by Don Keelan
If there is one constant I have witnessed since becoming a Vermont resident in 1988, it is the Legislature’s assigning State agency tasks to costly, out-of-state consultants.
The latest iteration of this came in May 2024, with the passage of Act 122, the Climate Superfund Act (not signed by the Governor). The Act aims to determine how climate change caused by using fossil fuels in Vermont from 1995 to 2024 damaged Vermont’s environment, economy, infrastructure, health, and residential and business structures.
The Legislature assigned the Agency of Natural Resources and the State Treasurer’s office to “seek expert opinions and advice to inform which fossil fuel companies must be held accountable under Act 122, including how to determine their relative share of climate-related loss and damage that Vermont has experienced over the past 30 years.”
Translated, “Big Oil” companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and others, are the “responsible parties” having caused the emission of over 1 billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas during the past 30 years. Interestingly, the State continues to use and tax fossil fuels.
The two Vermont agencies tasked with determining the cost of the damage sent out a Request for Information to six out-of-state consulting firms:
Oxford Sustainable Law Programme Oxford, UK
Dartmouth Climate Modeling & Impacts Group Hanover, NH
Alejandro del Valle and Mathilda Eriksson Atlanta, GA
Climate Accountability Institute Snowmass, CO
Center for Climate Integrity Washington, DC
Center for Environmental Accountability Hurst, TX.
To understand the RFI responses, one needs the combined skills of a rocket scientist, civil engineer, oil extraction expert, agricultural expert, meteorologist, and mathematician. The science being used has only recently been developed and is questionable.
The cost and time given to meet the Legislature’s request, $325,000 and 2026, will not do the job. In a recent Legislative hearing, ANR requested another year’s extension. Both agencies joined in asking for an additional $1,500,000 to cover two new positions and funds for further study.
Rob Roper of Vermont Politics noted in his well-written newsletter of April 7, 2025, the cost implications of Act 122 for Vermonters. More importantly, he discloses the pseudo-science surrounding the calculation of the cost due to fossil fuel gas emissions.
The Legislature wants to sue the oil giants, be awarded millions of dollars, and use the funds to rebuild Vermont’s infrastructure: roads, bridges, culverts, flood-resistant walls, warming and cooling shelters, and the list goes on.
What was interesting about reviewing the Center for Environmental Accountability’s RFI response was that the Center noted, “recent studies estimating the extent and costs of past and future climate change have demonstrated that attempts to quantify such a number are susceptible to manipulation and distortion.”
The CEA provided a statement from Noah Kaufman, the former Senior Economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisors in the Biden Administration: “The value of climate damages is not a thing we can estimate. There is no consensus. There never will be.”
I am bewildered as to why the small State of Vermont, with limited expertise and funding, would construct a pseudo-scientific case to support a lawsuit against the international oil behemoths. What the latter must spend annually on legal matters would equal a large percentage of the Vermont State Budget. And we are already close to $2 million in to see if we have a case that will take years to develop and prosecute.
Additional legal costs will now be incurred by Vermont based on Steve Goreham’s column in the April 16, 2025 WSJ: “Mr. Trump issued an executive order titled ‘Protecting American Energy from State Overreach.” The order says state laws “seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities.” Vermont, California, and New York are mentioned in the order. On May 1st, in Burlington’s federal court, the EPA filed a lawsuit to block Act 122.
A further statement on Vermont climate damage from the CEA response was noteworthy: “This strongly suggests that economic growth, rather than any climate change-related effect, is the cause of such increases. The Agency (ANR) must account for the possibility that Vermont has not suffered harm from climate change and may have even experienced positive impacts.” What an interesting observation to make.