Commentary: The Latest Big Idea: Taxing Heating Fuels (April, 2019)

by John McClaughry

Last week the House passed a bill that raised taxes on the wrong people to support a worthy cause for, in large measure, the wrong reasons.

Back in the 1970s Vermont’s community action agencies, created to wage the war against poverty, hit upon the idea of weatherizing drafty homes of low income families. This didn’t defeat poverty, but it improved living conditions. It produced, hopefully, energy savings, that the weatherized families could spend on other things. It also allowed the community action agencies to offer low-skill jobs and thus incomes to mostly marginally employed young men with time on their hands.

In 1990 federal anti-poverty funds for weatherization were declining, and Gov. Madeleine Kunin wanted to find some new money to keep the program alive. The result was an act that laid a gross receipts tax on all heating fuel.

When the Senate debated this bill, the advocates said that free weatherization would lower the fuel bills of the poor, and the money they saved would end up in their pockets. The critics observed that a decade of savings (recently estimated at 30% of annual fuel costs) could easily finance the weatherization, without imposing higher fuel costs on other households and businesses. The advocates prevailed 18-12.

The critics back then presciently observed that tapping a new tax base would inevitably invite partisans of the program to push to increase rates whenever their program felt it needed more money. Of course they were right. In 2016 the tax on heating oil and propane was switched to two cents per gallon; the gross receipts base was retained for natural gas (.75%) and coal (1.0%.)

Now, after three years, the House wants to double the two cents per gallon tax rate for heating oil and propane to four cents per gallon, bringing in an additional $4.6 million. That would, the program manager says, enable weatherizing 400 more homes, and make the LIHEAP heating assistance funds go further.

Let’s agree that weatherizing drafty homes is a sensible thing to do. After a raggedy beginning in the 1970s, the local agencies have considerably improved the quality of their services. The question is, who should pay for it?  All taxpayers?  All heating fuel users? Or the people who benefit, paying over time out of their ongoing fuel savings?

The economically sensible solution is to finance weatherization at least in part out of the savings it produces. The VA, FHA and commercial lenders offer Energy Efficient Mortgages that allow homebuyers or refinancers to pay for weatherization out of the resulting energy savings. But the fuel tax advocates want to tax all homeowners and businesses to pay for other people’s energy savings, and let those other people pocket the dollars saved.

The businesses that use lots of natural gas – like OMYA in Florence – rightly see the fuel tax as making them less competitive. Many legislators opposed the fuel tax increase because it’s regressive. Gov. Scott said “It hurts the people we’re trying to help.” Speaker Johnson, though, sidetracked Rep. Cynthia Browning’s (D-Arlington) amendment to put the burden on high income earners – not a good solution, but at least not regressive. The House approved the fuel tax bill 81-60, suggesting that a Scott veto could be sustained.

Lurking behind the fuel tax bill is the compulsion of many legislators to show the world that Vermonters are bravely taxing carbon fuels to combat climate change.  Rep John Bartholomew (D-Hartford) told the House that “this is an important bill that begins to address the challenges presented by climate change… The time to find easy and inexpensive solutions to climate change passed long ago.”

Perhaps the most pungent analysis came from Statehouse Headliner journalist Guy Page: “Many climate-minded legislators seem fixed on remedies that most impact older, rural and low-income Vermonters: fossil fuel divestment of the state’s already challenged pension funds; direct carbon taxation that would fall most heavily on poorer rural Vermonters; subsidizing solar power and electric vehicle infrastructure favored by the wealthier; and now, doubling what fuel dealer Shane Cota calls ‘the warmth tax’”.

Instead of doubling the fuel tax on heating oil and propane and increasing by a third the tax on natural gas, legislators should shelve the fuel tax, leave the menace of climate change at the door, go back to drawing board, and work out something economically sensible that asks the beneficiaries to pay at least part of the cost, and is not a regressive tax on everybody else.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org).

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Scott A. Wendel April 9, 2019 at 4:35 pm

Agreed, but if you had a viable solution now that could be presented as an alternative, instead of complaining it may help. Spend more time on proposing an alternative and less time bitching. Save the complaining until after you get turned down for your alternative solution. I have seen nothing. My party spends more time crying instead of working towards a solution.

Reply

Rob April 9, 2019 at 4:49 pm

Hi Scott. EAI has promoted the benefits nuclear energy as a solution to CO2 emissions. When we got rid of Vermont Yankee, Vermont’s carbon footprint skyrocketed. Alas, our suggestions were turned down. So, back to bitching…

Reply

Thaddeus Cline April 23, 2019 at 7:48 pm

Here is what your ski areas your housing sector and agriculture will have to do in pay insurance companies .
Please read and respond.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tech-offers-a-virtual-window-into-future-climate-change-risk/

Reply

Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

The Global Warming Solutions Act: “Dictatorships are really efficient!”

January 23, 2020 by Rob Roper Debate over the Global Warming Solutions Act in the House Energy & Technology Committee grew philosophical about whether or not democracy is...

School Choice Results

January 22, 2020 By John McClaughry Parental choice in education has been an important issue for the past two decades. Where choice programs have been in effect, first...

Vermont Gets First Look at Radical Climate Legislation, the “GWSA”

January 21, 2020 By David Flemming A radical new bill, the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), was proposed a few days ago. It would turn Vermont’s greenhouse gas...

Climate Redistribution from Vermonters to Billionaires

January 16, 2020 By David Flemming At least one progressive legislator is willing to admit it: vehicle feebates are carbon taxes. Worse, he admits feebates may not even...

TCI Interstate Carbon Tax Is Imploding

January 15, 2020 by Rob Roper The ink wasn’t dry on the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) memorandum of understanding before Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) declared it a “boondoggle”...

Video