flooding can damage homes, bridges, roads, and farmland. But what does that have to do with investing our precious resources in limiting CO2 emissions?
What about water vapor? Did you know that water vapor is a significantly more effective ‘greenhouse’ gas than CO2? Did you know that there is ten thousand times more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2? Should we limit water vapor?
The projections I’ve seen recently indicate that anthropogenic CO2 emissions (caused by human activity) are projected to ‘break a record’ this year, accounting for an additional 35 billion tons of CO2 – not 43.7 billion tons. But those are projections. It’s speculative.
None the less, are you aware that even 43.7 billion tons of CO2 is less than 2% of the 2.2 Trillion tons of ambient CO2 in the atmosphere? Are you aware of the fact that 2.2 Trillion tons of CO2, massive as that amount may seem, accounts proportionately for only 4/100ths of a percent of the earth’s total atmosphere?
CO2 is an invisible trace gas that doesn’t interfere with solar radiation as water vapor does when it reflects sunlight. CO2 cannot ‘trap’ thermal radiation coming from the surface because the absorption of longwave radiation by CO2 and heat-trapping are completely different physical processes.
What about the natural variations in the intensity of solar radiation? Do you know what a ‘solar maximum’ is? Have you considered the Milankovitch cycles of the earth’s orbital and planetary axial tilt?
Two thousand scientists and researchers explain that CO2 isn’t the boogieman it’s made out to be in their ‘World Climate Declaration.’
Why in the world then would anyone recommend putting all of our financial eggs in an unproven attempt to limit CO2 when the effort has been shown to surely bankrupt us?
Conclusions from the ‘World Climate Declaration’:
1. CO2 budgets are not based on science, but they are based on fear. They limit human rights, feed extremism and push mankind into a deep physical, mental and financial crisis. It is clear that citizens throughout the world don’t want to become poor and, above all, they don’t want to live in a culture of fear.
2. History shows that living on planet Earth requires adaptation all the time. If we continue to advance science and technology, we generate new capabilities to adapt to climate change, to protect our natural environment, to end hunger and poverty, to take care of one another and to conquer the universe. Intelligent adaptation is the formula for creating a better world.
3. Head of governments, look at the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of your policy measures. Instead of squandering trillions to a problem that does not exist, release people from hunger and poverty, solve global health issues, invest more in science and education and, above all, take better care of all life on our unique planet.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Berkhout-2022-Word-Climate-Declaration.pdf
And Here Vermont, this is your ” Stupid Majority ” and their agenda front & center,
you voted for these clowns………………..and you reap what you sow !!
They don’t care about what your Governor wanted for the people, and as you can see, they surely don’t care about you.
You voted for these inept fools, now vote them out before it is too late, it’s not the CO2 emissions, that will kill you or the state, it will be progressive nonsense.
Wake up people.
This government is your enemy.
Jay, you missed the essence of my comment.
“The International Energy Agency reported global CO2 emissions, in 2023, was 43.7 BILLION tons. Vermont’s was 8 million tons. Residential, industrial and commercial emissions is 31% of that total or 2.5 million tons. Weatherization, heat pumps, etc. will reduce those emissions by 40%; or, one million tons at a cost of $10 billion.”
Did you stop reading at my word “normal”?
John: Did you miss the essence of my reply? Let me put it this way.
So, you can reduce CO2 emissions by 40% (one million tons) at a cost of $10 Billion, or $10,000 per ton. What does limiting CO2 have to do with flood damage to homes, bridges, roads, and farmland?
How is it possible we elected 107 people that are unable to understand how much pain they are joyfully causing us? I hope Vermonters will not allow these inept clowns to continue to heap abuse after abuse upon us peasants. This progressive democrat jazz is not working. Time to bring in the good guys, vote pure blood republicans, preferably ones that have made money and know how to make things better without spending a lot of money.
You know who would do a bang-up job on Vermont’s economy… Catholic nuns. I never saw a more organized, however spartan, school that was spotlessly clean and ran on a dime. Nuns can squeeze a penny and get change. Put some old-fashioned nuns in charge, we will be leaner and happier. Just my humble opinion.
Jay; coming back at you.
You said: “John: Did you miss the essence of my reply? Let me put it this way.”
Sir, understand my vehement opposition to S. 5. I’ll make it clearer to you and VDC readers in a subsequent post on Act 62: “Final Report on All-Fuels Energy Efficiency”
Read it at: https://puc.vermont.gov/sites/psbnew/files/doc_library/act-62-final-report-amendment-020321.pdf
S, 5 will collapse of its weight. Then, legislators will have to consider expanding the State Weatherization Assistance Program.
John, I get it. You’re opposed to S.5. But you still haven’t answered my original question.
“What does limiting CO2 have to do with flood damage to homes, bridges, roads, and farmland?”