New analysis: Vermont’s fossil fuel spending remains high and state likely missed first Global Warming Solutions Act target

Energy Action Network Executive Director Jared Duvall told the Vermont House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on a presentation to the committee that statewide fossil fuel consumption has trended downward slowly while spending on fossil fuels has remained high.

"2024 was the third year in a row that statewide fossil fuel costs exceeded $2,000,000,000 for Vermont," Duvall said, and he summarized EAN's analysis of tax-department, utility and JFO data covering 2017–2024.

The report Duvall described looks at tax-department volumes for heating fuels (fuel oil and propane), sales for fossil gas reported by VGS, and gasoline and diesel data available through the Joint Fiscal Office. Duvall said EAN’s analysis shows both economic and emissions effects: the state has seen technology uptake but also large price volatility and a likely shortfall on the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) first milestone.

Why it matters: Duvall said the near-term cost and emissions picture affects household budgets and the state's ability to meet legally binding emission reductions. "Our estimate at EAN is that Vermont has seen a 16 to 21% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels as of 2024," he said, but added his organization’s early 2024 inventory estimate places statewide emissions between roughly 7.75 and 8.29 million metric tons — a level he described as "almost certain" to fall short of the first GWSA obligation, which required a 26% reduction below 2005 by the 2024 reporting year.

Most of the committee discussion centered on how those statewide totals relate to household costs and where money flows in the economy. Duvall pointed to technology adoption that has helped reduce emissions and bills in some cases: EAN’s slide deck and executive summary cited nearly 18,000 electric vehicles registered, more than 40,000 homes weatherized, over 20,000 heat‑pump water heaters installed and about 70,000 cold‑climate heat‑pump units in service as of late 2024.

At the same time, Duvall said price spikes — particularly in gasoline, diesel, propane and fuel oil — drove large increases in statewide spending even when total fossil energy consumption did not rise. He said EAN’s month‑by‑month price analysis showed a dramatic cost increase between 2020 and 2022 and that for many households that translated into large, concentrated increases in annual energy spending.

Committee members pressed for detail and context. Representative Michael Southworth asked whether the report’s multi‑year comparisons were adjusted for inflation; Duvall explained EAN provided both nominal and inflation‑adjusted views and that the inflation adjustment is intended to make years comparable in 2024 dollars. Representative Richard Bailey asked how much of the fossil fuel spending stays in Vermont; Duvall said a smaller share of fossil‑fuel dollars recirculates in‑state than electricity dollars because the commodity cost of imported fuels largely leaves the state, even though some local wages and retailer margins remain in Vermont.

On policy implications, Duvall told the committee that Vermont has stronger policy tools in electricity (for example, the Renewable Energy Standard, Efficiency Vermont programs and participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) and that the state lacks comparable performance standards or market mechanisms in the transportation and thermal sectors. "It is still possible to meet future Global Warming Solutions Act obligations," he said, "but emissions don't unfortunately go down on their own and it requires market changes...in the form of proven policies and regulations."

The presentation included household examples EAN used to compare fuels and technologies: EAN showed average annual fuel costs for different heating systems, lifetime fuel‑cost comparisons for water heaters and an apples‑to‑apples vehicle example comparing a 2025 gasoline Chevrolet Equinox and a 2025 Equinox EV. Duvall emphasized the calculations compared fuel and operating costs and did not model every possible upfront conversion cost or incentive outcome. He repeatedly noted that incentives — federal or utility — change the economics for particular households and that upfront purchase or retrofit costs were not fully included in EAN’s fuel‑cost comparisons.

Committee members also raised specific questions about data coverage and definitions used in the analysis: Representative Safran asked whether the fuel‑oil category included other grades beyond number‑2 heating oil; Duvall said the presentation focused on the most common heating fuels and excluded some specialized or commercial grades. Several members asked about the time lag and scope of the official state greenhouse‑gas inventory; Duvall said the Agency of Natural Resources inventory typically lags by about three years because some sectors (notably agriculture) rely on EPA estimation tools with a delay.

Duvall closed by urging policy attention to transportation and thermal sectors and by offering the EAN data visualizations and the full report for committee review. The committee scheduled follow‑up business and thanked Duvall and Lena, EAN’s data manager and coauthor of the report, before moving offline.

Ending note: The committee discussion did not include any motions or votes on policy changes. Members asked for follow‑up details (for example, per‑gallon and per‑delivered‑heat comparisons and data sources for red‑tagged oil tanks) that Duvall said EAN would provide or already had available in the published report and supplemental data.