The secretary of Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources implored lawmakers this week to look more deeply at logistical and cost implications of the proposed clean heat standard, a measure designed to reduce climate emissions from Vermont’s buildings.
Lawmakers in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee have taken testimony on “the benefits of the clean heat standard, which are real, and notably include significant long-term savings for Vermonters transitioning from fossil fuel-based heat to clean heat solutions,” Secretary Julie Moore said.
Referring to the legislation as the “Affordable Heat Act,” lawmakers have emphasized the cost savings that Vermonters would eventually gain from the bill, which would incentivize switching to heating options that pollute less.
The proposal, detailed in the bill S.5, would create a system of clean heat credits designed to transition the heating sector away from fossil fuels over time. Entities importing fossil fuels into the state would be required to obtain credits, while those who install clean heat measures — weatherproofing homes or switching to electric heat pumps, for example — would earn credits.
In the long run, the clean heat standard is expected to save Vermonters $6.4 billion and reduce climate emissions 34% by 2030.
But on Thursday, Moore sat before lawmakers to highlight the upfront costs.
Moore created her own analysis based on numbers from a report issued in February 2022 and determined that, by 2030, Vermont will need to weatherize 85,000 homes (which would cost $890 million), install 145,000 heat pumps ($725 million) and install 125,000 heat pump hot water heaters ($375 million).
Describing her estimates as “really rough,” Moore told lawmakers that it could cost a total of about $1.2 billion to make the necessary changes and increase the price of fuel by 70 cents per gallon for those who use kerosene, heating oil and propane. The estimate includes federal funding that might be available to offset the expenses.
“I just want to own that this is really rough math,” Moore told lawmakers, adding that a former boss used to tell her, “all models are wrong; some models are useful.”
“I’m confident this is wrong. I could easily be off by a factor of two here,” she said. “But I think the order of magnitude context is probably important, and would simply suggest that if you’re offended by my back-of-the-envelope math — and it’s absolutely reasonable you might be — I encourage you to see this as trying to make the case for the more detailed analysis and modeling that’s needed to generate better numbers.”
The clean heat standard was one of the top recommendations of the Vermont Climate Council, a group charged with designing pathways for the state to drastically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2020, requires the state to reduce emissions in measurable amounts by 2025, 2030 and 2050. The clean heat standard is currently the only proposal that would significantly reduce Vermont’s emissions, and without it, the state would not likely meet its legally mandated requirements.
While members of Gov. Phil Scott’s administration lead and make up a significant portion of the climate council, the governor has long opposed the clean heat standard, citing concerns about costs for Vermonters, 70% of whom use fossil fuels to heat their homes.
Lawmakers passed the bill last session, but Scott vetoed it, and lawmakers in the House failed to override his veto by one vote. This session, lawmakers have an unprecedented supermajority of Democrats and Progressives, increasing the likelihood that the bill will pass.
In turn, the Scott administration has doubled down on efforts to oppose the bill. In his annual budget address, Scott included funding for officials in the state’s climate office “to do the real planning and analysis we need to reach emissions targets accurately and realistically.”
In an interview, Moore clarified that the money would be targeted at finding new solutions in the heating sector.
Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, who chairs the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said Moore’s questions will help to shape the committee’s work on the bill moving forward. While Moore said the bill’s timeline is too tight to find real answers to the pieces that concern her most — if passed this session, the bill would likely go into effect in January 2026 — Bray spoke to the importance of striking a balance.
“I’m feeling like a robust, responsive, self-aware program can evolve and succeed,” Bray said. “We don’t have to see the entire path in front of us. It’s not to say that we launch blindly, but that we launch with what seems like a reasonable program with a very active due-diligence piece.”