When Julie Moore, Secretary of Natural Resources, said the Clean Heat Standards “carbon credit” tax on home heating fuels could drive up costs by 70 cents per gallon, the advocates of the program shouted her down and said, “Wait for the official analysis done by the real experts, you know-nothing, political hack!” (I’m consolidating and paraphrasing words of multiple commentators.)
When the draft report from the official Potential Study indicated the CHS could lead to an over $3.00 increase, those same advocates told us not to pay any attention because those weren’t the final numbers, and changes were afoot. Well, now the final potential study report is done, the afooted changes are in, and the official cost impact of the Clean Heat Standard could lead to as much as a $4.03 surcharge on top of existing home heating fuel prices. That means if the Clean Heat carbon tax were in effect today, a gallon of home heating oil would cost $7.54. Kerosene over $8.00. Fun to think about as the leaves begin to turn colors!
The study’s full breakdown of low/high estimates for the price impacts on heating oil, kerosene are $1.79 to $4.03, and for propane $.0.94 to $2.12. So, Moore’s outrageous estimates turned out to be way low.
But do you know whose estimates were not way low? The Ethan Allen Institute’s. Writing in February of 2023 – over a year and a half ago – then EAI president Myers Mermel stated:
But the net result of our own “really rough” math using Moore’s model with our inputs is that fuel costs will not increase by 70 cents per gallon under the Clean Heat Standard; they will increase by over $3.50 to $4 per gallon. Some renovation cost data indicate the actual amount required to be passed through on a surcharge could increase fuel costs by more than $5 per gallon.
Nailed it!
He testified to this data later that year to the house and senate committees of jurisdiction, who not very politely yawned and shooed him off. This is Déjà vu all over again as I remember when another EAI board member, Wendy Wilton, then Treasurer for the city of Rutland, pegged the astronomical cost of what Single Payer Healthcare would be one weekend sitting at her kitchen table using Google and an Excel spreadsheet. She, too, was yawned and shooed but surely got some satisfaction when Single Payer fantastically imploded under the weight of the number she predicted.
And here’s the question that both of these examples beg: why did it take the so-called experts three years and several million dollars of wasted taxpayer money to arrive at a ballpark figure anyone with a calculator and a functioning brain could have – and did – arrive at over their morning coffee? Could it be that these ideologically driven fantasy projects are more about providing political platforms, salaries, and fundraising opportunities for politically connected cronies? Hmmmm.
But I digress… Back to the issue of the moment: the fate of the Clean Heat “Rube Goldberg” carbon tax scheme.
Here’s the problematic box the climate evangelists have painted themselves into: The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), which they passed over the Governor’s veto in 2020, mandates that we meet certain greenhouse gas reduction measures by 2025, 2030, and 2050. The up to $4.00 per gallon surcharge is what it will take to do all the things necessary to reach those goals in just the thermal (home heating) sector. If the Clean Heat Standard doesn’t go forward, something similar and likely just as costly will have to take its place – unless the GWSA is also repealed.
The Clean Heat carbon tax can be stopped in 2025 if enough Republicans are elected to the House and/or Senate to sustain a gubernatorial veto of the go/no-go vote on the CHS that must take place next session, after this November’s elections. Currently, Republicans hold just 37 of 150 house seats. They need 51 to sustain a veto. They hold just 7 of 30 Senate seats and need 11 to sustain a veto. That’s what it will take to stall the CHS and its potential $8.00 per gallon heating fuel… temporarily.
But to repeal the GWSA? That would certainly require Republican majorities of at least 76 in the House and 16 in the Senate. A tall order, voters! But maybe the prospect of a $2000 carbon tax every time you fill up your 250-gallon fuel tank will be motivation enough to pull it off!
Two important Clean Heat Standard Surveys:
Vermont Daily Chronicle is asking candidates how they will vote come January when the next legislature will decide whether or not to move forward with the Clean Heat Standard. So far just under 70 candidates have responded — only three of whom are Democrats. The rest are hiding. So, here is a link to VDC’s spreadsheet of who responded (or didn’t) and how, along with email addresses. If your candidates did not respond email them and find out how they intend to vote! Again, HERE IS THE LINK.
And the Vermonters for Affordable Heat want to know what YOU think about this policy. Please make your voice hear! Take their survey of the general public HERE.
