Senators Don’t Care What Their Constituents Think about the UnAffordable Heat Act.

So much for representative democracy!

We have known for a long time that Vermonters like in theory the idea of reducing our carbon footprint. Judging the bill by its cover, the Global Warming Solutions Act sounds like a great read. But we also know that Vermonters have no interest in paying for the programs that come along with the fancy titles.

Ask a room full of people if they’d like to own a Ferrari, and most of the hands go up. Ask them if they want the monthly payments, insurance, and maintenance costs that come with owning a Ferrari, and all the hands go down. Nobody wants one anymore. The first reaction was childish and emotional, and the second is a reasoned, responsible, practical adult decision. There are other more important priorities for which limited resources need to be utilized.

This is where we are with climate policy in Vermont today. Want to save the planet? Yay! Want to pay an additional $0.70 cents to $4.00 a gallon for home heating fuel to do it? Abso-freakin’-lutely not. My heating bill is high enough already, and have you seen the price of eggs lately?

Citizens and voters are making their objection to S.5, the UnAffordable Heat Act, loudly known before an anticipated vote by the full senate later this week (likely Thursday, March 3). Individual legislators are getting multiple hundreds, in some cases in excess of a thousand, letters, phone calls, and emails from constituents telling them – begging them – to vote “No” on S.5. We cannot afford it.

The typical response, both in public proclamation and in private correspondence from those who are supposed to represent us has been resounding: “We don’t care what you think.”

Senator Ruth Hardy (D-Addison) blasted out a message to her email list stating, “Over the past week since I told my constituents that I supported S.5, the Affordable Heat Act, I have received hundreds of emails, calls, and notes asking me not to vote for S.5. This is largely because fuel dealers also sent messages to their customers intentionally misleading you about how the Affordable Heat Act would work and what it would mean for Vermonters, and they told you to contact me to tell me to vote no on S.5.”

This is insulting and condescending on so many levels.

Hardy, along with many of her colleagues, believes Vermonters are simpletons incapable of understanding what S.5 does. Somebody tells you to send a letter and you just stupidly do it without any critical consideration of why you’re doing so. The opposite is true.

What’s actually happening here is that voters are paying unusually close attention to what’s going on and understand perfectly well that when you force fuel dealers to buy costly “carbon credits” in order to sell their products the cost of those credits will be passed along to customers. The end result will inevitably be higher home heating bills for the majority of Vermonters who heat with oil, propane, natural gas, and kerosene. Whether S.5 means homeowners end up paying $0.70 more per gallon, $4.00 more per gallon, or some other number more per gallon is irrelevant. The unacceptable and undeniable factor int this equation is “more.”

Hardy’s attitude is, I’m not wrong. YOU are wrong. And I’m not going to pay attention to you -- despite that being my job to represent your interests in state government. This is what democracy in Vermont looks like today.

Hardy then goes into a list of highly misleading talking points Democrat Senators have been programed to regurgitate rather than engage in any sort of critical thinking or in-depth policy analysis regarding the bill. (See my previous article, Senator Says “Don’t Slop Lies” About the Clean Heat Standard, for a breakdown of those talking points.)

Similarly, Senator Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden Central) responded to a constituent’s email with, “I feel it is important to address all the points that folks are making against the bill. [This, it must be pointed out, instead of answering the constituent’s actual questions.] This bill simply asks for a plan to transition how we heat our homes and businesses over the next 25 years.  For Vermont’s economy and environment to survive, Vermonters need to reduce their dependence on expensive, price-volatile, and polluting fossil fuels.”

More subtle than Hardy, the message is the same: I don’t care what you think, I’m voting for the bill anyway. Gulik then cuts and pastes the same boilerplate Democratic Party talking points into her email in place of any real critical thinking or analysis, totally ignoring the constituent’s specific questions about those talking points.

Senator Andy Perchlik (D/P-Washington) responded to another constituent’s email request for a No vote on S.5 with, “I do agree with Sen. McDonald (sic) - and voting Yes for S. 5 just like he did.” Stick finger down throat, regurgitate talking points.

The constituent then followed up, “You said in your email, ‘There is not a tax imposed, despite what those that oppose it may tell you.’ Can you please explain to me the functional difference between mandating that an ‘obligated’ fuel dealer purchase a ‘clean heat credit’ per ton of CO2 emissions, the cost of which will be passed along to the customer, and imposing an excise tax on that fuel dealer per ton of CO2 emissions, the cost of which will be passed along to the customer?”

As of this writing, Perchlik hasn’t responded to the second email.

In another incident, a constituent of Rep. Kathleen James (D-Manchester) ran into her at a legislative breakfast where she warned him to disregard “misinformation” in opposition to S.5. A pretty clear indication she intends to disregard constituents’ very valid concerns about S.5 when it comes to the House, and will vote for it regardless.

According to these lawmakers, every criticism of the bill is “misinformation.” Everyone who opposes it is “misinformed.” Yet, ask lawmakers who are fully prepared to vote for the Unaffordable Heat Act to explain how the “carbon credit” system in S.5 is supposed to work, who an “obligated party” is according to the bill, if the mandates in the law are technically feasible, or, heaven forbid, how much it will cost to implement the bill, and they can’t answer the questions.

Here's the news, lawmakers. It’s not your constituents who are misinformed by listening to misinformation – it’s you.

• Rob Roper is a freelance writer with over twenty years experience in Vermont politics and policy.

PS. Special thanks to the Behind the Lines readers who shared their experiences with legislators with me. Always feel free to contact me with tips and insights and story ideas. These are much appreciated.