A recent Selectboard hearing in Pittsford highlighted a statewide issue that many Vermont towns are now facing: uncertainty over what municipalities are legally required to include in their Town Plans and energy planning documents—and what language is being pushed by state agencies even though it does not appear in statute.

The debate in Pittsford wasn’t about personalities or local politics. It reflected a broader question confronting nearly every town in Vermont: Where does state law end and agency preference begin?

What an Enhanced Energy Plan Actually Is

At the center of the confusion is the Enhanced Energy Plan (EEP), an optional addendum created under Act 174 (2016). Towns that adopt an EEP and meet the state’s checklist may qualify for “substantial deference” in Public Utility Commission (PUC) review of energy generation projects.

Substantial deference means the PUC must give the town’s written siting standards additional weight—but it does not give towns veto authority. The PUC retains full discretion to approve projects even when they conflict with local preferences.

And the PUC’s biggest guiding force is not municipal planning documents. It is the State of Vermont’s Comprehensive Energy Plan and statewide energy goals, which prioritize renewable energy deployment. If a project aligns with those goals and meets regulatory criteria, the PUC may approve it regardless of whether a town has a certified EEP.

This is why Act 174 certification is often described by municipal attorneys as a “modest procedural advantage,” not a decisive factor.

Where the Equity and Environmental Justice Language Comes From

Many towns express concern—and confusion—over the equity, environmental justice, and related ideological language that now appears in EEP templates distributed by Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs).

This specific framework—with sections on distributional, procedural, and structural equity—does not appear in:

• Act 174
• Title 24 (Municipal Planning and Development)
• Title 30 (PUC siting criteria)
• The Vermont Constitution
• The U.S. Constitution

The source of the language is not statute, but rather:

• Environmental justice policy created under Act 154 (which applies to state agencies, not towns)
• Climate Council guidance
• Department of Public Service (DPS) planning standards
• RPC interpretations of those standards

In short, this equity framework is not a statutory requirement on municipalities – nothing in the municipal planning or §248 statutes tells a town it must adopt this language – but Regional Planning Commissions often present it as mandatory for Act 174 certification.

Is This Compelled Speech? A Question Local Officials Are Asking

Towns that refuse to include the equity or environmental justice sections are told that they cannot receive Act 174 certification. That is the only consequence—but it is a meaningful one for towns seeking greater influence in PUC proceedings.

This dynamic raises an important constitutional question:

Is Vermont effectively conditioning a regulatory benefit on the adoption of ideological language?

Municipal officials across the state have begun to ask whether this amounts to a form of compelled speech, especially given that:

• Town Plans are municipal legislative documents, adopted locally
• EEP certification is optional
• The equity language is not required by statute
• The only “penalty” is created by agency policy, not law

While no Vermont court has addressed this issue directly, the concern itself is legitimate:
Should towns be pressured to adopt political or ideological frameworks that are not part of the governing statutes?

What the Law Actually Requires the PUC to Consider

Under 30 V.S.A. §248, the PUC must consider:

• “Orderly development of the region”
• The municipal plan (regardless of certification)
• Aesthetics
• Environmental impacts
• Public health, safety, and need

Certification under Act 174 elevates the weight given to certain siting standards, but it does not override the PUC’s obligation to meet statewide energy goals. The most influential factor in any §248 case remains whether the project advances the state’s long-term renewable energy targets.

This means a town with a certified Enhanced Energy Plan has a stronger voice, but not control.
And a town without certification still has a legally recognized plan whose clear, objective standards must be considered.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

The Pittsford Plan: A Local Example of Balanced Planning

Pittsford’s current Town Plan shows what many Vermont towns strive for: a balance between private property rights, aesthetics, rural character, and sensible land-use planning.

The plan includes:

• Clear protections for conservation areas
• Limits on development in steep slopes, wetland areas, and river corridors
• Priority for commercial and industrial development near existing infrastructure
• Recognition that landowners may use their property—including for solar—within those constraints

This reflects the reality in many rural communities:
Residents may not love the look of large solar installations, but they respect the rights of landowners to make economic choices unless the town is prepared to purchase or conserve the land themselves.

It’s a pragmatic, Vermont-style compromise.

The Statewide Issue: Guidance vs. Law

The real issue is not whether towns like Pittsford support renewable energy or oppose it. The issue is the lack of clarity between:

• What is required by law
  vs.
• What is preferred by agencies

Towns deserve to know:

• What language must be adopted
• What is optional
• What carries legal weight
• What is ideological preference
• And what the actual consequences are for declining optional content

Until this distinction becomes clear, Vermont towns will continue to experience confusion, conflict, and the sense of being pressured into adopting language that has no grounding in statute.

Conclusion

Enhanced Energy Plans were created to help towns participate more effectively in the PUC process. But as agency policy has evolved far beyond statutory requirements, towns now face uncertainty over whether they are being asked to comply with law—or with ideology.

The debate emerging in Pittsford is not unique. It is a statewide conversation about the line between lawful planning requirements and agency-driven narrative language, and about whether towns should feel pressured to adopt language that is not grounded in statute or constitutional mandate.

Until that line is clarified, Vermont’s municipal volunteers will continue to navigate an unclear, and at times conflicting, landscape.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

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

#fyivt #VermontPolitics #TownPlanDebate #LocalControl

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!