Submitted by RamaSchneider t3_126j5j7 in vermont
RamaSchneider OP t1_je9ausq wrote
I don't know about the credits thing, but pricing based upon amount of usage makes sense. We not only have to get off the opioid-like fossil fuel addiction, but at least in the near term we have to be much more frugal in our electricity usage.
From the letter:
>Here in Vermont, the Legislature must be pushed to price electricity on a sliding scale with the lowest users paying a lower rate and as usage goes up, so does the price per kilowatt. We are in the process of exchanging clean electricity for dirty fossil fuels for heating and transportation. There will have to be a credit built in for the higher usage driven by clean and efficient heat pumps and electric, vehicles as these must be encouraged. It must still be weighted to avoid overconsumption.
Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_je9dwq4 wrote
> There will have to be a credit built in for the higher usage driven by clean and efficient heat pumps and electric
Anyone who pays attention to politics knows this is BS. Remember the last time they tried this crap with a similar scheme they were going to give rebates to the poor after spending higher amounts for gas and heating oil. Problem was that required an entire new set of hires and expenses to dole out the cash that had already been spent. The state sure does love creating new administrative bodies. Nothing new.
HeadPen5724 t1_je9eskp wrote
We get the VAST majority our electricity in VT from non-emitting CO2 sources. Pricing electricity based on usage doesn’t make sense at all.
Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_je9hl34 wrote
As we transition to using more electricity for EVs and such it would make sense to have some incentive to not overuse/waste electricity. If consumption increases too quickly we may have to get electricity from elsewhere (could be fossil fuels).
More generally speaking, even if something is renewable we still shouldn't waste it.
HeadPen5724 t1_je9jbc8 wrote
I agree, and VTers are usually pretty good about not wasting stuff. That said this is an expensive place to live and electricity isn’t the way we contribute to climate change.
Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_je9m099 wrote
>electricity isn’t the way we contribute to climate change.
As of 2017 electricity generation accounted for 6% of CO2 emissions, which is small. But transportation and fuel (including heating) accounted for a combined 58%. If a large portion of our transportation and fuel use instead comes from electricity, our CO2 emissions from electricity will rise dramatically.
Also, a sliding scale would make wealthier individuals pay more, so your point about the high cost of living in Vermont I think is moot.
HeadPen5724 t1_je9of21 wrote
Replacing heating and transportation with electricity is a long term issue. We don’t even have the infrastructure or resources in place for that yet. On top of that, many VTers do not have the resources to convert to electric vehicles and their inefficient homes will use more electricity and they’ll pay more if we use some usage scale to determine rates. This will hurt the poor and do little to nothing to address climate change.
By the time we are converted to electricity we won’t even be using the same technology to generate power.
Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_je9r56a wrote
> We don’t even have the infrastructure or resources in place for that yet
We are with GMP and if it even looks like it might get windy we could lose power. The infrastructure and capacity of the substation here is maxed so much so that they offer extra incentives for having solar along the line here. How on earth they think they can manage all these heat pumps and ev's is beyond me.
I remember just a few weeks ago the generators down in mass wrote a letter to the leg about just this and said there was no way they could keep up with the proposed mandates to move things to electric.
JoeKnotbush t1_je9mx6s wrote
Do we though? There was a recent Brave Little State episode about this exact topic. Worth a listen.
HeadPen5724 t1_je9nvxn wrote
In 2021 we got nearly 100% of our electricity from renewables. So yeah, we actually do.
JoeKnotbush t1_je9ogy3 wrote
Right, the energy we use that's produced in Vermont is close to 100% from Renewables. If you notice the article you linked also says only 1/3 of the consumed energy we use in Vermont actually comes from VT. Where does the other 2/3 come from?
HeadPen5724 t1_je9omtk wrote
HydroQuebec but that’s fairly irrelevant to the idea that our electricity usage contributes to climate change.
JoeKnotbush t1_je9pm9q wrote
Only about 1/4 of our electricity comes from Hydro Quebec. And another 12% from other hydro resources, 19% nuclear and about 10% each from solar, wind and biomass, the rest is from the mix of sources tied to the New England power grid. Listen to the BLS episode. I was enlightened and not trying to argue but I was of the same mindset and have a better understanding from learning more about it.
HeadPen5724 t1_je9qdt3 wrote
I’m not sure of the point, our electricity is almost 100% renewable. Our electricity usage isn’t contributing to the climate change and a usage fee would harm low income VTers.
The EIA shows 46% coming from hydro and 0% from nuclear. BLS seems to be using some dated and no longer accurate information. 🤷🏼♂️
[deleted] t1_je9obpz wrote
[deleted]
RamaSchneider OP t1_je9fg3w wrote
And we need to keep on getting as much electricity as possible from those non-CO2 emitting sources. But even with renewables (even going with the most genuine of those) requires resources, and I'd suggest we don't want our usage to outstrip those resources.
Does this have to be permanent or very long term? We'd find out, but from this view I come down very strongly on the side of "we'll find out".
NewSchoolFools t1_je9dmta wrote
Most rates already do this, you pay a lower price for a set number of kWh and then the cost ratchets up.
RamaSchneider OP t1_je9ewys wrote
How that works and the effective differences depends upon your direct supplier for the most party, but even with that, it isn't a steady graduation of price as usage goes up. What you're referring to is movement from plateau to plateau.
The idea to remove the plateaus in favor of steady up slope.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_jeaihh4 wrote
I dunno about that. Many disadvantaged populations really on electric for heat due to poor credit or not bekng able to come up with the capital to invest in a large amount of non electric heat. The sliding scale out have the opposite impact on that struggling population. It would be a win for the middle class but at what expense
RamaSchneider OP t1_jeavyhr wrote
If we do this right, there will be a lot of equity built into how we move forward. My argument is we need to move forward and make that equity a foundation of the effort.
I don't believe we have the time to wait until things seem more fair and better prepared.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_jeaza9p wrote
I don't disagree. If we can do something we should. Give it a shot and if it is not working we can adjust. Sometimes, doing anything is better than doing nothing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments