Johnson Energy Inc.

Johnson Energy Inc. Full service fuel dealer with 24 hour service.

05/20/2026

DEMOCRATS PLOT NEXT CARBON TAX AS THEY REPEAL CLEAN HEAT STANDARD...

Thirteen of seventeen Senate Democrats joined every Republican in repealing Act 18, the Clean Heat Standard, in a significant moral victory for the GOP. (For those wondering the four colossally out of touch “no” votes came from Andrew Perchlik (D/P- Washington), Ann Cummings (D-Washington), Becca White (D-Windsor), and Tanya Vyhovsky (D/P -Chittenden C.) But it didn’t come without a two hour long parliamentary ping pong match of amendments, amendments to amendments, divisions and roll calls that are edge of the seat exciting to, well, only to weirdos like me. But here’s the gist of the story….
Senator Terry Williams (R-Rutland) put forward an amendment to H.740, the fuel dealer registry bill that is designed to capture the data necessary to implement some form of carbon tax on fossil fuels, to repeal Act 18. Senator Anne Watson (D/P-Washington) countered with a supposed compromise repealing the Clean Heat Standard but going forward with the fuel dealer registry – step one for bringing about Clean Heat Standard 2.0 (or more likely Cap & Invest). The move was designed to force Republicans into a corner: vote yes to kill the policy you promised your constituents you’d kill, Act 18, but you’re stuck voting yes and giving us cover on the policy we Democrats really want to move forward with, the registry. Check.
Obviously, that’s a bad bargain for the Republicans and happily they didn’t take it. Instead, Scott Beck (R-Caledonia) moved that the vote on the bill be split, forcing up or down votes on each policy separately. As such, Republicans were able to put their colleagues across the aisle cleanly on the record, in the first case betraying their climate warrior base, and in the second throwing their fossil fuel consuming constituents (that’s pretty much all of them) under the electric bus. Check and mate.
Behind the Lines is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a subscriber. Thanks!
Subscribed
It was a delicious political battle won, but not the war, because the Democrats – during this debate – were plotting their next Carbon Tax move. Senator Perchlik was straight forward about it: “[Repealing the Clean Heat Standard] has no meaning other than symbolicness [not a word, Andy, but we get your point]…. It doesn’t change the legislature’s ability to do this in the future.” Yup. That’s true! It’s exactly what they plan to do, and thank you for reminding us all that the only real way to ensure a new Clean Heat Standard bill, or a Cap & Invest bill, or a straight up excise tax on gas, diesel, and home heating fuels doesn’t happen is to un-elect politicians who want to do these things, and elect politicians who don’t. And, in case anyone is unclear here, the 17 Democrats who voted for the fuel dealer registry – all of them -- DO, and the thirteen Republicans – all of them -- who voted against it DON’T.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden ) admitted, “The Democratic majority, post-election, is saying to you ‘here is the repeal you sought, the only thing we ask in return is that you allow us to gather some data so that we can make in the future some sensible moves on renewable energy [emphasis added].’” Um… no. Republicans weren’t elected to just act symbolicnessly (I’m rolling with it) regarding carbon taxes, they were elected to stop Democrats from imposing them at all, ever, period. Today proves they get that! And thank you!

Further evidence the Democrats most assuredly do not “get it” came next when Senator Williams put forward another amendment, this time to strip out the unimaginably stupid “anybody can sue the state if we fail to meet our unattainable greenhouse gas reduction goals” language from the Global Warming Solutions Act. This utterly idiotic provision leaves Vermont taxpayers on the hook for potentially millions of dollars in legal bills when – not if, when – we fail to lower our emissions to meet the impossible mandates.
This should go without say that any politician who votes to put you, their constituent, in legal and financial jeopardy is not a representative working on your behalf and with your best interests at heart. Note: every Democrat but one (Tom Chittenden, D-Chittenden SE) voted to double down and screw you on this point – again -- and with the ignored benefit of hindsight.
As Chittenden explained, “It never seemed right to me yielding or abdicating our responsibilities to the judicial system…. This was passed before I joined the legislature and I said to people that I didn’t think it was good policy…. I don’t think this is the right thing for Vermont, and I do think it’s a bit of a distraction when we have to fend off or be afraid of lawsuits when we fail to meet objectives….”
That is the commonsense position held by just 1/17th of the Democrat majority in the state senate. Just so you know.
The fossil fuel registry did pass on party lines 17-13. We hope and expect Governor Scott will veto this if it gets to his desk. More importantly, the majority party showed us during this debate just how dangerous they will be if re-elected this November.

04/17/2026

MORE WASTEFUL SPENDING IN MONTPELIER!

Dollars for Data
Vermont already tracks every gallon of heating and motor fuel sold in the state — collected monthly by the Tax Department and the DMV, and available at VermontTEN.org. Yet H.740, which passed the House on a mostly party-line vote, would spend $500,000 to build a new registry and database that duplicates much of what already exists.
Half a million bucks is just to get started. The ongoing maintenance and enforcement costs are still unknown. So are the compliance costs to businesses and their customers. A bigger question: Who gets access to this private data — and what will it actually be used for– remains unanswered.
Energy advocate and Vermont Climate Councilor Matt Cota asked these questions during testimony before the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

03/12/2026

RECEIVED THIS NOTE FROM A SATISFIED CUSTOMER TODAY::

Once again your staff has done a great job for us. Kent and Gabe installed our new furnace and did an outstanding job. Kent stayed late to install new thermostats and they both came back the next day to make sure everything was running as it should be. It’s a pleasure working with your friendly and knowledgeable employees. Kudos!

Kevin & Lynne Klamm

Thank you Kevin & Lynne! We are so happy that you were completely satisfied with our team. Thank you for your business.

02/27/2026

"THE ULTIMATE COMPLIMENT"

We received a message today from another local fuel dealer asking how we keep our equipment so clean in such bad weather and it just reinforced how lucky we are to have the team we do at Johnson Energy! Scott Moore & Eric Parker do a tremendous job leading our office, technicians and drivers to do their very best work every day, regardless of the conditions, while maintaining a high level of efficiency, integrity and keeping our image as spotless as our work. Many long hours go into providing the quality services that our customers expect and when competitors notice it just shows how hard everyone works. THANK YOU to our customers and staff for making Johnson Energy the best fuel dealer in the area.

Eileen & Tom Johnson

02/27/2026

Fueling the Bureaucracy
The Vermont House Energy Committee is expected to approve $800,000 in spending this afternoon to create a new fuel dealer registry and reporting system. The database would track sales of gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and propane statewide. As recommended by the Climate Council and confirmed by the State Treasurer, the registry is a prerequisite for implementing a Cap and Invest program — a government-mandated pricing scheme that functions like a carbon tax, with revenues flowing into a state-controlled fund.

02/13/2026

NEWS AND NOTES

MoreTaxes and Fees on Deliveries and Gas:
The latest proposal from lawmakers in Montpelier to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will get its first hearing later this morning. The legislation (H.863) creates a new 30-cent fee on most retail deliveries in Vermont. The legislation would also let towns raise their own gas tax. Municipalities would be allowed to adopt an additional local tax of 1% on all sales gasoline and diesel, subject to voter approval. In practice, this could create a patchwork of fuel prices across towns and add further upward pressure on motor fuel costs.
In testimony earlier this week, energy advocate Matt Cota explained why this tax collection mechanism would require significant changes in how the fuel tax is paid. The current excise tax is paid upstream by distributors when fuel enters the state’s supply system, not at the pump.

Fuel Oil Keeps Us Going In Cold Weather:
Cold Comfort Fuel oil is keeping the lights on across New England, according to Maine Public Radio. A newly constructed transmission line through Maine connecting the region to Canadian hydropower was taken offline after intense cold and extraordinary demand within Quebec required the utility to prioritize serving customers on its own side of the border during a period of record-low temperatures. As a result, power companies have been gulping fuel by the tanker-truck load during the first six weeks of 2026.

Tax Brackets: Lawmakers in Montpelier are considering updates to Vermont’s property tax classification system. Under the proposal, the current “nonhomestead” category could be split into a Nonhomestead Residential Rate (which includes second homes and short-term rentals) and a "Nonhomestead Nonresidential Rate" (which includes businesses, long-term rentals, and open land). Data collection would occur before rate multipliers are set, likely during the 2028 legislative session for fiscal year 2029 implementation.
There is also a debate on whether to create two new income tax brackets for Vermont’s highest earners, increasing taxes on individuals making over $500k per year.The legislation (H.621) further concentrates Vermont’s tax burden on a small number of residents who already contribute a disproportionate share of the state’s income tax revenue.

We’ve recorded 5330 heating degree days outside our office since July. That’s 11% more than last year at this time and 2% more than the the twenty year average.

Registry Returns While the case is closed on the Clean Heat Standard, a new registry may soon become law. The proposal under consideration would more closely track who is buying gasoline, diesel, heating oil and propane in Vermont. While details on how many gallons are sold are easily found (check out the Motor Fuel Index here and the Heating Index here), the legislation would require dealers to report sales by county and indicate whether the fuel is used for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. Whether the information would become public is still unclear.

EPA Finding The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinded the so-called “Endangerment Finding” yesterday morning. The decision reverses a determination made nearly twenty years ago that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare. That decision provided the legal basis for EPA regulation of those emissions under the Clean Air Act. Without the Endangerment Finding, EPA’s authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles is substantially altered. The EPA decision will likely be challenged and the regulatory landscape will remain unsettled as courts review the scope and consequences of the agency’s action.

Even when the weather is at its' coldest our team continues to keep cutomers warm and cozy! No, Kent isn't laying down ...
02/01/2026

Even when the weather is at its' coldest our team continues to keep cutomers warm and cozy! No, Kent isn't laying down on the job :)!!

01/23/2026

VT LEGISLATURE WANTS MORE OF YOUR MONEY TO MAKE UP FOR FAILED GLOBAL WARMING PLANS...

A bill introduced in the Vermont Senate would fundamentally change how the state taxes gasoline and diesel fuel, with near-term and long-term financial implications for motorists. Sponsored by Senator Rebecca White (D-Windsor District), Senate Bill S.149 — An act relating to indexing the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes for inflation — was introduced on April 9, 2025, and referred to the Senate Transportation Committee, where it remains pending as of early 2026.

What the Bill Would Do:
Under current Vermont statute, a gasoline excise tax of $0.121 per gallon applies, along with variable assessments tied to the retail price of fuel, and a diesel excise tax of $0.28 per gallon. Those rates have been static and require legislative action to change.

S.149 would alter that framework by setting a $0.28 per gallon excise tax for both gasoline and diesel starting July 1, 2025, and then automatically adjusting those base rates annually for inflation. Specifically, beginning July 1, 2028, the tax on each fuel would increase each year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the preceding 12 months. If the CPI-U for a year is negative, the rate would stay flat — the bill does not provide for downward adjustments.
Proponents say indexing fuel taxes to inflation creates a predictable funding stream for transportation infrastructure and related programs and removes the need for annual legislative rate changes. Critics warn that inflation indexing amounts to a permanent automatic tax increase that could raise costs for Vermont households regardless of economic conditions.

Where the Bill Stands in the 2026 Session:
The official Legislature status page shows S.149 has cleared its first reading and been assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee, but there is no publicly available record of committee hearings, fiscal reports, nor amendments as of January 2026.
Bills in Vermont typically remain in committee or move through hearings before being scheduled for a floor vote. At this point, there is no indication that S.149 has advanced out of committee or been formally scheduled for debate in either chamber.

Estimating the Financial Impact on Drivers:
The most immediate impact of S.149 — if enacted in its current form — would be the increase of the gasoline excise tax from 12.1¢ to 28¢ per gallon starting July 1, 2025. That represents a net increase of roughly 15.9 cents per gallon on the state excise tax component, which would be passed through at the pump by fuel retailers. For individual motorists, that excise increase translates into measurable annual costs:
• A driver consuming 600 gallons per year would pay about $95 more annually in excise taxes once the change takes effect.
• At 900 gallons per year, typical of a one-vehicle household with regular commuting, the increase is roughly $143 annually.
• Households burning 1,200 gallons per year could see nearly $191 more in fuel excise costs.
These figures do not include federal fuel taxes (currently about 18.4 cents per gallon), variable retail assessments, state sales taxes on fuel components, or market price fluctuations. State excise taxes are collected from vendors but are effectively passed on to consumers.

Statewide Revenue Implications:
Using consumption estimates similar to those in prior fiscal briefings — approximately 283 million gallons of gasoline sold in a typical year — every one-cent increase in the gasoline excise yields roughly $2.8 million in revenue for transportation and related funds. By that calculation, a 15.9-cent increase could generate about $45 million annually before behavioral changes in consumption or cross-border fueling. That money would accrue to road maintenance and whatever statutory funds are designated under existing fuel tax distribution rules. (This estimate is based on typical consumption not official fiscal note data; as of early 2026, no fiscal note is posted for S.149.)

Inflation Indexing and Future Costs:
The bill’s CPI-U indexing component would gradually ratchet fuel taxes upward over time if inflation remains positive. For example, a 3 percent annual CPI growth would increase the 28¢ base by about 0.84 cents per gallon in the first year of indexing, compounding thereafter. Over multiple years, this automatic escalation could add measurable expense to fuel costs for Vermonters without annual legislative vote.

Supporters argue this mechanism shields transportation funding from political volatility; opponents contend it locks in perpetual tax increases detached from wage growth or real gasoline price dynamics.

Public and Legislative Context:
Public reaction and stakeholder testimony have not yet been widely reported in committee documents, and no committee hearings appear on the official status page. Because the bill remains in early committee stages in the 2026 session, its final form and prospects for passage remain uncertain. For Vermonters tracking S.149, the next legislative steps, potential amendments, and fiscal analyses will be critical to understanding both the intent and the ultimate fiscal impact on households in a state where fuel costs already represent a significant operating expense.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

12/12/2025

VERMONT CLIMATE COUNCIL...

The Vermont Climate Council meets again on Monday to pitch its updated Climate Action Plan. The original plan contained more than 250 recommendations; the new version narrows that to 52 priority actions. Most revolve around persuading more Vermonters to drive electric cars and install electric heat.
Even with a slimmer list, the challenges remain enormous. The plan assumes Vermont can raise new revenue without raising energy costs, develop a workforce it doesn’t currently have, build a more robust statewide charging and electrical infrastructure, and implement dozens of major initiatives in just four years. And under current law, anyone can sue the state if the plan isn't followed and emission-reduction mandates aren’t met, forcing regulatory action.
Lawmakers are unlikely to change that law, but they will have to fund it. And all this accounting comes with a price tag: $300,000 for staff, $300,000 for new software, and $200,000 to verify the data—before any emissions are actually reduced. More than 3/4 of a million dollars just figure out — if we can figure it out.
There are also real costs for the companies that sell gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and propane—and for the Vermonters who rely on them. Rather than streamline the reporting already in place, this proposal creates an entirely new mandate on local fuel suppliers. While fuel dealers are out in the cold keeping families safe and warm, someone else will now be stuck in the office, entering duplicate data into a system explicitly designed to make them sell less of the fuel their customers depend on to get through a Vermont winter.

12/07/2025

VT LAWMAKERS ARE NOW COMING FOR YOUR FIREWOOD!!
"Stop the Madness"

Vermont likes to call itself a leader in combating climate change, but leadership implies setting an example others want to follow. Instead, Vermont is becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when ideology trumps practicality. The result? A state struggling under the weight of policies that deliver the opposite of what they promise.
THE LATEST TARGET: YOUR FIREWOOD
Lobbyists and environmental groups are quietly pushing to sideline firewood as a heating option, arguing it contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and local air quality issues. Through proposals like the Clean Heat Standard (CHS), they’re urging regulators to exclude firewood from Vermont’s approved heating methods.
This effort comes despite wood heat being a lifeline for generations of Vermonters. It’s renewable, locally sourced, and dependable—especially during the state’s brutal winters and frequent power outages. Yet, in the name of reducing Vermont’s already infinitesimal global greenhouse gas contribution (0.015%), policymakers risk driving up costs, eliminating options, and leaving rural Vermonters out in the cold.

REGULATORY SIGNALS AGAINST WOOD HEAT
Recent discussions at a Vermont Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting reveal growing skepticism about wood heat. Concerns focused on emissions from cordwood stoves and boilers, with some participants labeling them “high-emitting” and inconsistent with public health and climate goals.
Nora Travis of NESCAUM stated, “Cordwood boilers are, in fact, quite high-emitting—to the effect even of more concern than stoves.” Similarly, Brian Woods of the Agency of Natural Resources questioned wood’s carbon neutrality, asking, “It’s hard to understand how a negative carbon intensity for RNG or wood fuels wouldn’t distort the program.” The discussion also emphasized electrification, with Ken Jones cautioning, “Wood fuels shouldn’t skew the credit system away from electrification.”
While advanced wood heating systems may still have a place, the trend is clear: traditional wood-burning appliances like cordwood stoves are being pushed to the margins. The PUC’s cautious tone reflects a broader shift driven by emissions concerns, public health arguments, and doubts about wood’s carbon neutrality. Watch the TAG meeting discussion and read the transcript here.
A PATTERN OF OVERREACH
Killington Mountain isn’t the only slippery slope in the state. The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) requires Vermont to adopt regulations like California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) standards, mandating that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035. This effectively phases out the sale of combustion vehicles. Now, the same ideologically driven approach is targeting wood heat, another essential tool for surviving rural Vermont winters.
The financial fallout is undeniable. Replacing wood stoves with electric systems or retrofitting homes for “clean” heating methods is prohibitively expensive for working- and middle-class families. Wealthier residents might qualify for subsidies or absorb the costs, but for most, these policies represent a financial strain with little practical benefit. Compounding the issue, Vermont’s electric grid is unreliable, regularly failing during storms. Heat pumps and electric systems can’t keep homes warm without power, but wood stoves can.

THE IRONY OF “LEADERSHIP”
Vermont’s aggressive push to be a “climate leader” is proving to be the opposite. Instead of offering a model for sustainability, the state is showcasing the economic harm and alienation that result from prioritizing symbolic policies over practical solutions. What’s green about policies that:
• Increase costs for heating and transportation?
• Undermine locally sourced, sustainable practices like wood heat?
• Push rural residents to rely on an unprepared electric grid?
This kind of “leadership” alienates the very people it claims to help, leaving them less resilient and more financially strained.
A BETTER WAY FORWARD
If Vermont truly wants to combat climate change, it should focus on solutions that balance environmental goals with practicality. Here’s what real leadership could look like:
• Flood Management: Invest in infrastructure to address Vermont’s natural flooding risks, instead of pretending local carbon cuts will stop rivers from rising.
• Energy Resilience: Strengthen the electric grid and diversify energy sources before mandating widespread electrification. Vermont’s current infrastructure isn’t ready for such a transition.
• Support Local Solutions: Promote responsibly managed forests and high-efficiency wood stoves. Firewood is renewable, local, and well-suited to Vermont’s rural realities.
WHAT’S REALLY AT STAKE
This isn’t just about firewood—it’s about freedom. Freedom to heat your home without interference from policymakers and lobbyists who seem disconnected from the realities of rural life. Vermonters deserve policies that reflect their values: independence, resilience, and practicality.
Recent policies already phase out combustion vehicles, and now firewood is in the crosshairs. What’s next? Vermont’s environmental policies, while well-intentioned, are proving to be an alarming example of what happens when going green becomes an ideological crusade rather than a balanced strategy.
If Montpelier doesn’t rethink its approach, it risks driving out the very people who make Vermont what it is. Let’s hope lawmakers understand what’s truly worth preserving before it’s too late.

11/13/2025

Vermont’s Green Credit Con: Clean State, Dirty Books

Carbon Credits and Offsets: Accounting Without Atmospheric Change
Carbon credits and offsets operate on the same principle:
• A company keeps emitting carbon.
• It buys a credit from someone claiming to reduce or avoid emissions somewhere else.
• The company gets to declare “net-zero.”
• The underlying emissions? Still there.
• The climate impact? Virtually unchanged.
Most offsets don’t deliver what they promise.
Some never deliver anything at all.
But the market thrives because the system isn’t designed to reduce emissions — it’s designed to create tradable environmental commodities.
And every commodity market produces middlemen who profit handsomely:
brokers, consultants, verifiers, auditors, NGOs, and utilities.
Everyone makes money except the ratepayer.
Clean Heat Credits: Assigning Carbon Responsibility to the Wrong People
This brings us to Vermont’s proposed Clean Heat Standard — essentially cap-and-trade for your furnace.
The CHS would have required heating fuel dealers to:
• weatherize homes,
• install heat pumps,
• or buy clean-heat credits to cover the carbon emitted when their customers burn the fuel.
Here’s the key point policymakers won’t say:
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
Fuel dealers do not emit carbon. Their customers do.
A fuel dealer is a logistics provider.
They buy fuel, store fuel, and deliver fuel.
They don’t burn it. They don’t create the carbon emissions.
Assigning carbon responsibility to them is convenient for regulators — you can’t realistically regulate 150,000 individual homeowners — but it’s completely disconnected from physical reality.
It’s like blaming UPS for the carbon footprint of whatever you buy on Amazon.
And because dealers can’t absorb these mandated costs, they do the only thing they can do:
They pass the costs to consumers.
Higher heating bills.
Higher delivery fees.
Higher compliance charges.
All for a credit market that doesn’t reduce carbon emissions.

Address

573 Business Route 4
Center Rutland, VT
05736

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 4:30pm
Tuesday 8am - 4:30pm
Wednesday 8am - 4:30pm
Thursday 8am - 4:30pm
Friday 8am - 4:30pm

Telephone

(802) 773-8143

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Johnson Energy Inc. posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Johnson Energy Inc.:

Shortcuts

Share

Category