|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Erica Walch
Since mainstream news has stopped asking questions about press releases dropped in their laps by politicians, lobbyists, and businesses, two maxims that used to be part of investigative journalism have now fallen to the public: (1) do your own research and (2) follow the money.
Looking at the draft report of the Clean Heat Standard’s Potential Study, Final Draft Results (shared by Rob Roper on VDC) gives us an opportunity to do both.
Although the people who want to implement this standard (the Climate Action Council, peopled by both true believers in an all-electric world and by people who will directly benefit from such a world, i.e. electric utility big wigs and electric product manufacturers) have tried to rename the act the “Affordable Heat Act”, this report sticks with calling it the “Clean Heat Standard” and makes it clear that customer affordability plays no part in the outcomes sought by this act. It is all about reducing global warming and carbon emissions by switching Vermont households to electric heat.
Sound absurd? Well it is, but not in the ha-ha way, rather it’s absurd in the way that’s going to cost us all plenty in money and freedom if it’s enacted. The Clean Heat Standard/Affordable Heat Act has nothing to do with making heating or household energy more affordable for Vermonters and these results show that the measures will actually lead to increased costs for consumers.
The report uses the “Vermont Societal Cost Test” as its measurement and states that “the Clean Heat Standard does not have explicit cost-effectiveness requirements”. The “societal cost” is about global emissions levels, not about the cost to you for heating or powering your home in Vermont.
The report says that “maximum benefit” (in reducing global emissions) would happen if on one particular day, all fossil fuel burning home heating equipment is switched to electric or biofuel (that’s corn to you and me). So anything less than that will decrease the impact on reducing global warming.
It also imagines a maximum benefit if all of the installation and equipment costs are subsidized to a tune of $17 billion (funded by Vermont household fuel bills), even with none of the administrative costs are factored in – and note that $1.75 million came of the state budget in 2023 to pay for the research and administration of this so far – that’s from our taxes, folks.
Electrical panel upgrades and “pre-weatherization barriers costs” are not considered in total installed costs (your fuse boxes, 60 amp service and old leaky house with plywood patches and plastic on the windows has to get fixed on your dime).
The world envisioned by the Climate Action Committee and the consultants drafting these proposals is informed by climate disaster extremists, globalists who’d rather bully Vermonters than address China’s industrial pollution, and people who clearly do not care about ordinary people’s cost of living or freedom to live however they want.
The activist and self-interested Climate Council and the legislative super-majority that benefits from donations and PAC money from special interest groups believe they can get this kind of b.s. legislation through because so few voters have had an opportunity to truly understand what is being proposed and because so many Vermonters who do vote “care about the climate” and don’t realize what this act is going to mean for their household budget.
VDC readers, do better than just “caring about the climate”! Please, look into this behemoth that is Act 18/H.5/Clean Heat Standard/Affordable Heat Act and do your own research. If these rules go into effect, it’s going to cost us a lot of money, reduce our freedom of choice in how to fuel our lives and result in less reliable electricity due to the increased demand on the grid.
An all-electric future is not feasible with Vermont’s current inadequate grid system. The legislature is being lobbied hard by special interests who will benefit from more electric dependence. Remind them that they are there to represent us, not big electric.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Energy, Legislation, State Government
the vermont state house holds a den of thieves/////
and liars. Remember when the whole school thing, was suppose to save us all money?? NOW were looking at 13+% increases in property taxes just this year, cuz, God forbid they’d fix that, this year OR next. (its is one of their cash cows after all) and now all the money going out to “save the world” and “we don’t legislate to save poor people” or some such DISGUSTING quote by a person who us SUPPOSE to **REPRESENT** Vermonters. This is all a farce. Vermont cannot save the world and we’re already carbon neutral, but the stupor majority refuses to acknowledge that….you know, with their marching orders to destroy Vermonters and all. Now the lawyers are getting ready to sue the state and I bet the ignoramuses’ are foaming at the mouth over that….maybe they will blame US? for not embracing their falderal (fast enough)? Hey PROGS and DEMS, I do not see myself, EVER, buying or owning an all electric car. Ever. Since I am below poverty level, and now being forced to pay for child care for people making 13x what I do, I will be lucky to afford a can of soup.
The so called global warming policies in Vermont are nothing but a massive scam. Energy policies based on a supposed science with no empirical correlation are wrong policies.
on.. .https://vermontdailychronicle.com/subsidized-fortunes-sketchy-details-plague-vermont-plan-for-90-renewable-power/
Erica: Hello. We all get it. But no one in the legislature is listening.
I am appealing to Republicans, Independents and moderate Democrats to realize that bi-partisan legislating is within reach and will give more responsibility to legislators. It requires thinking voters to understand how having 11 Republican Senators can begin to right our Ship of State. We need four more. I am supporting Republican Steven Heffernan for Addison County Senator and I am a Democrat.
Educate voters by posting this idea in your Front Porch Forum
I am appealing to Republicans, Independents and moderate Democrats to realize that bi-partisan legislating is within reach and will give more responsibility to legislators. It requires thinking voters to understand how having 11 Republican Senators can begin to right our Ship of State. As a Democrat, I am supporting Republican Senate Candidate Steven Heffernan to defeat Chris Bray.
Educate voters by posting this idea in your Front Porch Forum
Really? Front Porch Forum unceremoniously cancelled my account, without giving a reason or responding to my inquiries. While you support Republican Steven Heffernan, can you list any Democrats or Progressives with common sense? That’s what it takes to be ‘bi-partisan’.
Jay, consider the following:
With eleven Republican Senators, the Republican Party takes on a new power. It becomes a broker of bi-partisan legislation.
Lets say, the Democratic Chairman of the Education Committee wants to bring his bill to the floor. Governor Scott is familiar with it and has problems that he shares with Senator Brock. Brock can go to the Chairman and open a discussion to resolve their differences with the bill. If the Democrats fail to accept that request and refuse to negotiate, Senator Brock can then say the Governor will veto it and we 11 Senators will vote to sustain. So, Mr. Chairman, either meet our request to have a bi-partisan discussion; or your bill is dead today — unless you reconsider.
Isn’t that an obvious, achievable solution to blocking enactment of terrible legislation; as long as Governor Scott, or his Republican successor are present to provide that minority wall. Senate Republicans can put the brakes on any new legislation that will bring more economic pain to Vermonters.
Republican Chairs must use this opportunity to mobilize all voters to see the necessity to shift the Senate with 11 or more Republican Senators. Voters, Republican and Democrat can right this ship of State.
Irene Wrenner, a Democrat ,voted to sustain Governor Scott’s veto of the CHS.
Elect 11 Republican Senators? I’ll do the best I can to elect them. But there are so many windmills (pun intended) in Vermont with which to joust.
Jay, seven Republican incumbents are likely to be re-elected. We “joust’ need to add four more. And, they need money; not millions, thousands will help. I know the money is there. It needs to find candidates.
The reality of the Clean Heat Standard is you’ll be in the ” poor house”, the so-called
Super Majority ” stupid Majority ” has an agenda, and your concerns don’t matter and they will do what they want………….. you elect these fools.
If you want to save the state and your livelihood, vote them out, they don’t listen and surely don’t care.
All I can say is that New Hampshire is going to love the “clean air” that Vermont creates through these changes, while we continue to get the garbage air coming from larger states that don’t have these outrageous laws in place. I would think that larger states would be the best place to start, not lil ‘ol Vermont.
The progressives have destroyed this state because it’s a “city people playground” now and not home to those of us that have been here all our lives. I don’t WANT to leave when I hit retirement, but it’s looking like I’ll HAVE to leave as a result of these crazy, money wasting ideas.
Good luck John, it will take way more than that. You need to realized the D’s vote for other D’s because that is how they identify. You would be asking them to actually redefine who they are. Casting a vote will not undo that.
NOYB, are you involved, in any way, at any level, to help elect more Republican Senators?
Your comment appears otherwise. Step up. Do something.
All for NO MEASURABLE CHANGES in CO2 levels* or temperatures in Vermont, nor anywhere else on Earth. The $17,300,000,000 price tag for Vermonters includes the “societal savings”/benefits offsets of $3.6 billion based on “carbon costs” (tax) at $190/ton in 2020$.
Who will/how will VT track that benefit?!
* Of course, this is under the premise that carbon dioxide (CO2) is bad, more CO2 is worse, and somehow uniquely human generated CO2 drives Earth’s warming.
The hypothesis that CO2 dictates and controls Earth’s temperature must be scientifically valid to be true. The actual historical data and proxies show numerous times when CO2 and temperatures changed in opposite directions. Thus, the hypothesis is false. Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas…nothing else matters at this point in the current atmosphere.