by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com

Rep. Michael Tagliavia (R – Orange-1) appeared before the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on January 30 to pitch what might be the most ambitious rollback proposal of the 2026 session: House Bill H.767: An act relating to moratoria on climate change programs, an eight-year moratorium on five of Vermont’s most consequential climate change and land use laws.

The bill targets the Global Warming Solutions Act, the Clean Heat Standard, the Renewable Energy Standard, Act 59 (the 30×30 and 50×50 conservation goals), and Act 181 (the Land Use Review Board and future land use mapping overhaul). If passed, all five would be frozen in place for eight years while a comprehensive study evaluates their cumulative impacts on housing, energy costs, and property rights.

The Affordability Argument

Tagliavia framed the bill squarely around affordability and what he sees as regulatory overreach hitting Vermonters where it hurts. He told the committee that Vermont faces an “unprecedented affordability crisis” with healthcare, education, and property taxes compounding the pain. He cited figures showing some Vermonters are spending 50% of their income on rent or mortgage, with another 19.5% potentially going to healthcare. “We need to weigh long-term goals and real world immediate effects of our legislation,” he said. “We must ensure we are not harming or bringing increased struggles to our constituents.”

Five Laws, One Problem

Walking through the targeted laws, Tagliavia argued the Global Warming Solutions Act has consumed hundreds of millions without producing workable policy. He pointed to the PUC spending over $1 million on a study concluding the Clean Heat Standard wasn’t appropriate for Vermont, and noted that cap-and-trade transportation programs have all been found too costly. Vermont already has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in the country, he reminded the committee, with 76% forest cover acting as a massive carbon sink.

On the Renewable Energy Standard, Tagliavia noted the governor vetoed related legislation over cost concerns and argued the standard is driving up electric rates while causing “massive loss of agricultural land and forest” to industrial solar development. He pointed to both the governor and the Department of Public Service introducing bills to lessen the RES burden as evidence the law needs rethinking.

Tagliavia saved sharp criticism for Act 181, calling it “very problematic” for towns and property owners. He raised concerns about low-income housing being permitted in flood plains — calling it “both social and environmental injustice” — and flagged Tier 3 critical resource area maps as “very controversial,” particularly for rural Vermonters whose property represents their primary wealth. The road rule, he said, is “sparking major controversy” for those on farms and in camps.

He also offered a practical solution for Act 59’s conservation targets: pass H.870, which would allow the roughly 2.5 million acres already enrolled in Vermont’s current use program to count toward the 30×30 goals, easily meeting the targets without locking up additional land.

The Science

The bill’s findings section is notably aggressive in its scientific framing, citing the CO2 Coalition, physicist William Happer, and researcher Bjørn Lomborg to argue that CO2 has net benefits for agriculture and that climate mandates are economically inefficient. Tagliavia acknowledged the dense findings with humor, suggesting they might “put them to sleep or possibly get their blood pressure up.”

Committee Response: Polite but Guarded

Committee members were polite but measured. Ranking member Rep. Laura Sibilia (who voted to enact the five laws covered by H.767) acknowledged the dual jurisdiction issue, noting that Act 59 and Act 181 matters fall under the Environment Committee’s purview and steering discussion toward the energy-related provisions. She pressed Tagliavia on whether he had calculations showing the actual rate impact of the Renewable Energy Standard. He admitted he didn’t have specific numbers on hand but offered to return with data if the bill got further discussion.

Sibilia noted the Department of Public Service estimates the RES impact at roughly 2%, though the Joint Fiscal Office’s own fiscal note on the vetoed H.289 RES reform tells a wider story — 3.8% to 6.9% rate increases by 2035 and total implementation costs of $150 million to $450 million, revised down from the PSD’s original $1 billion estimate. She pointed out that renewable energy delivers benefits — reducing peak-time purchases and delaying transmission upgrades — that haven’t been netted against costs. Tagliavia agreed, revealing he lives completely off-grid with solar, batteries, and a backup generator. His lived experience, he said, is exactly why Vermont needs a “good, better, best” energy policy with real competition, including nuclear.

Rep. Timothy Campbell offered explicit support, saying he’s been arguing for a comprehensive rethink of climate legislation all along. “I think the best thing we could do is actually just admit that we made some mistakes,” Campbell said. “Admit that some of these goals are too ambitious.” He framed the moratorium as “tap the brakes, not get rid of it” — study the programs, and if they’re working, extend or adjust them.

Sibilia was more cautious in her closing remarks, drawing a clear distinction between “adjustments, moratorium, and repeal,” and signaling that her willingness to collaborate depends heavily on which of those words is operative.

Long Odds, Clear Message

The bill faces long odds in a legislature that passed most of the laws it seeks to freeze. But Tagliavia’s core argument — that Vermont can’t keep layering costs on residents who are already drowning — resonates across party lines, even if the eight-year pause and skeptic-friendly scientific findings don’t. Whether H.767 moves or dies in committee, it puts a marker down: the affordability backlash against Vermont’s climate agenda isn’t going away.