The debate over the future of energy policy in Vermont hit a key turning point this week when Republican Gov. Phil Scott presented Democratic lawmakers with what he鈥檚 calling his 鈥�Climate Action Management Plan.鈥�
Scott is asking lawmakers to roll back or revise some of the signature climate laws enacted by Democratic supermajorities over the last four years.
In this week鈥檚 edition of the Capitol Recap, Statehouse reporters Lola Duffort and Peter Hirschfeld talk about what exactly Scott is asking for, and whether Democrats are prepared to give it to him. This interview was produced for the ear. We highly recommend listening to the audio. We鈥檝e also provided a transcript, which has been edited for length and clarity.
Lola Duffort: Pete, we have known for a really long time that Phil Scott was going to be proposing some dramatic rollbacks to Vermont鈥檚 climate agenda. And this week we finally got the specifics.
Peter Hirschfeld: Yeah, a lot of specifics 鈥� things like the governor wanting to include nuclear power, for instance, in Vermont鈥檚 progress towards its clean electricity goals. Things like reallocating money at Efficiency Vermont, and using some of those funds to support things like weatherization, for instance, or the installation of electric heat pumps, or electric vehicle incentives.
But big picture, the governor鈥檚 big asks of lawmakers right now are related to a 2020 law called the Global Warming Solutions Act. Two major things in this act: It has emissions reductions mandates in 2030 and 2050, and there鈥檚 also one in 2025. It also has something called a private right of action that allows individuals or organizations to sue the state if we don't hit these goals. Phil Scott wants to get rid of those mandates. He wants to get rid of that private right of action, and those are going to be sort of the keystones of this debate moving forward.
More from 开云体育: Vermont faces first lawsuit related to anti-global warming law
Lola Duffort: If you get rid of the private right of action, it feels like the targets themselves almost don鈥檛 matter, right? Because enforcement鈥檚 the whole ballgame.
Peter Hirschfeld: Yeah, and that鈥檚 the argument that you鈥檙e hearing from people like Rep. Kath James, the Manchester Democrat who chairs the House energy committee. She says passing sweeping energy policy 鈥� the kind of sweeping energy policy that鈥檚 required to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions 鈥� is hard work. It鈥檚 politically difficult. That鈥檚 why we haven鈥檛 seen this Legislature make progress on that front, despite the numbers they鈥檝e had in recent years.
And the argument is, if you don鈥檛 have an accountability mechanism like this, then it鈥檚 not going to get done. And so there are a lot of lawmakers that are concerned that if you get rid of this private right of action, you lose the urgency you鈥檙e going to need to actually make something happen.
Lola Duffort: But at the beginning of the session you spoke to Senate Majority Leader Kesha Ram Hinsdale and she said, I actually don鈥檛 know that we should have pointed this gun at our own heads.
Peter Hirschfeld: This was the exact metaphor she used, in fact.
Lola Duffort: So are Democrats on the same page about this?
Peter Hirschfeld: No, they鈥檙e not, is the short answer.
There are a lot of Democrats, frankly, who feel like Kesha Ram Hinsdale and think that this private right of action was misguided, that Vermont never should have put itself at risk of legal jeopardy for not hitting certain targets.
There are a lot of other Democrats, though, who feel like climate is their bread and butter, that they鈥檝e made commitments to advocacy groups, to Vermonters writ large, that Vermont is going to take seriously what the scientists are telling us 鈥� that you need to reduce emissions by a certain amount in order to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
More from 开云体育: Scott's plan to repeal emissions mandates draws scorn from advocates
And there are also a lot of Democrats who feel like this is a core economic issue, that Vermonters spend $2 billion a year on fossil fuels that are price volatile, that are probably going to get more expensive in the future. And that if government doesn鈥檛 take action now to help Vermonters transition to greener energy technologies, then they鈥檙e going to get left behind. And for them, these aggressive climate laws are often less about Vermont鈥檚 contributions to overall emissions than it is about setting Vermonters up for financial success in the future by helping them get into green energy technologies now.
Lola Duffort: Well that鈥檚 kind of the new line, right? I feel like the moral imperative was what you were hearing earlier on in the climate discussion.
Peter Hirschfeld: I think that that was something that was latched onto by us in the media, and not wrongly. That was a huge part of the message. And there are people saying, "Yeah, Vermont needs to lead the way 鈥� if a place like Vermont can鈥檛 do it, then who can?"
But there have always been Democrats for whom this was an economic issue. I think, given the political realities of the moment we find ourselves in, everybody who supports aggressive emissions reductions mandates is understanding that this needs to be part of an affordability agenda, and that you need to lean into the economic benefits, not just the climate ones.
More from 开云体育: Urgency over energy policy builds in Montpelier as climate mandates loom
Lola Duffort: So, we know that Democrats aren鈥檛 on the same page 鈥� not entirely surprising. But enough of the Democrats in disarray narrative. Scott is proposing to move some money around, but is there a comprehensive plan that he has to bring down emissions in Vermont? He also talks the talk on climate. He has not made the same commitments as Democrats, but he鈥檚 made similar ones.
Peter Hirschfeld: Yeah, he believes global warming is real. He believes humans are contributing to it. This is the governor that proudly talks about his electric Ford 150 pickup truck, right?
The governor鈥檚 issue is the pace at which Democratic lawmakers are moving. He says it鈥檚 way too fast, that it鈥檚 going to cause economic dislocation and disruption by increasing the cost of fossil fuels and making life less affordable for Vermonters.
He鈥檚 saying, I鈥檓 going to deliver a better framework, a smoother framework. He鈥檚 saying we鈥檙e going to have emissions reductions requirements, but they鈥檙e going to be pushed out a little bit, to 2035. He says, lawmakers, you鈥檙e going to find out exactly what I have in mind. And he says, I'm going to deliver that plan to you in December of 2026.
Lola Duffort: Isn鈥檛 that after the next election?
Peter Hirschfeld: Your calendar math is correct.
Have questions, comments or tips? .
