Yeah like obviously the average consumer will have to do something, but this type of messaging likes to make you feel bad for heating your house. Meanwhile drake gets to fly a 787 15 minutes and generate more carbon than your house will generate in a year.

In 2021 we got nearly 100% of our electricity from renewables. So yeah, we actually do.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT

Do we though? There was a recent Brave Little State episode about this exact topic. Worth a listen.

This shit is hilarious, considering the state just gave a big excemption to Global Foundries.

Pushing the blame to the average consumer is misdirection, industry is the real culprit.

>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.

Restraining orders,

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.

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.

Who wants penalties for electricity use? The letter calls for sliding scale prices, not penalties.

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".

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.

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.

> 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.

Most rates already do this, you pay a lower price for a set number of kWh and then the cost ratchets up.

What?

Glad to hear that. Sometimes it's been a bit rough in spring, this must have been an easy off-season.

They force us to use more electricity ev's, heat pumps, stoves, lawn mowers etc. but then want penalties for doing so. Do you like Venezuela? Cause this is how we get there.

I was out on the Causeway yesterday, and it’s in great shape.

A bit of basic frost damage and erosion. Not sure how much is winter and how much is fall and spring. It just needs a bit of regular maintenance, always had since they "finished" it. You can probably ride it on a regular bike, just keep you eyes open.

I rode it many years back, when it was all grassed over and there was a really narrow trail. The grass kept everything anchored and it didn't erode. The finished trail opened it up to that.

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.

[deleted]

“To help deter crime, the Burlington Housing Authority says it has added over $120,000 worth of surveillance cameras to all of its properties and more lights will be added.”

That’s a bleak. Not sure how cameras with deter anyone if their is no enforcement.

Right? And I wonder why they aren't arrested. Wouldn't that get them out of there?

>No matter if that place is unionized or not, the faithful will still spend their money.

That seems to be standard operating procedure now. When you see something you don’t like you post some criticism online, change a Instagram filter to show support for something, maybe sign a petition on a website and then carry on with your day. Every once in a while people show up to protest but then at the end of the day, go back to buying what they want and what is convenient.

The only agency we have left is our financial boycotts. If folks really want to take a stand everything else except the not buying a product can be skipped. Nobody cares. Want a company to take notice? Hit them the only place they understand, their wallet.

-- all the points