Op-Ed: Candidate shares thoughts on the Affordable Heat Act
November 1, 2024 | By Jonathan GriffinThere has been a lot of information circulating about the Affordable Heat Act on social media, conventional media, and community forums.
Misinformation is a term frequently used. We heard it used by an incumbent senator at the candidate forum hosted by the Harwood 7th grade class. I have always considered myself a “trust-but-verify” kind of person who has a strong inclination for facts and data, so I decided to dig into the Affordable Heat Act. This article is a summary of my findings, but I also source each claim so that readers could “trust but verify” my breakdown for themselves.
For reference, Act 18 can be found at this link. The bill requires the Public Utility Commission to propose rules for implementation of the Affordable Heat Act which establishes a carbon credit system. The rulemaking is required to meet Vermont’s legal obligations of the Global Warming Solutions Act by reducing Green House Gas Emissions to specific levels by 2025, 2030, and 2050.
The bill states that the proposed rules must be presented to the legislature on or prior to January 15, 2025 and cannot be enacted without authorization from the General Assembly. See Page 38 of the bill for reference. The newly elected legislature in 2025 must decide if it will implement, change, or abandon the proposed rules. Keep in mind that Vermont has legal obligations to meet the Global Warming Solutions Act so some action must be taken.
The Public Utility Commission completed the study required by Act 18 in September. The study looked at the maximum achievable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal sector as well as the workforce characteristics required to achieve the legal requirements outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act. See page 18 of the bill for this language.
The study was completed by a consultant called NV5. The entire 66-page report can be found here. I have read the report cover to cover, and in my opinion, it is complex, technical and difficult to understand.
The study estimates the costs of implementing the carbon credit system with and without administrative costs. It calculates the net societal cost/benefit of Act 18 and “is not an implementation plan analyzing actual program costs needed to implement Act 18.” It’s important to note that this report is intended to determine the net societal benefit of Act 18 and NOT the actual COSTS required to implement it.
Moving into the report further, fuel switching makes up 67% of the maximum achievable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. electrification/heat pumps, etc.). See Figure 10 on page 47 for confirmation of that number. The study indicates in a footnote on page 14 “that costs associated with electric upgrades to support fuel switching were excluded from the analysis.” New utility services, new electrical services, and panel replacements are expensive. It’s not possible to switch many existing homes without making these expensive upgrades first. This cost is excluded from the program cost estimates. As fuel switching accounts for 67% of all potential carbon reductions, this is a major discrepancy that does not seem properly explored or considered in the financial impacts of Act 18.
The NV5 study has a table that estimates the expected increase in costs per BTU of each fuel source through the implementation of Act 18. You can find this table on page 63 of the NV5 report. I have also included a screenshot of it below for reference.
Converting the $/MMBtu to dollars per gallon is relatively easy. You can google “how many gallons of fuel oil are in 1 MMBtu.” Divide the value highlighted in the table above by the number of gallons in one MMBtu and you get the following values:
Natural Gas - $2.67 / gallon increase in cost
Propane - $2.10 / gallon increase in cost
Fuel Oil - $4.15 / gallon increase in cost
Also, keep in mind that these costs do not consider the additional costs of electrical upgrades to support fuel switching. For that reason, I am skeptical that these costs might be significantly underestimating the increases in cost.
After getting the finalized report from NV5, the Public Utility Commission indicated that the carbon credit system doesn’t make sense for Vermont and that it should be replaced by an efficiency charge. This is due to the complexity of administering the program and the high cost of administration estimated by NV5 as $503 million between now and 2049. See page 65 section 6.1.
Vermont currently has a 2-cent tax on home heating fuel. The 2025 General Assembly must decide if they want to continue with the Affordable Heat Act or implement an efficiency charge as suggested by the Public Utility Commission. If the efficiency charge were enacted how much would it be? The NV5 study values carbon as $128 per ton. That value is approximately equal to $1.43 per gallon for diesel fuel. Would the General Assembly set a rate of $1.43 or would it be something else?
I’m trying to highlight that it is important to make data-driven informed decisions. I believe our elected officials need to evaluate our assumptions, look for gaps, errors, or omissions in testimony reporting, and information provided to them by advocates and opponents.
From my perspective, we need to continue to combat climate change, but the Affordable Heat Act is not the path we should be on. I do not believe this bill is responsible legislation and I would not support advancing it. The questions that I believe voters should be asking their elected officials and current candidates are:
Have you reviewed the NV5 study including how it quantifies the “net societal benefit” to Vermonters?
Do you support implementation of Act 18 the Affordable Heat Act as written?
If you do not support it as written, what financial impact to your constituents are you willing to support?
I want to advocate for being responsible – continuing to lead by example – continuing to make progress, innovation, and energy diversity to show the world that renewable energy independence can be achieved when measured pragmatic steps are taken.
Please know that as a candidate for state representative I do my best to “practice what you preach.” I am a certified solar installer for Enphase products. I have done two DIY grid-tied solar installations that I would be happy to talk about in greater detail with any constituents who are interested to learn more. My family converted from oil to advanced wood heat in 2022 and I am fascinated by learning about new technologies to make us more efficient and reduce energy consumption. I believe I can both advocate for climate change initiatives while also holding the line on pragmatic responsible spending.
Thank you,
Jonathan Griffin
Waterbury
Jonathan Griffin is a civil engineer and Republican candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives in the Washington-Chittenden district covering Waterbury, Bolton, Huntington and Buels Gore.