This commentary is by state Sen. Becca White, D-Windsor.
I always presume the best intentions when it comes to the goals and actions of other politicians, but I have been scratching my head to understand what the intent of Gov. Phil Scott is with his continued misstatements on the work of your Legislature on the Affordable Heat Act.
Respect, to me, comes when the truth is exchanged, and, respectfully, I am compelled to share some examples of those inaccuracies.
One of the biggest misrepresentations the governor has made relates to the check-back provision, which requires the Legislature to affirmatively vote to advance the program in 2025. The governor has erroneously stated, many times, that the program will take effect without the ability of the Legislature and Vermonters to understand the costs (and benefits) of the program and modify it before the program is implemented. That is simply untrue.
As you can see in this legal analysis by the Legislature’s General Counsel, the bill catalyzes a two-year Public Utility Commission-led process to examine the costs (and benefits) of the program, further refine it and shape the rules that will come before the Legislature to examine in 2025 (all work informed by an expert technical advisory group, an equity advisory group, and stakeholder engagement).
In 2025, the Legislature will then have to affirmatively act in order for the program to become law. According to the Legislature’s Legal Counsel, in order to become law, under the Constitution it needs to go through bicameral passage. That means it needs to pass both bodies — the House and the Senate — and then be presented to the governor, where the governor has the option to sign it into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it, at which point there would be the option to override.
The governor has also made outlandish claims about the cost of this program — with no expert, verified, or full and fair analysis to undergird those claims. It’s deeply irresponsible. And it’s also not true.
The reality is, no one knows what the exact price effects of this program will be yet — which is what the two-year process required by the bill will examine. We have a sense, based on an analogous program underway in Oregon (though that program covers transportation, not thermal fuels). In Oregon, a similar program resulted in gasoline and diesel prices of about 5 or 6 cents per gallon higher, while also reducing the price of biodiesel (anywhere from a decrease of 61 cents to $1.16 a gallon) and the price of electricity.
Any increases in the cost of fossil fuels will translate into lower costs for cleaner alternatives. And that is the point — to make cleaner choices more affordable and accessible to Vermonters.
It is also important to note that no one — including fuel dealers — can tell you what the cost of their products will be in six months, a year, two years, or beyond. When I asked a fuel dealer in my area if they could share figures on future projections, they informed me that the international markets were so variable, they were unable to know themselves.
What we do know is what history — including recent history — has proven. We know that the cost of No. 2 fuel oil rose by $2 per gallon in just over a year in Vermont.
What I know — and why I am supportive of this bill and the two-year deep dive it would catalyze — is that the status quo isn’t sustainable. It’s costly. It’s deeply inequitable. And it’s a vulnerable place to be, at the end of the oil pipeline, tied to a global commodity market over which we have absolutely no control.
There are better solutions, and this program could help Vermonters access them — if the process is enabled to proceed. Which the governor is doing his very best to stymie. And he’s pulling out all the stops.
Another of the governor’s claims is that this bill will force Vermonters to make a choice between fossil fuels or cold-climate heat pumps as if it’s simply one or the other. That is deeply misleading and inaccurate, for two reasons.
First, people don’t have to do anything if they don’t want to. Secondly, there are many other options beyond cold-climate heat pumps that Vermonters can access if and when they want or need to. These include weatherization, wood heating, and sustainable biofuels. Here is a full list of eligible measures on page 23, starting on line 3, which establishes a minimum number of options for fuel providers — and people — to choose from. As you will see, there are many options — far more than the governor’s erroneous statements that people will only have “two options.”
Most recently, in his veto message, it was sad to see the governor be so deeply disingenuous on such a critical policy. He said: “I would not veto a bill that directs the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to design a potential clean heat standard — provided it’s returned to the Legislature, in bill form with all the details, and debated, amended, and voted on with the transparency Vermonters deserve.”
That is exactly what the bill lays out. And, if the governor wanted more clear language articulating the very same thing a little differently, he or many other members of his administration had time to offer that language — and a proposed solution — to the Legislature. Since the session commenced in January, this has not happened despite ample opportunity.
It’s disheartening to have such an important issue — and such an opportunity — mired in a sea of misinformation, creating real stress and anxiety for Vermonters. The status quo, which is where we will be if this bill fails to move forward again, is costly, inequitable and unsustainable.
There is a better way to help all Vermonters stay warm, and overriding this veto will commence a process to understand how we can do that well.
I believe that when we make policy that influences people’s lives, we must do so with humility and a commitment to a full, fair and factual debate based on merits and the best information at hand. That is why it will be my honor and a privilege to work to override this veto. I hope and trust enough of my fellow lawmakers will do the same, supporting the pursuit of getting the essential information we need to make informed policy decisions and setting the stage to move people off of the high-cost, damaging roller coaster of fossil fuels.
Editor’s note: The Senate voted 20-10 to override the governor’s veto. The House was expected to vote today, Thursday.
