As a member of the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee, I worked on each of the bills below. While not my preferred committee assignment or policy area of expertise, I worked hard over the last biennium to learn about the issues, ask good questions, and help make natural resources policy that serves Vermont’s people and environment well, balancing many perspectives and competing priorities. Because environmental policy has become a lightning rod of sorts, the bills that passed and became law represent bipartisan agreement and compromise.
Easing Land Use Planning Regulations (S.325/Act 152). One of the most closely watched bills of the session started out as a sleepy bill that would have made mostly technical changes to the land use planning process and timeline established under 2024 Act 181, legislation that was intended to modernize 1970’s Act 250, Vermont’s landmark land use law. Act 181 is complex and the result of a lot of compromise from diverse stakeholders, so like we often do, we started the session getting updates about how things were going. After hearing from many of the stakeholders involved in creating the Act 181 rules & guidance, regional plans, maps, and community engagement process, the Senate Natural Resources Committee made several tweaks to the framework and delayed the implementation of the most controversial aspects of Act 181 – the so-called Road Rule and Tier 3 sensitive wildlife areas – to allow for more community engagement and changes to these provisions. The Road Rule would have required an Act 250 permit for any road longer than 800 feet and Tier 3 was to include only the most environmentally sensitive areas and would require an Act 250 permit for most development. Both were to be delayed to allow for more work and public engagement. The bill passed out of committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
A few days after the bill left committee, there was a protest against Act 181 at the State House and we began to hear from more people opposing multiple aspects of Act 181, especially the Road Rule and Tier 3. After some amendments and debate on the Senate floor, S.325 ultimately passed with a nearly unanimous voice vote. Once the bill was sent to the House, there was a groundswell of opposition to aspects of Act 181, and after much intense testimony, the House Environment Committee voted to repeal the Road Rule and both Tiers 2 & 3, leaving only Tier 1A & 1B in statute, which cover the most densely developed areas in cities and towns. A House floor amendment also added a provision that exempts certain accessory on-farm business events, such as weddings & concerts, from needing an Act 250 permit. In the end, Act 152, which I voted for, includes these repeals and exemptions, as well as several other changes to the land use planning process and regulations, including a robust public engagement process and legislative oversight mechanism. You can read a summary of the Act 152 here.
While the timing and vehemence of the feedback on the bill surprised me given that initial testimony and reaction was fairly mundane, I think the Act 152 story is a pretty good example of the process working. We heard from Vermonters and we listened. I voted first to delay problematic provisions and then, when I learned more, to repeal them. I heard from some constituents, listened to their concerns, visited several of them personally to learn more, talked with my colleagues about the concerns I’d heard, and then voted based on what I’d learned. When I first ran for the Senate, I created a list of commitments which I still follow. I am committed to learning and I am committed to being honest with you. I have done both through the curious and difficult journey of this legislation.
Modernizing Vermont’s Bottle Bill (H.915/Act 158). Over the past several years, the Legislature has tried to modernize Vermont’s Bottle Bill from 1972. Each recent attempt to update this popular program either failed to make it over the finish line or was vetoed by Phil Scott. This year, however, we were able to pass bipartisan legislation that will help improve the financial stability of redemption centers across the state and require beverage manufacturers & distributors to form a producer responsibility organization to invest in modernizing the redemption system statewide. Act 158 requires at least three points of redemption per county and at least one in every town with a population of 7,000 or more. The legislation earmarks funds to purchase mechanized bottle sorting machines and other technology to speed up and improve the redemption process, sets redemption goals, and requires the system to be fair to redemption centers and user-friendly for Vermonters. Recycling bottles and cans through the “bottle bill” system means that more materials are actually recycled rather than ending up in landfills, which is better for the economy, the environment, and the solid waste system. If you’re interested to know what it’s like to work at a redemption center under the current system, listen to this great Brave Little State episode, “A shot at redemption: A day with Bradford’s bottle-sorting wiz.” She’s pretty great, but I hope after Act 158 is fully implemented over the next few years, the whole system will be as fast and friendly as she is.
Banning the Toxic Chemical Paraquat (H.739/Act 112). Paraquat is a toxic chemical used as an herbicide in some farming operations that has been linked to the onset of Parkinson’s Disease. Act 112 bans the sale or use of paraquat unless authorized by the Vermont Secretary of Agriculture for specific uses. Until January 1, 2031, the Secretary may issue a permit for the use or sale of paraquat within fruit-producing tree orchards or for berries or small fruits. This exception was made to give orchards time to find alternatives to paraquat, but after 2030, the use of paraquat will be entirely banned in the state. Vermont is the first state to enact a ban of paraquat and protect its residents and visitors (and anyone who eats Vermont fruit!) from the severe impact of this harmful chemical.
Opportunities for Portable Solar (S.202/Act 149). Act 149 creates an opportunity for more Vermonters to benefit from access to low-cost, renewable solar energy through allowing the use of small plug-in, portable solar panels. This technology, which is already widely used in Europe, enables renters, people with small homes or apartments, and folks who can’t afford to install permanent solar arrays to purchase low-cost, portable solar panels that can be easily plugged in to generate electricity. This bipartisan bill is similar to legislation passed in many other states this year, allowing people to use these small solar panels without a lengthy approval & regulatory process. If you want to learn more about the technology, listen to this episode of the podcast Volts called “What’s the Deal with Balcony Solar.” It provides a great overview of what should be available in Vermont soon!
Protecting Farm and Forestry Operations from Severe Weather (S.60/Act 78). Over the past several years, farms & forestry operations endured floods, freezes, and drought, causing severe damage to crops, livestock, and infrastructure. Federal aid can take years to materialize and insurance coverage can be limited, leaving farmers with few resources to recover from increasingly common severe weather. To help provide more immediate assistance, I worked with a coalition of farm organizations to develop legislation to create an easy process for farmers & loggers to apply for state assistance following damage from severe weather. Act 78 establishes the Farm & Forestry Security Fund and application process so that we’ll be able to add funds when severe weather strikes again.
Making Posting Land Easier (H.723/Act 90). For many years, landowners could post their land against hunting & fishing at any time of year by putting up signs and recording the posting with the town clerk. Their property would then be posted for the next 365 days. Last fall, however, the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife required that land postings be made on a yearly basis starting each January 1, upsetting town clerks whose offices are generally closed for the holidays then and older landowners who didn’t want to trek through the snow to put up new signs. To push back on the Commissioner’s ruling and clarify the law, we passed Act 90 which reaffirms that posting land is valid and enforceable for 365 days after the date the posting is recorded with the town clerk. Act 90 also provides that if a posting has accidental or unintentional deviations from posting requirements, it will still be enforceable if a reasonable person would believe the land is posted and the posting is recorded with the town clerk. This flexibility is important because sometimes weather, wildlife, or people can damage or remove posting signs without a landowner’s permission or knowledge.
VETOED! Regulating Large Data Centers (H.727). This bill that would have set strict requirements for large data centers that wanted to set up shop in Vermont. It would have prevented a data center from raising our electric rates, contaminating Vermont waters, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and bullying small towns. In fact, it would have required large data centers to make annual payments to local communities to help improve renewable energy options. Read this excellent op-ed by Rep. Kathleen James, who chairs the House Energy Committee where the bill started, or this op-ed from VPIRG who supported the legislation. Scott vetoed the bill saying it would send the wrong message to companies, and even House Republicans who originally voted for the bill would not vote to override the veto. Democrats wanted to protect Vermonters and our communities, but Phil Scott and the Republicans chose to protect large corporations and data centers that have been taking advantage of communities, raising electric rates, and harming the environment around the country. In fact, after the veto, it was reported that Phil Scott has been in discussions with a company that might want to bring a data center to Vermont, so it is clear where his priorities lie.
VETOED. Reducing Road Salt Usage (S.218). This bill that would have helped snow plow drivers use less salt and protect our water from chloride contamination through a voluntary training program for snow plow drivers, setting standards for salt use, and providing drivers with incentives & protections to use less salt. Based on a successful program in New Hampshire and using many best practices already followed by VTrans snow plow drivers, the program would have helped prevent much more expensive fixes later as our rivers, lakes, and drinking water see increasing levels of salt contamination. Road salt is expensive and increasingly difficult to get, so incentives & protections for using less would have saved towns and businesses money. Phil Scott’s veto because he thought this voluntary program didn’t have enough legal guardrails means that salt in our waterways will continue to increase and snowplow operators who want to save money and do the right thing won’t have any protections.
