A reply to three lengthy commentaries/letters over the past two weeks on the subject of affordable home heating. Last year the Vermont Legislature passed the Affordable Heat Act (S5). For good reason, Governor Scott vetoed the bill. The Legislature overrode his veto. Unfortunately, the act is now law. The Act directs the Public Utility Commission to set up a bureaucracy to administer the act’s requirements. Basically, the act requires companies that bring fossil fuels into Vermont pay for weatherization and heat pumps for homeowners in Vermont.

The money for this is to come from the fuel dealer’s pockets. Of course, that won’t happen. Fuel dealers will increase the cost of fossil fuels for all homeowners in order to pay for the weatherization and other upgrades of a few homeowners. Democrats seem to think the fuel dealers are altruistic in nature and that they will absorb these costs — i.e. reduce their bottom line. Democrats, at their peril, ignore how a capitalist economy works. People notice.

This faulty reasoning on the part of Democrats is certainly one reason for the shift this election toward more Republicans being elected and the super majority the Democrats held last legislative session being now obliterated.

Hopefully now we will have a more balanced discussion of the issues.

I’m a lifelong Democrat and will continue to be, however super majorities are not representative of the people and too often suffer from group think, or non-think.

Steve Thurston, Oct. 31, and Rev. Barnaby Feder, Nov. 7, had letters in the Addison Independent offering their perspective on this subject. Both offered some good ideas. Thurston thinks the Affordable Heat Act is unworkable, I agree, and that the small amount of fossil fuel saved by Vermonters won’t matter on a global scale. Feder says that we all must save, even if it’s only a small amount, to do our part and be leaders in the effort.

Of course we should all use less fossil fuels; however, the Affordable Heat Act is too costly and too complicated. We should be leaders in the effort to reduce fossil fuel use. So, let’s find a way to do that. Let’s hope the legislature will develop a way to discourage use of fossil fuels and at the same time find a way to fund Efficiency Vermont and other such organizations to help Vermonters pay for winterization and switch off fossil fuels.

However, the most egregious commentary came from Jared Duval, Independent, Oct. 31. Duval offers nothing but falsehoods and lies about how wonderful the Affordable Heat Act is — the one that Governor Scott vetoed. I have to admit that Duval is slick in his sleight of hand presentation. And, if you don’t already know that the fuel dealers will increase your cost of home heating fuels, he might be believable. He is another reason more Republicans were elected.

Recently, the Public Utility Commission, as required by the Affordable Heat Act, issued a draft rule and a report, which questions the logic and workability of the Affordable Heat Act requirements. The report states in part: “the commission believes there are simpler alternatives that could be more effective.” Bottom line is that the Affordable Heat Act is too complicated and unworkable and too costly to implement. The PUC also suggests that some sort of fee on fossil fuels would be a better alternative for raising funds to help Vermonters pay for reducing heating costs. I think the PUC is on the right track for reducing the use of fossil fuels. The PUC report is online and easy to find.

We built a super insulated house here on our farm in 1983 with the goal of reducing heating costs. This was accomplished. And now, 41 years later we are very pleased with the result and have since built several super insulated and efficient houses and buildings. The goal to save heating costs and to do our part in saving our environment.

Paul Stone

Orwell