This commentary is by Jeremy Rathbun of Middlebury, a licensed mechanical professional engineer, licensed site designer and a provisional class 3 wastewater operator in Vermont. He is a member of AFSCME Local 1201.
I have been following the progress of S.5 this year with excitement and concern, a concern magnified as I receive mailings encouraging me to contact my senators and representatives to vote no.
While I am excited that Vermont is taking action toward meeting our climate goals, I will admit I am very concerned about the structure we are setting up to do so.
I thought sharing these thoughts and concerns regarding S.5 in a public forum might spur some answers and/or public debate. They are as follows.
A) Cost: The secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources stated that the proposed bill could raise the cost of fuel oil by as much as 70 cents per gallon of fuel. Several lawmakers have stated that number to be inaccurate, but have provided no number to replace it. Sen. Chris Bray has disputed the cost numbers offered by the Agency of Natural Resources, touting numerous studies that have been conducted that provide more accurate information.
Simply put: If the folks working on the bill feel their information is more accurate, then what is the number? If 70 cents per gallon is wrong, how much will the bill add to the cost of fuel oil?
At the end of the day, there are folks in this state who will not be able to afford thermal upgrades even if their share of the cost is only $500. Lord knows I was in that situation once myself as a young parent. We all deserve to know what the impact of this bill will be on those among us with the least of means.
B) Jobs: With not enough people in the trades now, we need to do a hard look at who is going to do all of the equipment upgrades and thermal retrofits that this bill will encourage. We do not have the people available to do work currently scheduled, let alone the large influx of residential work this bill will create.
The lawmakers sponsoring the bill have stated time and again how they want to structure it to help working-class people in Vermont. I would make the following three suggestions to help address that.
1) 29 V.S.A. § 161): Make all work subsidized as a result of this bill subject to state capital construction project prevailing wage rates. This guarantees that all workers will be paid the prevailing wage for their work. This will help our local workers be paid properly for their work, and will help prevent shoddy contractors who underpay their workers from taking advantage of this program.
2) Made in the USA provision: Many American companies, such as Trane, assemble heat pumps in plants right here at home. Work subsidized as part of this bill should have Made in the USA provisions to support American workers, and reduce the carbon footprint of the equipment through reduced shipping distance from overseas.
3) The Vermont Protecting the Right to Organize “PRO” Act (S.102): The Vermont Pro Act should be passed hand in hand with S.5. Nothing will encourage folks to go into the trades and build out our technical base like ensuring the workers who go into these trades have power to bargain for fair wages and benefits for their labor. S.102 will help strengthen those rights for workers, and make it easier for existing workers to form unions to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits. All of this will make the trades more attractive and encourage more folks to go into them.
C) Existing fuel oil and gas dealers: At the end of the day, S.5 will hurt folks who deal in fuel oil, natural gas, and propane. Everyone understands we must address our climate goals, but at the same time we are talking about actively impacting business in one sector, with no talk of recompense. Again, this is directly affecting the working-class folks who built these businesses as well as the folks they employ.
The bill needs to include a provision to make these folks whole. It is in no way addressed in S.5, and that is a glaring omission. Job loss in working-class communities can be as destructive as climate change, if not more destructive.
These are just a few of the questions and comments I have regarding S.5. I agree something must be done to address climate change, but it is not fair to do that on the backs of the poor and working class, which I fear this bill does. I thank all of the senators and representatives for their time working on the bill, and I hope the suggestions presented above can be incorporated by the final bill.