This commentary is by Morgan Feldmann, a student who moved from North Carolina to Burlington to study political science, who is a senior at the University of Vermont, and who is a legislative intern for state Rep. Gabrielle Stebbins, D-Burlington.
Last month I had the opportunity to witness the second reading of S.5, the Affordable Heat Act, on the Senate Floor. In a surprising turn of events, a small faction of state senators rejected the possibility for Vermonters to enjoy the benefit of discounted clean energy, which was offered in the bill.
Even more bewildering was the justification given for their pushback. Fueled by misinformation, these senators promoted a narrative with no supporting evidence. One of the main points was first mentioned by Sen. Robert Starr. He said that “those in support of the AHA have not done their due diligence” and are simply asking you to “trust them” when voting, and characterized the passage of the Affordable Heat Act as putting “the cart in front of the horse.”
As I see it, “trust” is not the issue here; rather, this is an assessment of facts. The actions recommended in the Affordable Heat Act have been backed up by multiple state-led studies:
● A Total Energy Study, conducted by the Department of Public Service, which affirms the possibility and necessity of achieving the goals detailed in S.5.
● A report submitted by the Thermal Efficiency Task Force, released in 2013, which sets out recommendations that are in line with those proposed by S.5.
● A Decarbonization Methods Analysis conducted in 2019, which outlines policy and regulatory options for meeting Vermont’s climate and clean energy goals.
● Act 62, an analysis conducted by the Public Utility Commission, which concluded that, for Vermont to meet its energy and climate goals, Vermont lawmakers must “establish stable, sizable, long-term funding for decarbonizing the heating and transportation sectors.”
● The 2022 Vermont Pathways Analysis provides guidance for meeting the Global Warming Solutions Act and ultimately informed the recommendations put forth by the Vermont Climate Council. One of the most notable conclusions: “When the savings from fossil fuels and avoided damages are combined with the additional costs and investments required to reduce emissions, the net economic benefits between now and 2050 are projected to be approximately $6.4 billion, which is roughly equivalent to two years of Vermont’s spending on all energy sources.”
The bill also includes a two-year period where a plan must be developed, presented and voted on again in 2025. This raises another point of contention: The faulty narrative the senators expressed is that, if the Affordable Heat Ac is passed, all of its requirements will be immediately adopted. Again, untrue.
The ideas put forth by Sen. Starr and others prompted the bill’s presenter, Sen. Bray, to repeatedly refute their assertions. Sen. Bray’s attempt to inform the dissenters was to no avail and further showed their positions as stalwart defenders of misinformation. These senators, denying the multiple points of evidence, remained unswayed.
The objective of this commentary is not to claim that there can be no legitimate criticism of the proposed bill. Rather, it is my intention to present with clarity the false claims asserted during the second reading of the Affordable Heat Act and to highlight the critical need for honest discourse, especially surrounding landmark bills such as this one.
I am hoping that false narratives can be left at the door, for the betterment of Vermont.
