By Michael Bielawski

During Monday’s veto session, lawmakers vetoed six out of seven bills that were rejected at the governor’s desk. Some of these bills could substantially drive up the cost of living for Vermonters. While doing so, lawmakers called the governor’s proposal to buy down the education tax rate “fiscally irresponsible”.

Electricity, heating, and transportation costs will rise

One bill in particular that will drive up costs of living once implemented is the newly adopted Renewable Energy Standard. This was updated via H. 289, in which lawmakers in both chambers were able to override the governor’s veto.

The state’s Renewable Energy Standard requires over time that Vermont’s energy, heating, and transportation sectors become increasingly carbon-free. This means there will be increased pressure on lawmakers to promote, for example, electric cars, wind turbines and solar fields, or electric heat pumps. All of these technologies are still developing and require substantial taxpayer support to be economically viable.

Page 9 of H. 289 talks about how electric production needs to move increasingly into the carbon-free sector, despite its cost impact on ratepayers. It states, “The amounts of total renewable energy required by this subsection shall be 63 percent of each retail electricity provider’s annual load during the year beginning on January 1, 2025, increasing by at least an additional four percent each third January 1 thereafter, until reaching 100 percent.”

The Heritage Foundation calls renewable mandates “A regressive green tax”.

Education taxes will rise

After Vermont media greatly highlighted a projected 20 percent anticipated rise in property taxes this year, it almost made the final average rise in property tax set to be 13.8 percent seem like a deal. That is the amount according to H. 887 which was also vetoed by the governor and overridden by both chambers.

The governor wanted to buy down the tax rate some to relieve taxpayers, but lawmakers called the proposal “fiscally irresponsible”.

The governor also noted that there’s no effort in this legislation to bring down overall education spending, with lawmakers only tightening financial penalties for excessive spending over the new high average.

Housing prices may still rise?

Governor Phil Scott also vetoed H. 687 which will “make multiple changes to the State land use and development law, known as Act 250. It would also make changes to the regional plans and municipal plans,” according to its text. Lawmakers from both chambers will able to override the veto.

The governor, who has a background in the development sector, had this to say about why he vetoed the bill. He wrote that “H.687 is heavily focused on conservation and actually expands Act 250 regulation. And it does so at a pace that will slow down current housing efforts.”

He added, “Vermonters need us to focus on building and restoring the homes communities desperately need to revitalize working-class neighborhoods, reverse our negative demographic trends, and support economic investment in the future.”

Nonetheless, the bill will become law. The governor had seven requests for changes to this bill which now will not be applied.

No more pesticides that hurt bees, despite the costs

Scott vetoed H. 706, a bill that bans seeds treated with a group of pesticides called neonicotinoids, which harm pollinators. It was overridden in both chambers.

The governor noted this bill may have financial implications on farmers and food costs, all while potentially not saving the bees as advertised.

He wrote in his veto letter, “It’s important to note, the honeybee population has grown, while the use of neonics has persisted. In fact, the USDA Census for 2017-2022 shows Vermont’s honeybee population has grown about 30 percent.”

He further reiterated that this bill may not achieve what it seeks to do, but it will hurt farmers.

Scott wrote, “Additionally, the science is not conclusive on whether this ban will achieve the desired results, but the bill has the potential to produce severe unintended environmental and economic consequences—particularly for Vermont’s dairy farmers.”

Paying for second (and third and fourth) chances for offenders?

Lawmakers in both chambers also voted to override Scott’s veto of H. 645. The bill “proposes to create precharge and post-charge diversion programs under the administration of the Community Justice Unit of the Office of Attorney General, and in consultation with the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, for certain eligible offenses and persons.”

The governor again brought his attention to the cost implications on taxpayers.

He wrote, “While I understand the desire to help those, particularly youth, who need second, third, and even fourth chances to get their lives on track, H.645 is not workable because it is not funded.”

He said it also creates more work for public officials to do. He wrote, “The bottom line is this bill expands the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General, which will require additional resources, and yet the new work is not funded. There is no guarantee we will have the taxpayer money needed to fund it next year.”

Hard drugs to be decriminalized?

The governor’s veto of the overdose prevention center bill or H. 72 was also overridden. While the bill is best known for allowing these centers to operate in Vermont, it does more.

This bill will also “repeal the crack statute [and] repeal the sunset of the decriminalization of small amount of buprenorphine.”

It also establishes a Drug Use Standards Advisory Board as part of the Vermont Sentencing Commission. This new board will be tasked with figuring how how much of illegal drugs people will be allowed to have without getting in trouble with Vermont law.

It states that they will be “determining benchmarks for personal use dosage and personal use supply for regulated drugs; and require the Sentencing Commission to use benchmark recommendations from the Drug Use Standards Advisory Board to make recommendations regarding adjustments in the amounts for possession, dispensing, and sale of regulated drugs.”

The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle