Legislative Update 5/1/2023

As we move closer to the end of the legislative session, possibly on May 12, there is much still unresolved. The House and Senate have both approved roughly $8.5 billion dollar budgets, both containing a lot of federal one-time money. While the total amount is similar, there are striking disagreements, primarily the Senate’s reluctance to establish the Paid Family Leave Insurance program which is a House priority that I presented and defended on the House floor. Funding sources for universal school meals and child care are also in question.

Another major bill, the comprehensive housing bill (S.100) consists of two main parts: the first half proposes zoning changes and minor Act 250 revisions to help speed construction and increase housing density in certain areas. The second half creates policy and recommends funding for a wide variety of programs spurring new construction, renovation, and eviction resolution. Funding for some elements will not make the final cut, though funding is still at historic levels.

Governor Scott is likely to veto several bills this session, adding to his record 32 vetos in 6 years. Possibilities include the as-yet-unapproved budget; certainties include S.5 (the Affordable Heat Standard which I wrote about extensively last week). Many constituents have reached out to me on both sides of the issue, so I will delve into the controversies more here.

Q - Isn’t this a carbon tax?

A - No. This establishes a performance standard which requires sellers of fossil heating fuels (it does not not include transportation fuels or dyed diesel for farm or forest use) to earn or purchase “clean energy credits” by reducing the carbon emissions of their business over time. They can do this by providing cleaner fuels, more efficient technology, or reducing demand through weatherization and other services.

Q - Will this raise the price of heating fuel by 70 cents?

A - No. That figure was stated by the Secretary of Natural Resources as a possible outcome, but has unfortunately been seized on as fact. In reality, places that have utilized a program like this have seen a slight increase in price which is more than offset by long term gained efficiencies. The program is not yet fully designed so true impacts are not clear yet, but one of the principal goals is to protect Vermonters from the wild and painful price swings we have experienced in the last year.

Q - If the program isn’t fully designed yet, why on earth would you vote for it?

A - This follows a time-tested process. The Affordable Heat Standard requires a “checkback” - after the Public Utilities Commission designs the technical aspects of the program and creates the rules to implement it, the whole package will return to the legislature in 2025 for review and approval. The bill CANNOT take effect without a second positive vote of the legislature. The vote this year is to design a system, the vote in 2025 will be whether to implement it or not.

Q - What?

A - This is how government works. The legislature creates a policy framework, and then tasks an agency staffed with experts to develop the technical processes. Energy policy is very technical and the legislature has neither the time nor expertise to fully craft the specifics. But as your representatives we will review to revise, approve, or reject their work. There is also a “trigger mechanism” which would allow the PUC to temporarily halt the program if costs climb.

Q - Doesn’t Vermont already have low CO2 emissions? 

A - As total state emissions, yes, simply because we are a small state. On a per capita basis, no. We are a cold and rural state so we use quite a bit of energy, mostly for heating and transportation. However, our electric supply is very clean thanks to a Renewable Energy Standard that has been in place for many years — similar to the Affordable Heat Standard under discussion but which covers electric generation.

As always please contact me with questions or concerns at rchesnut-tangerman@leg.state.vt.us