Op-Ed: The Affordable Heat Act is not the climate action we need

April 24, 2023  |  By Chris Gish, Peter Duval and Ashley Adams

The bill S.5 referred to as the Affordable Heat Act would be a major step back for climate action in Vermont. The core of the bill was developed in closed-door meetings by some of Vermont’s biggest polluters, bypassing grassroots environmental groups and the Climate Council. It heavily favors biofuels that would push Vermont further from its climate goals.

As S.5 has advanced to the governor’s desk — likely to be vetoed and returned to the Legislature for further debate and a veto override attempt — more than 30 organizations and 230 individuals have signed a letter calling for all biofuels to be removed from S.5. 

Biomass, liquid biofuels, and “renewable” natural gas all have emissions profiles that are worse than the fossil fuels they would replace and come with serious health and ecological consequences. 

Wood emits more carbon per unit of energy than coal, contributing to global heating in a way that would never be undone by a forest’s possible regrowth many decades later. Wood heat also adds more to Vermont’s air pollution than other fuels, causing about $110-$240 million in annual direct health impacts, according to Jan. 27 testimony from Jared Ulmer of the Vermont Department of Health. 

Liquid biofuels have higher emissions than comparable fossil fuels and unavoidably drive a global market causing dramatic deforestation and biodiversity loss. Industry forecasts call for doubling the supply of “edible oils” in the U.S. by 2030 to meet the biofuel targets mandated in state climate policies, a frightening prospect in a world where food supplies and open land are already enormously strained.

Despite the clear science and the engagement of hundreds of people on this issue, S.5’s reliance on biofuels has continued since last year, when grassroots environmentalists and independent scientists sounded the alarm around the Clean Heat Standard. S.5 contains weak caps on the carbon intensity of liquid and gaseous biofuels, which can be waived after 2030 for a number of open-ended reasons, and never apply at all to wood heat.

Further, there is no evidence that the Public Utility Commission would arrive at carbon intensity values that accurately account for all the emissions associated with biofuels, especially given that the existing studies underpinning S.5 do not accurately count biogenic emissions. 

The recent Seneca Meadows renewable natural gas case provides a window into the Public Utility Commission process that would determine S.5’s entire credit system. Despite more than 170 public comments, the commission still sided with Vermont Gas to accept a wildly low estimate for the carbon intensity of the fuel — 44 g CO2-eq/MJ instead of the more than 156 g CO2-eq/MJ reported in testimony by Cornell Professor Robert Howarth. 

The conversation around climate action in Vermont has become so unrooted from reality that it is hard to make sense of a bill like S.5. Urgency is given as justification for a bill that won’t take effect for years, and even then supports polluting fuels that would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Equity is stood up as a reason to pass a bill that would disproportionately be funded by lower-income people.  

We are grateful for the time that legislators have taken to hear our concerns but feel that large polluters and aligned groups have received far greater consideration in the design of S.5. Scientists and policy experts rushed to complete their testimony in 10-15 minutes, while utility executives and other proponents of the bill repeatedly testified for hours at a time.

Moreover, a recent records request by Vermonters for a Clean Environment revealed that Vermont Gas executives, other utilities, and aligned groups were at the heart of the closed-door group that devised the Clean Heat Standard starting in November 2020. The proposal was inserted into the Climate Action Plan at the last moment, without approval or substantial debate by the Climate Council. Notes reveal that from the beginning, the Clean Heat Standard (now S.5) was designed to include liquid biofuels, biomass, and renewable natural gas, allowing major polluters like Vermont Gas and Burlington Electric to continue to profit off of the climate-harming fuels at the heart of their business models.

Vermont cannot afford the mistake of passing S.5 in its current form. We urgently need real climate action, including the rapid, unequivocal phase-out of all polluting, carbon-based energy. This action must be led by impacted populations, independent science, and grassroots organizations, not private, industry-dominated groups.

Without major changes to S.5 to exclude biofuels and expand support for people with low and moderate incomes — say, a tax credit offsetting any increase in fuel cost — the governor and Legislature should scrap S.5 in favor of policy focused on energy conservation and declining, non-fungible caps on all polluting fuels.

Peter Duval lives in Underhill, and participated in VT PSB Docket #5611, an investigation of environmental externalities. Ashley Adams is a business owner, activist, and Burlington resident. Chris Gish is a farmworker who lives in Burlington and organizes with Stop VT Biomass.