Energy Action Network: Vermont spent about $3.3 billion on energy in 2023; price spikes drove large household pain

Jared Duvall, executive director of Energy Action Network (EAN), told the Natural Resources & Energy committee that EAN’s latest annual report estimates Vermont’s total energy spending in 2023 at roughly $3.3 billion, with more than $2 billion paid for fossil fuels used in transportation and heating.

"The answer for the latest year for which we had full data in 2023 is over $3,000,000,000, $3,300,000,000," Duvall said, presenting EAN’s statewide tally and the report’s visuals. He said gasoline spending alone approached $1 billion in 2023 and fuel oil and propane together were about $700 million.

EAN emphasized how price volatility, not consumption growth, drove the 2021–2022 spike. Duvall noted fossil‑fuel consumption was essentially unchanged between 2021 and 2022, but total spending rose by about $700 million in a single year because of global commodity price movements around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. "Fossil fuels are 100% imported into Vermont," he added, arguing that import dependence amplifies price exposure.

The report translated statewide totals to household impact. Using an "average" Vermont household profile (two gasoline vehicles and typical heating load), Duvall said the 2021–2022 price spike translated to nearly $2,500 in additional energy costs for an average household that year. He framed energy affordability as a core part of broader affordability conversations in Vermont, alongside housing and transportation costs.

EAN’s analysis also examined distributional effects. Duvall said higher‑income households consume more transportation energy (more vehicles and miles), but lower‑ and middle‑income households spend a much larger share of their budgets on transportation and heating. He highlighted that transportation fuel and maintenance account for a disproportionate share of costs among lower‑income households, and that renters are more likely than owners to rely on higher‑cost fossil fuels in many areas.

Duvall discussed economic recirculation: because Vermont does not produce fossil fuels, he said about $0.76 of every dollar spent on fossil fuels leaves the state, while approximately $0.59 of electricity spending tends to stay and recirculate locally because more of its cost is tied to labor and local services.

On emissions, EAN’s life‑cycle comparisons found that, in Vermont’s electricity context, a gasoline vehicle produces several times more lifetime climate pollution than an electric vehicle, a difference Duvall summarized as "about seven times" in his presentation. He acknowledged battery manufacturing adds emissions up front, but said the overall life‑cycle balance still favors electrification in Vermont.

Duvall highlighted the tradeoff between upfront cost and lifetime savings. Citing weatherization, heat pump water heaters and electric vehicles (EVs), he said investments typically require upfront funds but produce lasting savings; he cited a conservative 3:1 return on investment for weatherization from the Vermont Department of Health and referenced nearly $1 billion invested in electricity efficiency from 2000 to 2021 that he said generated multi‑billion dollar savings over time.

On EVs, Duvall cited data showing lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs—he referenced AAA and EAN figures estimating nearly $10,000 in avoided lifetime fuel/maintenance costs for EVs compared with combustion vehicles—but acknowledged higher upfront purchase prices. He said Vermont’s prior incentive design targeted lower‑priced EVs and provided greater assistance to lower‑ and middle‑income buyers. He noted those state incentives expired in 2025 and that federal and state changes between 2023 and 2024 affected used EV affordability.

Duvall described the 'Switch and Save' program, which helped low‑ and moderate‑income Vermonters replace inefficient fossil‑fuel water heaters with heat pump water heaters; he said the program helped more than 1,000 Vermonters in a recent year and that funds were nearly exhausted.

Committee members asked how lifetime savings translate to short‑term affordability. Duvall pointed to targeted incentives and financing mechanisms as ways to bridge the upfront cost gap and stressed that policy design matters for reaching low‑ and middle‑income households. He also discussed grid considerations, saying managed charging and time‑of‑use rates reduce peak costs today and that bidirectional charging (vehicle‑to‑grid) offers future opportunities but faces technical and standards challenges.

Duvall offered to share slides and the report and noted the Vermont Climate Action Plan was updated in July; he said members of the Climate Council could present the plan’s priorities if the committee wished. The presentation concluded with brief committee discussion and thanks.

The committee did not take formal votes on policy during the session. Duvall said the EAN slides and report are available for committee members and staff.