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.