Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Heat Charge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont lawmaker pitches capped heating-fuel charge to fund clean-heat incentives
Summary
Representative Mike Borwicki told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 27 that short-form bills would let the Legislature test a capped charge on heating fuels to create funding for weatherization and heat-pump incentives; members questioned the cap, who would pay, and whether all homes could convert.
Montpelier — Representative Mike Borwicki on Feb. 27 told the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure he intends to introduce short-form bills that would place a capped charge on delivered heating fuels to raise money for incentives to install heat pumps, weatherization and related “clean heat” measures.
Borwicki said the proposal would cap the additional charge at 10 cents a gallon for the first five years and that revenues would be returned as incentives to Vermonters to reduce fuel use and improve air quality. “Efficiency Vermont has been saving Vermonters money for quite a long time,” Borwicki said during his pitch. “The reality is clean heat is cheaper heat.”
The bill is being offered as a short-form proposal to let the committee decide whether to ask staff counsel to draft a full bill. Borwicki described several examples from his district to illustrate the potential savings: one neighbor who paid roughly $1,500 a season for cordwood now spends about $900 a season on electricity after installing a heat pump; another household avoided a $22,000 boiler replacement after receiving roughly $10,000 in rebates for heat pumps.
Why it matters: Borwicki and other members said the proposal would create a predictable funding stream to help households cover up-front costs for heat pumps and weatherization, while helping Vermont reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and local air pollution. Borwicki noted the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has contributed funds that supported Efficiency Vermont and suggested a dedicated thermal-energy charge could produce a stable source for similar investments.
Committee members pressed on key details that Borwicki said remain to be developed if the committee takes the short-form bill “off the wall.” Representative Southworth asked, “First, you state that the price cap will not raise delivered cost to heating fuels more than 10 cents a gallon. How did you arrive at that?” Borwicki replied the 10-cent figure is a starting point and that he had not asked counsel or the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to develop data unless the committee directs it to do so.
Representative Buckner said the PUC’s own estimate for an existing clean-heat standard, as he recalled it, was about 8 cents a gallon in year one, “rising, I think, to 58 cents in year 10.” Buckner’s comment underscored committee concern about whether an initial cap would control longer-term costs. Borwicki said a five-year review period could allow the Legislature to evaluate outcomes and determine whether the program is achieving savings and emissions reductions.
Several members emphasized distributional concerns. One committee member noted that not every house is suitable for cold-climate heat pumps; a participant who described a consultant’s assessment said some older homes or additions are unlikely to be good candidates for full heat-pump conversions. Representative Troy urged consideration of “hybrid” systems that pair heat pumps with a fossil-fuel backup, saying, “It’s not all or nothing, and there’s cost savings to be had in approaching the hybrid.”
Other details mentioned in committee discussion: a PUC-recommended benefits charge was described as an alternative mechanism to create a similar revenue stream without the credit-market structure of a clean-heat standard; Borwicki said federal funds and rebates could interact with the proposed program but that the short-form bill’s purpose is to create state funding that could be tailored to affordability goals.
No formal vote or committee action was taken. Borwicki presented the idea as a short-form bill to give the committee a chance to determine whether to request drafting and further analysis by staff and the PUC. Committee leaders said short-form pitches do not indicate the committee has decided to advance the proposal.
What’s next: The committee did not schedule a formal hearing on the proposal during the meeting. Borwicki and other sponsors will remain available if the committee elects to have staff develop the bill text or request PUC cost estimates and program details.
Ending: Committee members also noted public-health and climate rationales alongside cost savings, and some asked for neutral, third-party analyses of program impacts and distributional effects before a full bill would be drafted.
