By Guy Page
For several weeks, Senate Republicans have been calling for repeal of the Clean Heat Standard, which would require heating fuel consumers to pay for a statewide transition from heating by fuel to heating with electricity.
In response, the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee today voted out a kinda-sorta soft repeal of the controversial bill. Tacked onto S.65, regarding Efficiency Vermont climate change priorities and spending, a small, recently-added section would delay for two years the imposition of a CHS fuel dealers’ registry. The bill is likely to go to the full Senate for a vote on Wednesday.
Knowing government registries of whole industries usually lead to further oversight, regulation and taxation, the fuel dealers have been pushing back against a registry, which would be essential to collect what amounts to a carbon tax on home heating fuel. The bill passed today would remove the ‘de minimus’ registration requirement of single purchases of camp stove propane, for example. And more importantly it would delay the registry until after November, 2026.
Vermont Fuel Dealers spokesman Matt Cota today described the provision as “a small step in the right direction.”
Can the Senate Democrats keep the fuel registry without voting to advance the Clean Heat Standard? The answer might be “no” based on a 2023 Senate floor conversation. In fact, no part – presumably including the fuel dealer registry – of the controversial Clean Heat Standard should move forward without an affirmative vote of the Legislature, the Senate was promised in 2023, shortly before narrowly approving the bill.
VDC set its Legislative Way Back Machine to the Senate Chamber of February 28, 2023. Here’s what we saw (and thanks to the Scott administration for their assistance):
Sen. Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia), chair of Appropriations, was assuring Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington)) there would be a ‘check back provision’ in the Clean Heat Standard bill.
Sears wanted to verify the Legislature would vote on the CHS again – in a straight up or down vote – after it had been studied and before it became law. He said:
“I don’t understand, if we’re studying something, why we’re already putting the mechanism in place to change the standard and require the full credits and all the other things. So I thought you would study it, then determine whether it’s practical or not. I just want to make sure we’re studying it to determine how we’re going to make it work. Are we studying it to determine it’s practical? And I was here when the Shumlin administration scrapped the single payer. And I know that was hard on a lot of people. But they did the study and decided they just wouldn’t do it. Is there that opportunity here?”
Kitchel replied:
“Yes, because the other part of the amendment I am proposing. It does provide that very opportunity, Senator Sears, because of the many concerns and questions that need to be answered. We need to fully understand the impact in all aspects of what is being proposed here.”
Kitchel later emphasized the intent of the checkback: “Nothing would move forward without affirmative action by the Legislature.”
Thus assured, Sears then voted Yes. The bill passed, narrowly. Sears is deceased. Some of his Senate colleagues appear to have forgotten, or at least dramatically reinterpreted, both his wishes and the promise made to him.
Guv vetoes BAA – As he promised Wednesday, Gov. Phil Scott today vetoed the 2025 Budget Adjustment Act (BAA) due to extension of the homeless hotel/motel program amid the state’s financial uncertainty and what he says is the Legislature’s unwillingness to compromise. He explained his decision in a letter to the House:
“For weeks, I have been clear that I do not support H.141 as passed by the House or the Senate for many reasons including:
1. Given growing uncertainty around federal funding and the potential for significant funding cuts to critical programs, spending additional general funds in the budget adjustment for expenses that are not time sensitive is irresponsible. These new spending proposals should be considered as part of the FY26 budget to be weighed against other initiatives that may have been reduced due to federal budget cuts.
- Expanding the free “hotel/motel program,” moves us backwards, reversing important progress made towards reforming this failed program, agreed upon by the Administration and Legislature just last year. After nearly five years of experience, we know this approach is far too expensive and fails our constituents, communities and taxpayers.
“I proposed a compromise path to the Committee of Conference which would have moved these spending and policy decisions to the FY26 budget while providing $2.1 million in flexible grants to municipalities to address needs in their communities during April, May and June. My compromise proposal protects the most vulnerable, develops emergency shelter capacity, adheres to the agreement from the last session, and limits unnecessary appropriations while we monitor federal action.
“This compromise proposal, or something similar, remains on the table.”
Help from an unexpected source – This week has been a somewhat lonely one in the Vermont State House, as my reporting on two controversial transgender stories has earned me some cool responses from normally friendly people and a rebuke or two from State House leadership. Nothing I can’t handle, but when asked by a Burlington representative I’ve known since my North Avenue News days (1988-1991), I said ‘sometimes this building can be a very lonely place.’
The lawmaker, a solid Democrat, said “everyone feels that way in this building. Every day you have to decide who you really are and what you stand for.”
Amen, sister! See you all next week – or on Friday at Four.