Vermont produces six times less energy than it consumes and depends on trucked-in petroleum for both transportation and home heating. Transportation accounts for 38% of its total energy consumption.
"... tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran"? Please call this what it is: A US-Israeli attack on Iran led by Israel, one costing the US billions a day to carry out Israel's agenda. The US stands to gain no security or diplomatic benefit from this war. It is happening only for what Israel perceives as its benefit.
Well done up to the line about the long term savings from the clean heat standard. Informed readers know that is a tall tale, pure fiction, a stack if assumptions that make an ass out of those repeating it.
Please refrain or at least contextually such statements in the future lest you are seen as an ass for your brash assumptions about clean heat.
Thank you for the comment and for raising this point. You’re correct that the projected long-term savings associated with Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard (the Affordable Heat Act) remain highly contested and depend heavily on modeling assumptions.
In earlier reporting, Compass examined those projections and noted that the state spent roughly $1.7 million on consultant modeling that produced a wide range of possible outcomes, many of which rely on assumptions about technology adoption, fuel prices, and program design that are still uncertain.
The reference in this article reflects the argument made by supporters of the policy, but you are right that those claims are debated and should always be understood in that context. I appreciate you pointing out the need for that clarification.
"... tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran"? Please call this what it is: A US-Israeli attack on Iran led by Israel, one costing the US billions a day to carry out Israel's agenda. The US stands to gain no security or diplomatic benefit from this war. It is happening only for what Israel perceives as its benefit.
Well done up to the line about the long term savings from the clean heat standard. Informed readers know that is a tall tale, pure fiction, a stack if assumptions that make an ass out of those repeating it.
Please refrain or at least contextually such statements in the future lest you are seen as an ass for your brash assumptions about clean heat.
Good Morning Mark,
Thank you for the comment and for raising this point. You’re correct that the projected long-term savings associated with Vermont’s Clean Heat Standard (the Affordable Heat Act) remain highly contested and depend heavily on modeling assumptions.
In earlier reporting, Compass examined those projections and noted that the state spent roughly $1.7 million on consultant modeling that produced a wide range of possible outcomes, many of which rely on assumptions about technology adoption, fuel prices, and program design that are still uncertain.
The reference in this article reflects the argument made by supporters of the policy, but you are right that those claims are debated and should always be understood in that context. I appreciate you pointing out the need for that clarification.
Much appreciated,
Tom Davis