It’s a multi-front war on multiple issues.
by Rob Roper
Rural Vermonters have certainly woken up to the dangers Act 181, the state land use law that threatens to basically steal the property rights away from landowners living outside the 2.5 percent of the state deemed to be “urban settlement.” The “Vermont Act 181” Facebook group has exploded almost overnight to 11,400 members, the rally at the State House opposing the law drew 350-400 people, and a number of newly minted citizen journalist have taken to places like Substack to report in detail where reform and repeal efforts stand. It’s been wonderful to see this level of civic engagement taking place. This is for real, as the saying goes, what democracy looks like.
But it’s worth pointing out that there are other ways and issues where the “urban dwellers” in the legislature are going after the countryside “cave dwellers.”
Energy policy is a big one. The same lobbyist actors pushing Act 181 (the VNRC, VPIRG, et al) partnering with the same politicians are the ones pushing for a major tax (or fee, or surcharge, or whatever you want to call it) on home heating oil, propane, kerosene, as well as gasoline and diesel motor fuels. The first attempt at this was called the Clean Heat Standard (Act 18, passed in 2024 and is still on the books though “paused” for the moment). With that legislation on hold, now the Green Machine is pivoting to a nearly identical – though expanded to include motor fuels — policy called “Cap & Invest.”
How badly would this screw rural Vermonters? The answer is vividly outlined in a report by Treasurer Mike Pieciak (D-VT) in a 2025 report where he breaks down costs by income and geography in the form of three fictitious families, the “cave dweller” Sawyer family, the suburban Bell family, and the “urban dweller” Sparks family.
For the Sawyer family, living in Essex County, in older housing stock, and having to commute long distances on dirt roads to work each day,
The added [motor] fuel cost at the initial, lowest [Cap & Invest program] price ($0.26/gallon) for the Sawyer family would be about $1,000.… The Sawyers’ home heating costs would go up by about 10% under WCI – about $300 per year. They have no room in their budget to absorb any increased costs month-to-month.
That’s the low end. And those numbers are based on the Western Climate Initiative Cap & Invest program’s 2025 26¢ per gallon rate, not the 2030 projection of 69¢/83¢ for gas and heating fuel respectively. Apply that tax rate, and the gasoline cost increase alone jumps to over $2700 per year.
Meanwhile, the fictitious “urban dweller” Sparks family living in Montpelier and earning $200,000 per year working for a national non-profit (VNRC? Sounds about right) and from home, while receiving subsidies for their electric vehicles and heating systems paid for by people like the Sparks through this fuel tax, see virtually zero cost impact from the Cap & Invest taxes/fees.
Right now, H.740, a fuel dealer registry bill, is being pushed hard by none other than Senator Anne Watson (D/P-Washington) and the usual cast of supporting characters as the first step toward enacting a full Cap & Invest program in Vermont – after the November election, of course.
Also noteworthy, despite knowing full well the numbers he crunched, Treasurer Pieciak endorsed moving forward with a Cap & Invest program in the future, and supports H.740. So much for sympathy for the cave dwellers.
Another area of concern are rules governing wetlands. 181 if by land, but what if by sea? Or creek or bog?
Currently the state is looking at revising Vermont’s 1990 Wetland Rules in ways that are eerily similar to Act 181, easing restrictions on building in “growth zones” but strengthening those restrictions in the rural 97 percent of the landscape. The Department of Environmental Conservation received comments that this perpetuates an unequal playing field between urban and rural communities but rejected those concerns. Sound familiar?
Worrisome is the new “net-gain” provision for larger projects of 2:1 mitigation, which does not necessarily have to take place in the same locality that the urban wetland impact happens, meaning that while urban communities not only get the benefit of less strict wetland rules, rural Vermont could see more land classified as wetland, which, of course, would be subject to more restricted use, and… you know the story.
The Legislative Council on Administrative Rules (LCAR) will take this up on April 30th. Probably worth checking out! If this crowd can’t get what they want through legislation, they will often pivot to “rules,” which are a far less democratic process.
I had also planned to discuss in this piece how special interests in Montpelier are tearing down rural Vermonters’ educational opportunities, specifically using a property tax crisis and Act 73 as an opportunity to destroy Vermont’s 150 year old school choice tuitioning program that rural families have relied on and thrived on, but the word count is getting up there, so I’ll end here for now.