By Guy Page

Bills in the Vermont House and Senate would tax every retail delivery (think Fed Ex, Amazon etc.) and spend the proceeds on e-bikes and other climate initiatives.

Often referred to by the short title Curt’s Act – named after former legislator and climate hawk House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 75 are officially titled as an act relating to transportation initiatives to improve “equity” and infrastructure.

“These bills expose them at their worst here in Vermont,” J.T. Dodge of Newbury, a former Caledonia County senate candidate and longtime critic of Vermont’s climate change spending and policies, said on a social media post last week. 

Dodge is scheduled to be a guest on Vermont Daily Chronicle’s Hot Off The Press on WDEV Monday at 11:45 AM.

These bills were primarily sponsored in the House by Representatives Mollie Burke, Kate Lalley, Phil Pouech, and Chloe Tomlinson, and in the Senate by Senators Rebecca White, Alison Clarkson, Martine Gulick, Joseph Major, and Anne Watson. All are Democrats.

The core of this legislation is the creation of a 30 cent fee on every retail delivery of tangible goods to a Vermont address. The revenue is intended to fund electric vehicle rebates, e-bike incentives, and public transit systems as the state looks for ways to replace declining gas tax revenue. 

While the goal is framed as progress, the actual impact falls heavily on those living in the more remote parts of our state, Dodge said. 

Supporters of the bill read like a who’s who in renewable power industry advocates:

Paul Burns: As the Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), Paul Burns has been a prominent figure in Montpelier for over two decades. His organization is a major driver behind the “Make Big Oil Pay” campaign and the push for the Retail Delivery Fee as a way to fund new transit initiatives.

Johanna Miller: Serving as the Energy and Climate Program Director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), Johanna Miller is a central coordinator for the Environmental Common Agenda. She frequently testifies in favor of bold climate policies and was a key appointee to the Vermont Climate Council.

Jared Duval: The Executive Director of the Energy Action Network (EAN), Jared Duval, provides much of the data used by legislators to justify carbon limits. He serves on the Climate Council and is often the primary source for reports on how Vermont can meet its emissions reduction goals.

Representative Chloe Tomlinson: Beyond being a sponsor of Curt’s Act, Representative Tomlinson is a rising leader in the Climate Solutions Caucus. She has been publicly recognized by advocacy groups for her work in tying transportation infrastructure directly to emissions reduction targets.

Elena Mihaly: As the Vice President for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) in Vermont, Elena Mihaly advocates for a cleaner energy future while balancing the conversation around affordability. Her group often uses legal frameworks to ensure the state meets its mandated carbon limits.

Dodge claims many lawmakers backing Curt’s Bills are now voting for both sides of a difficult dichotomy. They are the same voices pushing mandates to limit personal driving to meet climate goals, yet they are also lead sponsoring the tax on the delivery services that rural residents use to avoid driving those extra miles. 

“It creates a situation where the very people telling us to drive less are also making it more expensive to have things brought to our doors,” Dodge said.

The proposed Retail Delivery Fee is being framed as a way to make large corporations pay for road wear, but in practice, it functions as a targeted tax on rural life, Dodge claims. 

The rural penalty

For those in rural towns like Newbury, Island Pond, Barton and many others, online ordering is often a necessity, not a luxury. By taxing every delivery, the state is effectively placing a geographic surcharge on residents who do not have the luxury of living near a Target or a grocery hub. 

“It feels like a penalty for simply choosing to live in the quiet parts of the state we love,” Dodge said. 

The efficiency irony

Legislators often push for carbon reduction, yet they are taxing the most carbon-efficient method of moving goods. One delivery van replacing twenty individual cars driving 30 miles to a store reduces emissions. Taxing that efficiency is a direct contradiction of the state’s stated climate goals. This exposes the disingenuous ideological mandate mentality they have. It shows a lack of empathy for the common sense of the working person.

Regressive impact 

Analysis from fiscal watchdogs shows these fees are regressive. They disproportionately hit the elderly, the mobility-challenged, and low-income families who rely on home delivery for essentials. 

Double taxation 

“These are the very neighbors we should be protecting, not viewing as a revenue source,” Dodge said. 

Delivery vehicles already pay for road use through the gas tax and registration fees. Adding a per-transaction fee is a form of double taxation on the same trip, intended solely to plug budget holes created by other government spending. It is an exhausting cycle where the answer to every problem is to reach deeper into the citizen’s pocket.

“In my opinion, we need to think about and move on the repeal of the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act. This is what gives all these ridiculous ideas feet,” Dodge said.