Commentary: What the ESSEX Carbon Tax Would Do for Vermont

by John McClaughryJohn 2

With much fanfare, climate change activists have presented the legislature with two bills (H.791, S.284) to implement their latest (seventh!) version of a Vermont carbon tax. It’s called the ESSEX Plan, which stands for “Economy Strengthening Strategic Energy eXchange”.

They firmly believe that carbon dioxide released by humans burning fossil fuels – gasoline, diesel, heating oil, natural gas, and propane – will cause catastrophic climate change a century down the road. The ESSEX Plan is designed to make Vermonters stop burning fossil fuels.

Let’s take a close look at how this is intended to work.

First, the ESSEX Plan carbon tax, rising steadily over eight years to roughly $240 million a year, will make fossil fuels increasingly expensive and thus uneconomical. People will thus invest in energy efficiency, and switch over to alternative energy sources, especially electric vehicles and electric home heating. Ultimately the tax will drive out fossil fuels, except for a few hard-to-replace uses like heavy equipment and aviation fuel.

The ESSEX Plan advocates declare that their plan is “revenue neutral” – 100% of the carbon taxes collected will be returned to….. somebody (not necessarily the people who paid them).

Half of those tax proceeds will find their way to the Public Utility Commission, which will distribute them to electric utilities to reduce electric rates for everybody, by (their estimate) at least 27%.

The State will use the other half of the tax take to provide subsidies to “the most vulnerable and the middle class” through “fully refundable rebates for low income and rural Vermonters”. This is necessary to compensate them for the higher energy costs imposed upon them by the ESSEX Plan.

How will people replace the fossil fuel energy they can’t afford anymore? Some will turn to biomass heating, but most will choose electric heat and vehicles. But the ESSEX Plan doesn’t finance the significant capital costs of those conversions. You can’t afford fossil fuels any more, but financing a switchover to something else is your problem.

Even with more price-driven efficiencies, driving out fossil fuels will require the electric utilities to find lots more power to meet the increased demand. The Plan expects this additional electricity to come from sources – wind towers, solar farms, and net metering – that are much more expensive than present grid power.

More cheap, renewable Hydro Quebec power would ease this problem, but the ESSEX Plan coalition has demanded that “energy independent Vermont” reduce its reliance on HQ to force the utilities to buy more power from wind, solar, and (limited) biomass.  (The wind and solar investors love this!) The increased reliance on wind and solar, however, introduces serious problems of maintaining the power grid in the face of intermittent and unpredictable wind and solar supply.

With fossil fuel consumption shrinking, carbon tax revenues will shrink, PUC subsidies to utilities will shrink, purchases of high-cost renewable power will increase, and electric rates will start back up.

Eventually, when the carbon tax drives out all fossil fuel and all users have switched (at considerable expense) to higher cost electricity, there’s nothing left to subsidize that electricity. You’re stuck.

This almost certain outcome assumes that legislators will faithfully maintain the promised “revenue neutrality” indefinitely into the future. Anyone familiar with the legislature knows well how tempting it is to pounce upon a revenue stream to finance popular spending. In fact, when first promoting the forerunner of the ESSEX Plan to legislators in 2014, the Energy Independent Vermont coalition archly observed, “Based on legislative priorities, carbon tax revenue could of course also be used for other purposes.”

The most pressing of those purposes would probably be diverting carbon tax revenues from motor fuel sales into the Transportation Fund to pay for badly needed maintenance of highways and bridges, which VTrans estimates faces a 2018 funding shortfall of $227 million. But diverting carbon tax revenues to other state programs would destroy “revenue neutrality”, and raising motor fuel tax rates to reduce the current shortfall would be politically impossible on top of the steadily rising carbon tax on those same fuels.

If imposing an ever-increasing carbon tax on Vermonters would save the planet from climate catastrophe, perhaps Vermont’s sacrifices would be bearable. But no Vermont carbon tax, however painful, will ever produce any detectable effect on climate change, and the eventual higher cost of electricity, forced investments, grid instabilities, cross-border economic effects, administrative complexities, vastly expanded state subsidies, and ever-present threat of political diversion of the revenues all suggest that it’s time to drop this idea, with a thud.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

John L Mahaffy March 1, 2018 at 2:29 am

Can youj spell “boondoggle,” boys and girls?


William Ziegler March 1, 2018 at 9:37 pm

Whilo is going to p me to switch from propane to electric. I have a 40k heating plant at my farm that burns clean burning propane. My home propane unit is cleaner than electric grid in place given the transmission loss of the cleanest burning electric plants that supply the grid in NE. This tax is ludicrous and will continue to place tax burdens on business and drive both businesses and homeowners out of the state. Would the legislators in Vermont step back and see their hair brained revenue raising schemes are doing. Please focus on reducing the cost of education, making a Vermont attractive to business and attracting clean industry that can expand our tax base to cover the current costs that are unsupportable before we add new taxes. Apparently the water supply in Montpelier is polluted with a chemical that destroys common sense.


Claude chicoine December 24, 2018 at 8:14 pm

My parents are retired and could not afford to change their heating system. They’re just barely able to get by on ssi. I’m sure many of the elderly are in the same place. I know there is a change in global climate but I’m sure it’s a cyclical cycle and it’s going to be tough to go through. Nothing to do with fossil fuel use at this point. Just another scheme to take money from people that are and have worked hard for all their lives. Would liked to see our electorates outside this morning at 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Our government was created for the people to protect and serve. Why and how did this change!


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.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...