April 22, 2023

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 22, 2023

After several weeks buried in wrapping up bills in committee work, the big items of the session have started exploding onto the House floor, beginning last Thursday and Friday with the “Clean Heat Standard” bill. It had passed the Senate by a vote of 19-10, and this week, passed the House by a vote of 98-46. Both those votes (despite a few legislators absent) make it highly likely that the expected veto by the governor will be overturned.

The debate was not over whether we should be doing everything we reasonably can to address climate change. There was broad consensus on that. It was not even about whether working to convert heating away from fossil fuels (oil, propane and natural gas) was a bad idea.

The fundamental question was over whether we should pass a law to require that conversion without knowing whether the program is even feasible, or what it will cost, and whether we should answer those questions before locking it into statute. The member who presented the bill said that it would be “wildly speculative” to assign details or cost estimates at this point. We just can’t know that yet. Thus, she said we should move forward in order to find out the costs and potential benefits.

I got up and agreed with her about needing that information. That was exactly the point. It is wildly speculative, and that is why we should answer those questions, at least with some rational estimates, before enacting a bill. Unlike last year, when the final bill required later review and agreement of the legislature before moving forward (and I thus voted in support of the failed effort to override a veto), this year’s bill allows the process to go full steam ahead.

The legislative “checkback” that proponents point to, which requires the legislature to approval the implementation rules in 2025, is more of a “lookback” at what was developed in that interim. Yes, the brakes could be put on – as can always happen with any bill, by repealing it on a future date – but the bill actually establishes the “clean heat standard” in law. It does not wait for information to be gathered first.

All of the language is, “shall.” It begins by saying, “the Clean Heat Standard is established.” Not, “shall be designed and then reviewed.” Fuel dealers “shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions” from heating sources; the Public Utility Commission “shall establish” a credit system that will mandate dealers to pay for incentives to get homeowners to put in heat pump systems and the like; the dealers “shall obtain” the credits that are required of them; the Commission “shall adopt rules and may issue orders to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard program.”

Who pays for these measures? This will be your choice: replace your heating system (with or without support from an efficiency organization that will help lower-income families), or pay the cost of higher fuel prices that dealers will be forced to charge in order to pay for the “credits” they are mandated to obtain. Pay how much? Providing an estimate at this point is what the bill’s presenter said would be “wildly speculative.” Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead

There are certainly long-term cost savings that may occur – again, no estimates on how much – but that will be many years down the line. Supporters kept pointing to the language that says the rules to implement the standards cannot take effect “without specific authorization enacted” by the legislature after the program has been fully fleshed out in 2025. That is the checkback.

But here is the other language in the bill that is the mega-loophole, in full:

“The requirement to adopt rules and any requirements regarding the need for legislative approval before any part of the Clean Heat Standard goes into effect do not in any way impair the Commission’s authority to issue orders or take any other actions, both before and after final rules take effect, to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard.”

Note the number of times “any” is reiterated!

I was gratified when a new Democratic legislator who is one of the now-three attorneys in the House got up to directly affirm my analysis. He was one of the few Democrats who bucked party directives, and voted “no.”

There were several skirmishes over amendments that were offered before the vote on the bill. Perhaps most relevant was one that would have placed a cap on how high the cost of heating fuel could be allowed to get before a “pause” button could be hit. That was voted down, on the basis that it would constrict development of the program when the costs are yet unknown.

Note that the sponsors themselves said that this bill will not change the status of global warming. The minute-scale efforts from our little piece of the earth cannot change the trajectory of the effects of worldwide efforts, or lack thereof. What it would do would put the costs of trying to push that massive boulder on the shoulders of Vermonters and our economy. We can’t do this in isolation, which is what this bill is proposing to attempt. We need to join consolidated efforts, not go it alone.

***

More To Come

The childcare bill was voted out of my committee on a 10-1 vote. I strongly supported the restructuring and thoughtful work on developing steps to improve the system and support more access and affordability. But again I said, “we can’t do all of this all at once!”

The estimated price tag in the first full year of implementation will be in the range of $140 million. That’s just the baseline. I would absolutely support phasing it in – such as what the governor’s budget proposed, with a new investment of $50 million – but voted no on going full throttle.

The bill will now move through the Education Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for identifying how we will raise the money for it.

The chair of that committee was quoted in the press last week as saying she believes the bill does not go far enough, and that her committee will be looking towards an increase in the personal income tax to fund it.

Keep in mind that this would be on top of the payroll tax to pay for a medical and family leave program that is moving through the House and Senate, the heating costs of the Clean Heat Standard, the investments in maintaining our safety net and universal school meals – and at the same time, continuing to tax most of Social Security and military pensions to a degree that other states do not.

***

Other Actions

The House approved the Brattleboro charter change 103-33, a bill that was vetoed last year but can clearly move forward this year. It allows 16 and 17-year-olds to be elected as representatives to the town’s delegate-style town meeting system.  I’ve seen a lot of Facebook posts over recent months, confused about why young adults up to age 21 are no longer being named in arrest reports and are being sent to Family Court.

We made that change in the legislature based upon the emerging science that the brain development to make thoughtful decisions rather than impetuous ones is ongoing through about age 25, so older teens shouldn’t be held liable as adults. But they can represent constituents and make decisions about town government? It would be nice to stop being so inconsistent.

We also passed a bill that was more symbolic than substantive that bans “paramilitary training camps” when the intent is for the training to be used for violent civil disruptions. It was targeted, of course, against Slate Ridge in Pawlet that has been a thorn in the side of that community for years now.

Why do I say symbolic? The government has the burden of proving intent. Someone need only say, this is training for defense against a violent civil disruption. Ironically, it included specific examples of “exemptions” that included Norwich training activities. I think the “intent” requirement already more than covered Norwich!

***

On the Agenda

Several bills are working their way through the process to address the delicate balance between public protection regarding the tiny fraction of individuals whose mental symptoms lead to violence – but also to help, rather than harm, people in crisis. These include enabling police to arrest and remove anyone (frequently unrelated to mental issues) who is being violent against hospital staff or EMTs. I helped work to ensure that the bill is clear that people who are being treated and not yet medically stabilized would not be subjected to being hauled away to jail.

Another bill creates a segregated “forensic” treatment capacity as a subunit at the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin for persons accused of crimes who are found not competent to stand trial but who remain a danger. They are currently held in the hospital, but sometimes do not need that high a level of nursing care. My main concern was that we do not hold people in a more restrictive way based on being “accused” of a crime. The bill is being revised to require the same standards that are currently used in “no bail” decisions based on risk of violence, which requires a judge to also find “that the evidence that the person committed the alleged crime is great.”

I do worry about taking nine inpatient beds off-line to create this non-hospital care level. The administration is saying that our bed shortage (and resulting number of people left waiting for days in our emergency rooms) is not for these high-level, involuntary hospital settings. Those currently left waiting are primarily people who are asking for, and need, hospital care – but for whom we lack inpatient space. That remains unaddressed.

Finally, there is a bill moving (at last!) that would restrict police who are taking a person in crisis to the hospital from using handcuffs unless it is the only means for safety. Police would need to have medical-style restraints available if needed, so that these folks are not being treated like criminals. We have already required this for years for sheriffs who do hospital transport, and it hasn’t created any problems; it’s clearly the right way to treat and respect people.  

***

Please stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken Goslant. We welcome your views and the opportunity to represent you. We can be reached at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. My archive of legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com