For the better part of a year, Gov. Phil Scott has been blasting the Clean Heat Standard by claiming it could cost Vermonters a billion dollars or more. It became a big part of the Republicans’ campaign to blast legislative Democrats for making Vermont unaffordable.
Well, about that. Last week, the Public Utility Commission — whose members were appointed by Scott and who have collectively been doing their best to block or slow the growth of renewable energy in Vermont — came out with a radically lower cost estimate. According to the PUC, the Clean Heat Standard would likely raise the cost of oil by less than a dime a gallon in 2026 and could – emphasis on could – increase oil costs by another 45 cents by 2035. A possibility, and that’s all it is, for an increase far lower than Scott’s beloved $4 a gallon.
Gee, that’s inconvenient. You mean the governor and his party have been blowing smoke about the Clean Heat Standard all along? Just for the sake of politics? Shocked, I am shocked.
Equallly shocked I am that the PUC manufactured, out of thin air and whole cloth, a substitute rationale for killing the CHS.
Said rationale, and I’m not making this up, is that the Commission “does not believe that this program is well suited to Vermont.”
What the actual what?
Okay, let’s pause here and state, for the record, that the actual impact of the CHS is unclear. The PUC itself acknowledged that its estimate is not gospel. That, in fact, the economic benefits of the CHS might far outweigh the shorter-term cost impact. That the CHS might actually lead to a Vermont that’s more affordable and better for the climate.
And that a well-crafted program to protect lower-income Vermonters would significantly reduce the real-world pain of any short-term cost hikes.
Hikes that, as we have seen, may or may not exist. And all of this depends on predictions about where fossil fuel prices will go. Predictions that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on or the hot air expelled from politicians or bureaucrats with a partisan ax to grind.
So now we find ourselves in a situation where the direst of Scott administration predictions about the CHS has been called into question — or, if you prefer, been superseded — by a prediction from within the administration of only the mildest of consequences. Maybe. Possibly.
In spite of all this, the political momentum is strong against the CHS. It’s hard to see the Democrats being unified enough, or dedicated enough, to push it forward. Even if they cinched their loincloths good and tight and passed it through the House and Senate, they can no longer overcome a veto.
A veto from a governor who’s been waving the bloody shirt about the CHS, to great political profit, for almost a full year. I doubt we’ve heard the last of that billion-dollar figment. Not as long as Scott and the Republicans can continue to make political hay out of it.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
John, do you actually follow this issue? Did you read the report? Here’s what the PUC’s Equity Advisory Group discovered in its year plus examination of the law:
“The Clean Heat Standard as currently designed is likely to increase fuel costs, and therefore increase the energy burdens of low and moderate income Vermonters, at least in the short term….. many disadvantaged
communities, including Vermonters of Color, low income households, moderate income households, renters, and residents of mobile homes, face significant challenges in accessing clean heat measures in their homes. Without additional intervention from the Legislature [which has never been proposed or discussed], these households will struggle to experience the benefits available under the Clean Heat Standard while bearing a disproportionate share of the costs.”
“The CHS will particularly impact very low income households receiving benefits from the LowIncome Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP assistance is based on the MarginOver-Rack (MOR) pricing, or the fixed price participating fuel dealers can charge a customer receiving fuel assistance funds. Under Act 18, the MOR price will be subject to any potential clean heat fee.”
“The EAG heard from many commenters that any increase in fuel prices would be very difficult to shoulder. Many commenters, especially those living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck, worried about their ability to remain in their homes.”
For someone who says he cares so much about the homeless, you don’t seem bothered by a program that will likely create more.
And if you read my post, you’d know I said that there ought to be ” a well-crafted program to protect lower-income Vermonters,” but hey, it’s easier to criticize if you ignore what I actually wrote.
Okay. Fair enough. But how much will that program(s) cost, and where will the money come from? From ANOTHER surcharge on fossil fuels driving up the cost to heat our homes? From raising/expanding the revenue generated from Clean Heat Credits, which will drive up that 8-58 cent program impact estimate — especially in the early years of the program — by how much? Yeah, Act 18 pays lip service “equity” but why haven’t your buddies in the Democrat/Progressive caucus pushing this policy even discussed the safety net programs that would be necessary to protect low income Vermonters from this idiotic program? I’d say it’s because they’re trying to hide the real cost and impact of what they’re doing. Do you disagree?
It’s “Democratic,” Rob.
“does not believe that this program is well suited to Vermont.” It never was. It ignores basic economics and increases the burden on the poor. The CHS was always virtue signaling hubris, believing that Vermont can have any impact at all on reducing greenhouse emissions in a time where we’re building new power plants solely to nurture our future AI overlords.
A lot of mights and we’ll find out about a bill that would fundamentally change the way we do business in this state. Sure, Donald Trump might not be a disaster, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Saying that the costs are now going to be lower is nothing but a lame attempt to save face because any politician that wants to come back in two years is running away from this mess as quickly as possible
Really? That’s what you got? I must say that’s about the most “excuse me while I admire the smell of my own farts” attitude I’ve seen. And, that might be a big reason for the big Democratic losses in VT last November.
No, that’s not all I’ve got. It’s just all the effort I’ve got to engage with you. And I doubt that anything I’ve written has anything to do with Democratic defeats in November.