Dear Senator,

I am writing on behalf of Campaign for Vermont Prosperity, asking to you carefully weigh the value versus the potential harm that can be done by introducing a carbon pricing scheme on heating fuels. Every equity expert that has testified on S.5 has agreed that it will likely hurt low-income Vermonters, those on fixed incomes, rural Vermonters, and our historically marginalized. We share this belief. Carbon-pricing is a blunt instrument that is almost certain to do unintended harm to Vermont’s most vulnerable.

Further, it is not responsible public policy to pass a spending bill of this size without understanding the full impacts on taxpayers (in this case any Vermonter who heats their home in the winter). Legislative protocol dictates that every spending bill should have a fiscal note attached to it from the Joint Fiscal Office. No fiscal analysis has been done on the overall bill. This stems from Article 9 of the Vermont Constitution, which states that “previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.” Again, no serious effort has been made to show that carbon-pricing is of more service to the community than if this money was not collected from Vermonters.

Even worse, we might inflict this harm on Vermonters without even seeing the greatest environmental benefits. There are real unanswered questions about the viability of heat pumps, in a climate like Vermont’s, and the bill clearly intends to push Vermonters towards that technology. The problem is the technology just isn’t mature yet. And, the energy mix currently used to power those systems today may possibly introduce MORE carbon into our atmosphere than currently available fossil fuel systems do. You can see more analysis on this in our recent policy brief on this topic. These are serious questions that need to be answered before we move forward on a carbon-pricing scheme.

That is not to say we shouldn’t do anything. There are a number of things we could invest in that have a higher return on investment in terms of environmental benefit. The Agency of Natural Resources has a report that lists some of these options (and also the ones it probably makes sense to stop investing in). In our recent report we also offer some other suggestions for policy makers to look into.

In summary, the up-front costs of the heating systems contemplated in this bill are still too high, they are not reliable enough to keep people warm throughout Vermont winters, and the cost of operation will strain families’ budgets. Protections for low-income, those on fixed incomes, rural, and marginalized Vermonters are lacking in S.5.

I know our legislature has many good people who do not want to harm our most vulnerable. You do not have to vote for this bill simply because clean-energy lobbyists or party leaders say you do. I urge you to take a step back and find the answers to the questions concerned Vermonters are asking. Then, with all the facts, you can move forward with a bill that pursues energy solutions that are affordable, responsible, and meet the goal of lowering our carbon footprint.

Respectfully,

Pat McDonald