A newly leaked memo says over $4000 per household, $2.23/gal “tax” on gasoline.

by Rob Roper

As the Vermont House Energy & Digital Infrastructure (HEDI) Committee debated whether or not to blow $800,000 (and $500,000 every year subsequent) establishing a new fossil fuel registry (H.740), Treasurer Mike Pieciak (D-VT) chimed in with February 25, 2026, letter supporting the bill, stating:

On February 18^h(sic), 2025 The Office of the Treasurer released a report to the general assembly with recommendations for viable approaches to a Cap-and-Invest Program with technical assistance from ANR. Though that report concluded that at the time there were no viable Cap and-invest programs available to Vermont, it notes that there may be a path to a viable approach in the near future. [Emphasis added]

A couple points to highlight here…. 1) Pieciak’s memo makes it absolutely clear that passage of H.740, the expanded fossil fuel registry, has one purpose: to be the first step in saddling Vermonters with Cap & Invest carbon tax scheme on home heating and transportation fuels. And 2) the “viable approach in the near future” refers to New York implementing a Cap & Invest carbon tax framework that Vermont can piggyback onto.

So, Pieciak (and the five Democrats and one independent on the HEDI Committee who voted to move forward with H.740; the three Republicans, being sane, voted no) believes joining a New York Cap & Invest scheme is “viable.” Okay. What does that mean for Vermonters? A leaked memo from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to NY Governor Kathy Hochul sheds some light.

CityandStateNY.com, which broke the story, writes:

The memo on the “likely costs of CLCPA [Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, NY’s version of Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act] compliance” – dated Feb. 26, a day after Washington’s initial comments – lays out average costs to New Yorkers by 2031 under a hypothetical cap-and-invest system that would be necessary to meet the emissions benchmarks laid out in the climate law…. According to NYSERDA’s analysis, upstate gas and oil households could see over $4,100 in gross cost increases if the state makes no changes to the law with current energy equipment. In New York City, gas households could see $2,300 of added costs. And gas at the pump could jump by an additional $2.23 per gallon. [Emphasis added]

Yup! This is what Pieciak and the Democrats in the legislature want to spend $800,000 for the privilege of signing us up for. Brilliant policy decisions! The original text of the leaked memo further explains:

To perform the analysis, NYSERDA operated under hypothetical cap-and-invest regulations that would not include limits to the cost of allowances companies could purchase in order to exceed their emissions caps. In this instance, the authority started in the ballpark of $120 per ton of carbon emission, rising to $179.80 per ton in 2031. Per the memo, such rules would be needed in order to fully comply with the requirement to reduce New York’s emissions by 40% by 2030.

Absent changes, by 2031, the impact of CLCPA on the price of gasoline could reach or exceed $2.23/gallon on top of current prices at that time; the cost for an MMBtu of natural gas $16.96; and comparable increases to other fuels. Upstate oil and natural gas households would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year and New York City natural gas households could anticipate annual gross costs of $2,300. Only a portion of these costs could be offset by current policy design.

The estimated allowance price would begin in the neighborhood of $120/ton and rise to $179.80/ton by 2031 in real terms. There are reasons to believe that this cost is an underestimate. [Emphasis added] The first of these is that the modeling was carried out prior to the updates incorporated in the State Energy Plan, meaning that the model doesn’t reflect the current hostile and disruptive federal government….

current estimates indicate that the most impacted households—upstate, two car households that rely on heating oil—would likely experience gross cost impacts in excess of $4,100 annually. Even after affordability benefits, this amount remains above $2,400. Even households switching to newer, more efficient fossil fuel equipment could expect to see substantial costs…. Likewise, similarly burdensome costs should be anticipated for small and medium commercial businesses.

These numbers are not all that different (thought a bit higher) from Pieciak’s own report from a year ago (referenced above), which concluded a Cap & Invest program would be devastating, especially for low and moderate income rural households. And, like Pieciak’s initial report, the NYSERDA memo concluded that even if politicians want to implement a Cap & Invest program and stick their constituents with unaffordable energy costs, the logistics of the whole scheme are unrealistic — or not “viable.”

Also, the acceleration of clean energy deployment represented by the model as required to achieve the CLCPA’s targets is infeasible today. In particular, there is a lack of market capacity to deliver the volume of renewable energy, electric vehicle (EV) sales, heat pump and building shell deployments, etc. that would be called for, and it is also difficult to envision how all actors in the State could adequately ramp up to spend the $28 billion that such a policy would generate annually quickly after program launch.

So, as those in the Vermont legislature continue to fantasize about jamming these unaffordable carbon taxes down our throats with passage of H.740 and beyond – just NO. The “viable” path you’re about to blow nearly a million dollars on this year isn’t viable. It isn’t likely to happen in NY because reality, but if New York does move forward with Cap & Invest (or any other similarly hairbrained scheme) they’re fools. And, to quote Obi Wan Kenobi, “Who’s the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?”