Last week, VDC published a commentary by Sen. Scott Beck in support of three controversial vetoes earlier this month by Gov. Phil Scott. Today, a critique of these vetoes by Rep. Chris Morrow

By Rep. Chris Morrow

As part of my post-session communications, I want to dive into three ill-advised vetoes.

1 – S190. Health Care cost containment.

Let’s start with context. Vermont has the highest health insurance costs in the country. Vermont also has the highest health care costs in the country. Many of Vermont’s hospitals are struggling mightily. Meanwhile, the Trump administration removed $60M in federal subsidies away from Vermont families this January and many Vermonters have lost coverage. They are skipping doctor’s visits. They are choosing between a premium payment and a grocery bill while hospitals absorb costs they can’t recover. 

For two years, the General Assembly has convened a weekly working group with the Scott Administration and the Green Mountain Care Board with the sole purpose of stabilizing our hospitals and our regulated healthcare market to provide meaningful relief to Vermonters. S.190 was the culmination of all that collective work. 

S.190 would have brought down health insurance premiums for Vermonters who buy their own coverage, for small businesses, and for education-related health plans. Health care is one of the largest cost drivers of school budgets — every dollar saved on educator health premiums is a dollar of pressure off the property tax bills that fund our schools. By lowering hospital costs right away for the individual, small-business market, as well as education-related health expenses, S.190 would have eased that pressure in year one. Keep in mind that previous legislation has charged the Green Mountain Care Board with devising a reference based pricing system for Vermont – S190 would have simply accelerated implementation for these groups a year early. 

Health care and property taxes are the same fight — and this was an answer. The Governor’s veto explanation did not make sense to me. This bill would have provided tangible economic benefits for Vermonters. Where is the “affordability” agenda?

2 – H727. Data Centers. 

We worked on this bill in my committee (Energy and Digital Infrastructure). Across the country, data centers of all shapes and sizes are rapidly being built to power AI and the internet. In places without protections in place, these data centers are driving up electricity costs for local ratepayers and polluting the local waterways (lots of water is needed for cooling). This bill put in place a rigorous framework of protections that any data center would need to adhere to if they located in VT. The bill was excellent when it left the House and the Senate made some unnecessary changes – I agree with the Governor on that – but the bill was still very valuable and should not have been vetoed.

3 – H710. Making energy siting more sensible. (Also developed in my committee)

Current law says that if you put in a solar field next to an existing one, you can’t use existing road and power pole infrastructure. You have to build redundant capacity. Silly, right? Hence H710. This bill was two years in the making. In 2025, we took extensive testimony on these topics and the definition of “single plant.” We couldn’t come to an agreement before we adjourned for the summer, so we tasked the Public Utility Commission (PUC) with holding a public workshop on the topic. This happened last fall. The PUC, Gov. Scott’s Department of Public Service, Renewable Energy Vermont, the environmental organizations and Vermonters for a Clean Environment all participated in this workshop. As a result, they delivered to the legislature a CONSENSUS, updated definition of “single plant.” 

This year, with some revisions for more clarity, that consensus language was the heart of H.710. We also added important “decommissioning” language to ensure funding would be available for any abandoned solar array that needed to be taken down. This bill passed our Committee and the House and Senate with bi-partisan support.

The Governor vetoed it because of concerns about wind! 

At no point during deliberations did Governor Scott’s administration, via his Department of Public Service, object, raise concerns or bring up wind.

Why no wind testimony? First, because nothing about H.710 changes the underlying PUC permitting process that a solar or wind project would need to go through before being built. You still need the permit, and that process would include public participation, as always. Rather, the narrow focus of H.710 was to ensure that, if you do add a second or third array with permits, you no longer have to cut a new road or build new poles and wires. That makes it less expensive (and therefore keeps electric rates down for Vermonters), less onerous and it conserves land.

We didn’t talk about wind because, since 2017, Vermont has had what amounts to a de facto moratorium on any new wind projects. Setting aside H.710 entirely, in 2017 the PUC, at the behest of the legislature, set a new and very low “sound standard” for wind that basically means we can’t build it. It regulates how many decibels (43) a commercial wind turbine could emit that could be heard up to a mile away – it basically equates to the sound you might hear from a refrigerator hum. These sound rules are the real reason there’s no new wind in VT, and nothing about H.710 changes that rule.

The author represents Weston and surrounding towns in the Vermont House of Representatives. He sits on the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee.