Advocacy Update - Session Summary - 2025

Thank you to this week’s sponsor of our Advocacy Update:

June 4, 2025

It’s not over, but we’re close enough to report back…

Going Into Overtime: What was thought to be the final week of the session has stretched on as the Committee of Conference failed to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the education finance bill, which will bring the whole legislature back on June 16th.

As adjournment slipped further out of reach, impasse became the defining theme, particularly on education and housing.

While must-pass bills, such as the budget and the yield bill, were signed by the Governor, unresolved tensions over how to address long-term education reform and deliver meaningful housing policy extended the session beyond its typical timeline.
Negotiations continued with details shifting rapidly, especially as key factions dug in on these significant issues.

What’s at Stake: Vermont is facing a confluence of demographic and economic pressures that are proving to be a tailspin we need to pull out of. A shrinking and aging population, combined with an acute housing shortage, is stalling economic growth.

These challenges are fueling an unsustainable rise in healthcare costs, which in turn suppress wages and workforce stability.
At the same time, downtowns are struggling with public safety and a significant number of unhoused people, issues that continue to erode quality of life.

The Defining Issue: All these challenges intersect in Vermont’s education finance system, which is complex, costly, and overwhelmingly dependent on property taxes.

Voters signaled frustration, sending a mandate to contain costs when they eroded the democratic supermajority that had stood for six years.

Rewind: The session began slowly, delayed by a constituitional quirk, new leadership transitions, and the usual early-biennium onboarding.

Continuity and Congruency: In the final week, efforts to reach an agreement on housing and education policy were shaped by a shared challenge: aligning the various components of a system that must function as a whole.

In these negotiations, a win in one area couldn’t simply offset a concession in another; as if assembling a car engine, every component needed to fit and function together. That complexity made compromise even harder to achieve.

Zoom Out: A broader theme throughout the session was uncertainty, particularly from the national political environment. State officials are preparing for potential federal disruptions, including budget cuts and tariff changes.

Concerns about reductions to Medicaid, Medicare, and food assistance loomed large. Some compared the instability to the pandemic era, noting that such volatility could force Vermont to adapt mid-year.

What’s Next? The Committee of Conference on the Education Bill will continue to meet until the 16th, when the Legislature already has a veto session scheduled, at which time they should have reached consensus.

That might not be the only time they come back. As the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” proceeds through Congress, its impacts on Vermont will become increasingly clear, and the budget this year allocates funding for the Legislature to reconvene and respond.

Education Transformation

On the heels of a disastrous election for the Vermont Democrats, which was fueled by outrage over 33% of school budgets being voted down in the previous year and property taxes increasing by an average of 14%, it was clear that something needed to be done to address the cost of education in Vermont.

This was the defining issue of the legislative session, and the timeline set in the previous session, which would have had the Commission on the Future of Public Education deliver a final report in December 2025, wasn’t going to suffice.

The democratically controlled legislature made clear at the beginning of the session, their decision to hold back and give the Governor the room to lead on education transformation.

The resulting legislation barely passed the House, and the intention was that many issues would be resolved in the Senate.
The Senate didn’t fare much better. After four weeks of work, with many items in the bill serving as placeholders, the bill faltered as it was being brought to the floor for a vote, resulting in the scrapping of four weeks’ worth of work and a week of redrafting.

The final days: The Senate finally passed the bill, and the two sides formed a Committee of Conference to reach a final agreement between the House and Senate versions, with input from the Governor on what would gain his signature.

As we neared late Friday night, a compromise became elusive, and the Legislature decided to adjourn, allowing more time for the Committee of Conference to work on the legislation.
As of June 4th, the likely next meeting of the Committee of Conference is June 12th, with the whole Legislature returning on June 16th, which was previously scheduled for a veto session, to accept the deal they strike.

Where things stand now: There are a few items on which the House and Senate cannot close the distance between their positions.

The Foundation Formula: Broadly, they do not have consensus on the format of the foundation formula amount or delivery yet, as they attempt to negotiate other details that impact that.
Tax Spikes: A significant concern that came late in the session is what would happen to low-spending districts with lower tax rates once we transition to a foundation formula.

Our current system uses student weights to give schools greater tax capacity, which is the ability to raise money more efficiently, although they do not have to do so.
The system this legislation transitions to would have those weights instead increasing the block grant sent to the school by the state and forcing the school to spend more.
The result of this change is that districts currently with lower spending would have to increase their spending and would need to pay the statewide property tax to afford it, which would result in higher property tax rates.

Income Sensitivity: Transitions from the current income-based property tax credit to a homestead exemption model, which directly reduces the taxable value of owner-occupied homes.
- The version drafted by the House would cost $45 million more than current law, and the Senate’s would be revenue-neutral.
School and District Consolidation: Both chambers agree Vermont has too many school governance units and too few tools for long-term cost control, but disagree on the structure for achieving reform:
- The House created a new subcommittee of the Commission on the Future of Public Education to draw new school districts.
- The Senate replaced this with a stand-alone, time-bound Task Force charged with making recommendations on district boundaries, staffing ratios, and service delivery models, with an eye toward bold consolidation.
Class Size Minimum: Both bills contained class size minimums, however, the Senate’s was tiered by grade level.
New Tax Classifications: The House version restructures the education property tax system from two rates (homestead and nonhomestead) into four tax classes: Homestead, Nonhomestead Apartment, Nonhomestead Residential (second homes predominantly), and Nonhomestead Nonresidential (employers).

The stated intent is to use these new levers to lower the burden on homestead ratepayers and apartment dwellers, at the expense of second homes and non-homestead payers, which would now only include commercial and industrial taxpayers.

The House has stayed strong in this position.

Bottom line: No version of this legislation lowers education spending or property taxes, and instead, legislation seeks to make systemic change that could, in the future, result in lower spending. The language being debated

Housing

All issues and impediments in the Vermont economy at this point are related to housing. With previous housing policy likeAct 47 (the HOME Act) and Act 181 still fresh, there was less appetite for major regulatory changes involving local zoning or Act 250.

Most legislators still understood the need for more housing and reversing aging population demographics as an issue they needed to address, as a call for housing abundance was clear from voters.
In the absence of regulatory change, funding was the primary area of focus, and this legislative session saw significant shifts in how the state pays for housing in two key ways.

$2 Billion for Housing Infrastructure, Without Raising Taxes: After decades of funding development on a project-by-project basis, the Legislature passed S.127, which creates the Community Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP) which allows municipalitiesto work with developers to fund the infrastructure needed to support housing with that development’s future tax revenues, similarly to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) program, but on a much smaller and less complex scale. More on CHIP:

This program could unlock $2 billion in infrastructure funding over the next decade without increasing taxes by allowing municipalities to enter into development agreements whereby they may allocate up to 100% of municipal tax increment to debt issued by the town, developer, or a qualified third party.

Eligibility: All Vermont cities and towns qualify for an aggregate of up to $200 million.
- Projects must be at least 60% housing or clearly support CHIP’s goal of increasing primary residences for low/moderate-income households statewide. Housing must be the primary residence during the debt period.
Market-rate projects must pass a “but for” test, satisfying that the project wouldn’t occur as proposed without the tax increment and then use no more than 85% of the new municipal increment and no less than 75% of the education tax increment for up to 20 years to pay back the debt.
Affordable projects are those that have 15% of rental units at 80% area median income (AMI) for renters or ownership opportunities at 150% of AMI may use up to 85% of both municipal and education tax increment for up to 20 years.
Timeline: VEPC to issue rules by November 15, 2025, and could be accepting applications starting January 2026. From there, approvals must occur within 90 days of a site visit, and the first project approvals could begin in May 2026.

Changing assistance to unhoused individuals: The Legislature also made significant changes in H.91 regarding the administration of the General Assistance (GA) program to support unhoused Vermonters.

The bill dissolves the state motel voucher program and diverts the funding and policymaking to nonprofit community action agencies to administer the assistance, leaving the state with an oversight role.
Read more about these changes and a possible veto via VTDigger.

Next Year:

Appeals reform was a component of the housing bill constructed by the House Committee on General and Housing; however, inconsistencies in the interpretation of what was drafted and passed led to an impasse, and the language was ultimately removed. The Land Use Review Board is conducting an appeals study, which will encompass municipal appeals.
Multiple sunsets on interim exemptions contained in Act 181 have been helpful in producing housing since its passage, which are going to sunset.

Affordability and Finance

H.493, the $9.01 billion FY26 budget for the state of Vermont, was the product of a session that was odd for budgeting in a few distinct ways.

- The year without a Budget Adjustment Act (BAA): Disagreement between the Governor and the Legislature over the rules governing the general assistance program providing motel vouchers for those unhoused resulted in the demise of not one but two BAAs due to the Governor’s insistence that they not contain such policy.
- Preparing for Federal Cuts: Due to possibly massive changes in the federal budget and Vermont’s heavy reliance on federal funding that makes up one-third of the state’s budget, the budget contains surplus and reserve buffers and instructions on how the e-board, Joint Fiscal Committee, and Administration are to handle cuts in the off session.

Done Before Adjournment: Typically, the budget is the last bill to be passed, signaling the end of the session. This year, the legislation was wrapped up long before, and the education transformation bill dictated adjournment.

Money For More Time: This budget included appropriations to keep the legislature open later and allow them to come back to respond to federal budget cuts.

View a summary of the budget here.

$13 Million in Tax Relief: Vermont lawmakers and the Governor have all agreed to the contents of S.51, the final vehicle for a long-debated slate of tax cuts, however, the bill suffered the procedural hurdle of getting a final vote in the Senate after their abrupt departure. The $13 million in cuts will take effect retroactively as of January 1, 2025, once the Senate finally votes and it is signed by the Governor.

Expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC): Increases age eligibility from 5 to 6 years old.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Expansion: Childless workers will see the credit boosted from 38% to 100% of the federal EITC amount.
Social Security and Retirement Income Tax Relief: Increases the AGI threshold by $5,000 for partial Social Security exemptions.
Exemption for military retirement and survivor benefits: Fully exempt up to $125,000 AGI, with a phase-out up to $175,000. Taxpayers may claim this in addition to Social Security or Civil Service Retirement exemptions (must choose one).
- After years of stalled progress, Vermont has now fully exempted military retirement income from state taxation — a point of bipartisan support that had previously failed to advance in the House.
New Vermont Veteran Tax Credit: Up to $250 refundable credit for low-income veterans, phasing out at $25,000 federal AGI.
The bill initially came from the Senate with this credit, however, it was stripped out.
- Unpaid Caregiver Tax Credit: Up to $1,000 refundable credit for individuals providing 20+ hours/week of unpaid care for at least 12 months to a related person with a medical condition. The credit phases out by $20 per $1,000 of AGI above $125,000.

Yield Bill – Property Tax Buydown: H.497, the annual bill that sets property tax rates, utilized a $77 million general fund transfer to lower the tax rate with a uniform buydown across all property taxpayer classes, reducing the increase from 5.9% to 1.1%.

More Local Options Tax for Municipalities: H.397 was the final vehicle for language first discussed in H.164, which lowers the amount of LOT revenue that the state withholds from 30% to 25%, allowing towns to retain a greater portion of the revenue.

The state uses the revenue it retains from municipalities to fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program, which compensates towns for municipal taxes not collected on state-owned buildings. However, this program was running a $10 million surplus for the state, which was projected to grow.

Next year:

Legislators could return to a roughly $122 million deficit in the education fund due to the surplus used to buy down property taxes this year.
Legislators will need to respond to the impact of the federal reconciliation package.
This year’s T-Bill used one-time funds to fill the deficit, and legislators are predicting a $30 million gap next year, which would prevent the state from drawing down $150 million in federal cash. To fill holes in the transportation fund, the Transportation Committee this year considered a retail delivery fee, a mileage-based fee for electric vehicles, raising the gas tax, and other options. However, it decided against implementing any of these measures this year, instead agreeing to take testimony later.

Public Safety & Quality of Life

On the heels of a great deal of legislation passed in the previous session addressing public safety, legislators showed little appetite for addressing public safety this legislative session.

At the start of the session, Governor Scott proposed an omnibus public safety legislation that included tougher penalties for repeat offenders, revisions to bail revocation laws, amendments to expungement laws, restrictions on sentence suspension, streamlining extradition, and redefining recidivism.

What was passed:

H.2, now Act 4, a compromise the Governor signed that delays the effective date of “Raise the Age” for 19-year-old criminal offenders by two years.

Rehabilitation and Public Inebriation: S.36, now Act 22, introduces targeted reforms to remove administrative hurdles in Vermont’s response to the drug crisis, provide relief to overburdened health care professionals, and promote equitable access to critical services for residents.

Medicaid beneficiaries with substance use or mental health issues can receive care for the full duration deemed medically necessary by their providers, clarifying that there is no 14-day limit on treatment.
In the absence of public inebriate programs (PIPs), ERs have become the default destination, leading to overcrowding and safety risks. This legislation addresses the growing number of individuals incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, yet not requiring medical attention, being taken to hospitals by extending authority for law enforcement to temporarily hold such individuals in Department of Corrections facilities for up to 24 hours when no PIP beds are available.
Additionally, the bill backs the Agency of Human Services’ plan to expand PIPs as a more sustainable solution over the next two years, supported by a $1 million legislative appropriation.

Sealing Criminal Records: S.12, which is on its way to the Governor, deals with the different impact of an expungement system for criminal history versus a system of sealing criminal records. Changes within this legislation would enable judges and law enforcement to access an individual’s criminal history during investigations.

Guns in Bars Bill Left High-and-Dry: A point of contention was the Burlington Charter Change dealing with guns in establishments that serve alcohol, which was the subject of political gamemanship in response to it never making it out of the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs after it was sent to them by the Senate.

Additional legislation, H.45, would have created a ban statewide.

Budgeting for Public Safety:

The Budget bill adds $650,000 to the Sheriffs’ budget to restore vacancy savings, allowing existing transport deputy positions and one new transport deputy position to be filled.
Additionally, it includes $650,000 to the State’s Attorneys to restore vacancy savings and adds one fiscal and IT staff.

Next Year:

Legislators will likely be back to push for the Burlington Charter Change as well as a statewide ban on guns in establishments that serve alcohol.

Labor, Employment, and Economic Development

This legislative session saw a greater balance in the Committees, broadly, and this was evident in many of the committees with jurisdiction over housing, labor, and economic development. In addition to focusing on the commerce within the state, the Legislature had concerns for the on-again-off-again tariffs that cast a great deal of uncertainty on business.

What was done:

Welcoming workers! S.56, now Act 29, establishes a study on the creation of the Office of the New American to assist new Vermonters in navigating services, obtaining credentials, finding housing, and securing employment.

Unpaid Leave: H.461, now Act 32, was passed and signed by the Governor, expanding access to unpaid family and medical leave for reasons including domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, bereavement, and qualifying exigencies, while also addressing barriers for LGBTQ+ families and establishing reporting requirements.

Attention: This act takes effect on July 1, 2025. Please ensure you are in compliance.

Cheers! H.339, now Act 35, a bill repealing the sunset on alcohol to-go and allowing the practice to continue, was passed and signed by the Governor. Making this practice, which started during the pandemic and has been extended multiple times, a permanent part of our liquor law allows businesses greater stability.

The economic and workforce development bill, S.122, had a rough road and was continually watered down as it lost appropriations. The final bill;

Creates a task force to investigate the potential creation of a convention center.
Tasks the Agency of Commerce and Community Development with examining ways to improve funding opportunities for small businesses.

Establishes the Vermont-Ireland Trade Commission.
Appropriates $150,000 for an International Business Office.

Includes language from H.34, pertaining to workforce leadership, which was sent by the House and stalled in the Senate.

Data Privacy: Data privacy conversations were a source of contention in the last legislative session, and the conversation continued this session. The business community clearly communicated its preference for a Senate bill, S.93, early in the session due to its clearer guidelines and alignment with existing regulations.

The Senate was pragmatic, understanding that the business community and the Governor would prevent the passage of legislation that contained a private right of action, so they replaced the language of S.71 with that from S.93, and that legislation passed the Senate unanimously.
The bill did not have a warm welcome in the House, whose sole privacy aim was contained in H.208, the House privacy bill that had the same language as was originally in S.71 when it was introduced.
The privacy bill sat idle for weeks and ultimately did not move in the House. Discussion will resume next year.
Another privacy bill, H.342, which dealt with private data of law enforcement and public officials, received greater attention, as well as accusations that it was “litigation entrepreneurship” in the House and was the subject of some tense negotiations before passing the House; however, it received little attention in the Senate and languished.

Noncompete Agreements: Efforts to ban noncompete agreements have been a perennial issue in the House for years. This year, the proposal was being considered by two House committees and could potentially restrict sign-on bonuses and other benefits.

H.205: A bill concerning Employee and Franchisee Agreements, proposing to ban noncompete agreements for employees earning below $100,000 per year and affecting noncompete clauses between franchisors and franchisees.
H.334: A bill being considered in the House Committee on General and Housing that would outright ban noncompete agreements for employees statewide and restrict “Stay or Pay” provisions requiring employees to repay costs if they leave.
What’s next? The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee will be working over the summer with stakeholders, as well as the Department of Financial Regulation, on a realistic proposal for this area of law.

“Kids’ Code:” S.69, focuses on protecting minors as they explore the internet by implementing guardrails on algorithms and specific privacy settings for digital platforms, and was overwhelmingly supported by both the House and Senate, and is now on its way to the Governor.

Cottage Food Producers: H.401 increases the exemption threshold for cottage food producers from $10,000 in annual sales to $30,000 per year.

Next Year:

Return of Data Privacy: In the final days of the session, the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development reviewed a draft amendment that will serve as the basis for their work in the next legislative session.

Labor “Wishlist” Bill: The Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs is reviewing a sweeping labor proposal (draft request 25-0653) that would significantly alter Vermont’s employment laws. The bill includes several major changes, raising concerns among the business community about potential impacts on workforce flexibility and employer costs.

End to At-Will Employment: Would require employers to provide “good cause” for termination, which would have made Vermont just the second state with such a policy.
Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: The bill attempted to enact federal rules created by the Federal Trade Commission that were struck down by the courts.
Creation of a “Right to Sit:” This legislation would allow employees to sit during work if standing isn’t essential to job duties.
Payout of Unused Vacation at Termination: This language was scrapped after it was pointed out that the legislation had numerous potential ramifications and didn’t encapsulate the various ways that time off is offered.
Overtime Threshold Increase: Would mandate overtime for salaried workers earning less than $1,128 per week (~$58,000 per year).

Extreme Temperature Regulations: The House Committee on General and Housing began working on a bill concerning mandatory workplace protections for employees exposed to extreme temperatures.

Drafted late in the session, H.348 proposed mandatory workplace protections for employees exposed to extreme temperatures, setting thresholds at 80°F for heat and 60°F for cold.
Concerns were raised that this could be duplicative of OSHA requirements or make work difficult outside the specified range, requiring site-specific safety plans, rest areas, breaks, and training, which would cover both outdoor workers and vehicles.

Event Ticketing: The House Commerce and Economic Development at the end of the session brought up H.512, a bill aimed at reigning in the resale of event tickets, which they intend to pick up at the start of the coming session.

Swiped left on swipe fees: About mid-way through the session, the Legislature ceased work on S.135, a bill that would ban credit card companies from applying interchange fees to taxes and gratuities and require businesses to accept cash on all transactions under $500. The consensus was to wait and see how litigation related to credit card interchange fees, similar to legislation in other states, plays out before proceeding.

Unemployment Insurance Expansion: S.37 proposed changes to Unemployment Insurance, including how wages earned for certain work are counted for benefit amounts, and potentially making employees of educational institutions eligible for UI between academic terms under certain conditions

Liquor Liability: While issues around the state’s overly restrictive liquor liability laws were addressed last year in an attempt to bring down insurance costs for businesses with liquor licences, it has become clear and been conveyed to legislators that these changes have not had their desired effect, necessitating more action either at a regulatory or legislative level.

Healthcare

Vermont’s healthcare system faces serious financial stress driven by soaring costs, hospital instability, and the risk of insurer insolvency. The crisis prompted significant legislative action aimed at containing costs, improving transparency, and restructuring how care is paid for and delivered.

Ubiquitous anxiety: even led the Chair of the House Healthcare Committee to share that she might not have coverage next year, as the benchmark Silver plan for BCBS costs $3,908 per month on the Vermont Health Connect exchange.
Insurer Instability: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont (BCBSVT) has requested a 20% premium increase for individual plans and a 13.7% increase for small group plans. Regulators warned such hikes may be necessary unless $200 million in healthcare spending is cut before August.
Hospital Financial Distress: Vermont hospitals are among the most expensive in the country, with nearly half considered “highly vulnerable” to closure and many “rapidly bleeding cash.”
Federal Headwinds: As if the state’s woes, caused by housing and demographic issues, weren’t enough, changes at the federal level are creating obstacles for Vermonters.

Federal Advanced Premium Tax Credits expire on December 25 and are unlikely to be extended by Congress, pushing insurance rates even farther out of reach.
The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” considered by Congress, could cause more than 30,000 Vermonters to lose Medicaid coverage.

What was passed:

Healthcare Reform Bill: S.126, the flagship healthcare bill legislation of the session, was agreed to by the House and Senate and is on its way to the Governor. If passed, it authorizes the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB) to;

Implement reference-based pricing by hospitals in FY27, capping hospital charges using Medicare or similar benchmarks.
Task AHS with making recommendations on reducing hospital spending by 2.5%, or about $100 million, statewide for FY 2026, with a first report by July 1, 2025.
Transition to global hospital budgets, starting with pilot hospitals in FY2028 and expanding to all non-critical access hospitals by FY2030 (resource-dependent).
Coordinate spending cuts in FY2026 (initially 10%, later updated to 2.5%).
Expand budget review criteria, requiring detailed reporting on executive compensation, service cuts, administrative costs, and alignment with strategic objectives.
Support long-term reform by tasking the Agency of Human Services (AHS) with creating a Statewide Health Care Delivery Strategic Plan to guide care access, quality, and cost across sectors, including mental health and primary care.
Invest over $5 million for staffing, implementation, and integration of a statewide data system to monitor spending, outcomes, and delivery reform.

Emergency Budget Powers: Intended as an emergency financial stabilization tool for the state’s healthcare system, H.482 empowers the GMCB to temporarily reduce reimbursement rates to stabilize an insurer on the brink of insolvency, adjust hospital budgets retroactively, and appoint independent observers for hospitals that misrepresent finances or fail to comply.

Health Insurance Market Unmerger: Signed into law early in the session, H.35 prevents an estimated 7% ($23.2 million) rate hike for small businesses by making permanent the separation of individual and small-group health insurance markets.

Outpatient Drug Price Caps: H.266 caps what hospitals can charge insurers for outpatient prescription drugs to 120% of ASP starting January 2026, following an amendment to delay the full cap for hospital planning.

Proponents claim the cap could reduce BCBS premiums by 4% and school plan premiums by 3%, however, hospitals argue this could lead to over $40 million in lost revenue, straining critical services.

Medical Debt Relief: S.27, now signed into law as Act 21, uses $1 million from the State Treasurer’s Office to erase up to $100 million in Vermonters’ medical debt through a nonprofit partnership.

Medicaid Rates for Community-Based Providers: H.13, now signed into law as Act 14, sets Medicaid payment rates to better support community-based health and social service providers.

Certificate of Need (CON) Threshold Reform: H.96, now signed into law as Act 15, aims to modernize oversight and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens by increasing the monetary thresholds for healthcare facilities required to seek approval via the CON process.

What’s Next?

At the federal level, Vermonters will want to keep a close eye on changes to Medicaid as well as health insurance subsidies.
Businesses will likely want to participate in insurance rate cases this summer

Energy, Environment, and Telecommunications

The Clean Heat Standard and Global Warming Solutions Act cast a long legislative shadow over the Vermont legislature and is argued to have cost the Democratic Party its supermajority.

While the state is facing a lawsuit for failing to meet emissions targets under the Global Warming Solutions Act, the Clean Heat Standard, established by Act 18 to reduce thermal sector emissions through clean heat credits, was described as “dead on arrival.”
Governor Scott and the Republicans had the priorities of removing the private right of action under the GWSA, reducing the Climate Council’s authority, modifying carbon reduction commitments, and repealing the Clean Heat Standard.
Additionally, the Republicans sought to legislatively preempt the Advanced Clean Car and Advanced Clean Truck standards that were set to take effect.

Despite the Republicans’ intentions, these issues were resolved outside of the Legislature this session.

After months of advocates asking the Legislature to address the Advanced Clean Car and Advanced Clean Truck standards, Governor Scott took action and signed an executive order postponing their implementation.
- Congress also passed a Congressional Review Act resolution repealing Environmental Protection Agency waivers that allow California, and 16 other states that follow its lead (including Vermont), to set regulations for emissions from cars and light-duty trucks.

The Vermont Public Utilities Commission ruled that they would not be pursuing the implementation of the fuel dealer registry in the Clean Heat Standard, which was the only component of legislation that would go into effect without the Legislature approving the “check back” provision.
- The PUC action doesn’t kill the Clean Heat Standard, rather renders it a vestigual organ, like an appendix that lays dormant and inactive with the potential to burst in the future, if for example, a lawsuit challenging the state for not meeting the goals of the GWSA is successful and a court wants to force the state to act.

Efficiency Utility Expanded Jurisdiction: Another contentious issue of the session was S.65, a bill related to expanding jurisdiction and funding of the state’s energy efficiency utility, which drew opposition from utilities.

S.68, repealing the Clean Heat Standard, was partially folded into the legislation in hopes of sponging Republican votes, however, this was ultimately ineffective, and the bill failed.

Further PFAS Legislation: Moving in the background was the weedy and often academic feeling H.238, a bill that would build off the work of previous legislation to further limit the sale and production of consumer products containing PFAS, expanding existing bans to cleaning products, dental floss, and containers lined with PFAS.

The bill was passed and sent to the Governor.
Industry in Vermont will have time to watch other states implement similar provisions to the bill and address that in rulemaking or in legislation.

Stormwater management: H.481, a bill signed by the Governor, seeks to address a long-standing background issue for 100 of the 700 three-acre stormwater permit sites in Vermont that are in neighborhood subdivisions and thus struggle to comply with the law.

The bill creates a new Municipal Stormwater Grant Program and municipal fee-setting authorities while enabling a study committee on stormwater management and regional stormwater districts.

Next year:

H.121, a bill that would require internet service providers to offer a basic plan of 25 Mbps for $15 per month and an enhanced plan of 200 Mbps for $20 per month, was discussed this session. Such legislation in other states has led to internet service providers leaving the state after its implementation.