Poor Vermonters stuck with gasoline powered cars, oil burning furnaces, etc., will end up subsidizing the electric bills of their better-off neighbors who can afford Priuses, solar panels, weatherized homes, electric heat pumps and the like.
The Vermont House Committee on Energy and Technology is taking testimony on the ESSEX carbon tax bill. Here are some questions our legislators (and all Vermonters) should ask regarding the bill.
Miller shared estimates that the ice cream manufacturer would receive over $800,000 in electricity subsides if the ESSEX carbon tax were to become law. This he described as “obviously not insignificant.” True enough.
The House Energy and Technology Committee on Tuesday heard again why Vermont needs a carbon tax, this time from David Farnsworth, senior associate of the Regulatory Assistance Project.
Our environmentalist neighbors have not been good stewards of Vermont’s economy in their efforts to curb carbon emissions, despite their claims otherwise. If we cannot trust them to make simple calculations like GDP, can we really trust them to implement the ESSEX Plan?
The new House carbon tax bill is H.791, and here’s who sponsored it.
Bills can change radically between concepts and ratification, and even after ratification, laws can be changed. If it happened in the private sector, it would be called bait and switch.
Outspoken Addison County residents who attended a presentation about a proposed Vermont carbon tax last week expressed their displeasure with the plan, saying it will add as much as $1,000 to their current winter heating bill if adopted.
The idea behind the Essex Plan is to use the revenue raised by the tax to subsidize electric utilities and thereby lower electric rates. While this sounds like a simple proposition, the legal language illustrates how, in practice, this will be monumentally complicated.
At the moment Donald Trump’s presidency seems to have produced a big adrenaline shot for a relatively stagnant U.S. economy.
If proponents of the Essex Plan want to be taken seriously, they should admit that the plan will, at best, cost millions in administrative and auditing costs. As such, the plan is not really revenue neutral.