Has the VT Supermajority Made It’s BIGGEST Mistake?

Has the VT Supermajority Made It’s BIGGEST Mistake?

The Vermont Constitution sets a clear directive for legislators: their primary responsibility is to protect the welfare, safety, and economic well-being of the state’s residents. However, with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and the push for the Clean Heat Standard, Vermont’s legislature may have strayed from these core responsibilities. By introducing legally binding emissions targets and transferring some authority to the courts, lawmakers have potentially placed the state in financial and legal jeopardy, raising serious questions about whether they have failed in their constitutional obligations.

As Vermont now grapples with the first major lawsuit under the GWSA, the legislatureโ€™s continued focus on global climate goals, particularly through measures like the Clean Heat Standard, seems increasingly misaligned with the economic and constitutional priorities of the state. Senator Chris Bray and Representative Laura Sibilia, key proponents of the Clean Heat Standard, remain focused on these ambitious climate policies, even as the legal and financial risks mount. Itโ€™s time to reassess whether repealing the GWSA and redirecting legislative efforts to more immediate state concerns is the best course for Vermontโ€™s future.

The Legislatureโ€™s Fiduciary Responsibility and Economic Stability

The Vermont Constitution mandates that legislators serve the interests of the people, particularly when it comes to economic and public safety concerns. Chapter I, Article 6 of the Constitution emphasizes that elected officials are โ€œaccountableโ€ to the people, while Chapter II, Section 40 grants the legislature the power to make laws that promote the welfare and governance of the state.

By passing the GWSA, however, the legislature may have violated this mandate. The act establishes legally binding emissions reduction targets, which, if unmet, can lead to court-ordered actions. This delegation of authority to the judiciary is problematic for two main reasons:

  1. Judicial Overreach: The GWSA hands significant policy-making power to the courts. If Vermont fails to meet its emissions targets, the courts have the authority to impose new climate policiesโ€”policies that could include costly measures affecting energy prices, taxes, and regulatory fees. These decisions, which could drastically impact Vermontโ€™s economy, are no longer in the hands of elected representatives but unelected judgesโ€‹(VTDigger)โ€‹(E&E News by POLITICO).
  2. Economic Uncertainty: The Clean Heat Standard, as part of Vermont’s GWSA-related policies, is projected to add as much as $1.70 per gallon to heating fuel costsโ€‹(VTDigger). The legislature has thus created an unpredictable economic landscape for Vermont residents. Higher heating costs would disproportionately affect low- and middle-income families, directly contradicting the legislatureโ€™s constitutional duty to safeguard the financial well-being of their constituents.

Vermontโ€™s Insignificant Role in Global Emissions

One of the critical arguments against the GWSA is Vermontโ€™s minuscule contribution to global greenhouse gas emissionsโ€”just 0.015% of the total. Even if Vermont were to meet all of its emissions reduction targets under the GWSA, the impact on the global climate would be negligible.

From an empirical perspective, this raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing significant financial burdens on Vermont residents for goals that will not materially affect the global or even local climate. The opportunity costs are high: the resources used to pursue these climate goals could be better spent on local economic development, infrastructure, or adaptation strategies that directly benefit Vermont residentsโ€‹(VTDigger)โ€‹(Seven Days).

Given this reality, continuing to push for costly climate initiatives like the Clean Heat Standard appears not only misaligned with Vermontโ€™s economic priorities but also disconnected from the legislatureโ€™s constitutional obligations. In fact, the legislatureโ€™s decision to prioritize global climate goals over more immediate economic concerns could be seen as an abdication of their fiduciary responsibility to Vermontโ€™s citizens.

The CLF Lawsuit and Court-Mandated Climate Policy

In September 2024, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) filed a lawsuit against the Agency of Natural Resources under the GWSA, accusing the state of failing to take sufficient action to meet its 2025 emissions targetโ€‹(VTDigger)โ€‹(E&E News by POLITICO). This lawsuit highlights the dangerous precedent set by the GWSA: the legislature has ceded authority to the courts, giving them the power to enforce climate policy. If Vermont is found to be non-compliant, the courts could impose court-mandated climate actions, forcing the state to adopt even more aggressiveโ€”and costlyโ€”measures to meet emissions targets.

This means that even if the legislature were to repeal the GWSA today, Vermont may still be locked into a future where the courts dictate climate policy, potentially saddling the state with expensive mandates that further strain the economy. The legislatureโ€™s decision to give the courts this power raises serious questions about whether lawmakers have abdicated their responsibility to make critical decisions about Vermontโ€™s economic future.

The Clean Heat Standard: A Risky Commitment

Despite these concerns, Senator Bray and Representative Sibilia continue to advocate for the Clean Heat Standard, a policy aimed at reducing emissions from Vermontโ€™s heating sector by requiring fuel dealers to invest in cleaner technologies or pay feesโ€‹(VTDigger)โ€‹(VTDigger). While the Clean Heat Standard is intended to reduce fossil fuel reliance, the financial costs to residents could be severe. Bray and Sibiliaโ€™s insistence on pushing forward with this policy, despite the legal and economic risks, is difficult to justify given Vermontโ€™s small contribution to global emissions and the ongoing legal jeopardy created by the CLF lawsuit.

Repealing the GWSA: A Path to Stability

Given the financial, legal, and constitutional risks posed by the GWSA and related climate policies, repealing the GWSA may be the only viable option for Vermontโ€™s legislature to regain control over state policy and protect residents from further economic harm. Repealing the GWSA would:

  1. Remove Judicial Control Over Climate Policy: By repealing the GWSA, the legislature would reassert its authority over climate and economic policy, preventing the courts from imposing potentially costly mandates that could destabilize the stateโ€™s economy.
  2. Refocus on Constitutional Responsibilities: The legislature could then focus on policies that directly benefit Vermont residents, such as economic development, infrastructure improvements, and more affordable, practical energy solutions.
  3. Mitigate the Impact of the CLF Lawsuit: While the lawsuit may not disappear immediately with a repeal, removing the legal framework that allows such litigation would prevent future legal challenges and allow the state to manage its emissions reductions more pragmatically.

Conclusion: Time for a Reassessment

The Global Warming Solutions Act and the Clean Heat Standard reflect a legislative focus on global climate goals at the expense of Vermontโ€™s economic and constitutional priorities. With the CLF lawsuit now threatening court-mandated climate action, Vermontโ€™s legislature must reassess its course. Repealing the GWSA would restore the balance of power to the legislature and allow lawmakers to focus on their constitutional duty: protecting the economic well-being of Vermontโ€™s citizens.

Senator Bray and Representative Sibiliaโ€™s continued push for the Clean Heat Standard, in light of these issues, highlights a broader problem with the current legislative direction. Now more than ever, Vermontโ€™s legislators must prioritize their responsibilities to the people they serve.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt)

#fyivt #VermontClimatePolicy #NoConfidence #RepealGWSA #VermontEconomicImpact


Discover more from FYIVT

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

admin Avatar

One response to “Has the VT Supermajority Made It’s BIGGEST Mistake?”

  1. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Very sensible and responsible recommendations. Do I believe the Leftist/Prog/Dem Legislature would do this, especially if they maintain a supermajority? No.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.