[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6089137,"mediaKeyId","2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5","parentId",2876144,"title","Witnesses and senators debate data approach, timing and funding for Climate Superfund amendment","audioSeconds",2387,"startMs",2097000,"endMs",4484000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5&start=2097&end=4484","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5/thumbnail_2097000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6089137/Vermont/Witnesses-and-senators-debate-data-approach-timing-and-funding-for-Climate-Superfund-amendment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089137-c277267f16614145eff712c97c9b4dd4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773750860&Signature=HgpUqnES8i7SDjWs-5rKj6lDnAojEk3a6pNpL70rJIQkH68x5Vzz0uyKCHC2beIkrPAvz-ua~0XJTBaHSwAPXKNjWGi1PDKqp8K1BbfR4CG4LmuyZUeTfh2WnJduYM5jkQeuphLjyWEPFdYXo24AliAxuaA1GyM0jHfE8HA13HGT5rN0eRltQ9A-O5b1e2DUDbYJUMiAB4SvKezix7vRZBTZR8zOos-JxWImGnYeyNSAzqVr0m64E05K2CUsCr9H41ssTr4hJpOvXVjDNsVax5~FnZ6GnjLmEPV0NndN8i8YDDbfcPjK51iIt7I~QjsApu6MK4xvKK9SWxc2MsTjPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","VT Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy","date","2025-04-04T13:08:45Z","article","Committee members and witnesses on April 4 discussed a proposed clarification to the Climate Superfund statute (the act referenced in prior sessions as S.259) and funding needed to implement the program. Witnesses urged an attribution approach based on fossil-fuel extraction and refining data rather than the time of combustion, and they described resource requests the treasurer and agencies had made to complete necessary analyses.

Ben Walsh, representing a public-interest research group, told the committee that the amendment under consideration would align every statutory reference to “covered greenhouse gas emissions” with an approach based on extraction or refining that occurred during the covered period. Walsh said datasets exist to identify extraction and refining dates and quantities, making apportionment of responsibility more feasible under that method than under an approach based on the time of combustion, which lacks precise public datasets for combustion timing.

Committee members pressed witnesses on prioritization of limited state funds and whether to fund the treasurer’s office consultants now. Witnesses described two funding lines: a treasurer consultant request (discussed as $700,000 for consultants in the transcript) to support near-term apportionment and modeling work, and broader funding for agency analytic work (referred to as up to $1.5 million in testimony as the full request). Witnesses argued that, given federal funding uncertainty for resilience programs, investing now in apportionment work would help unlock large potential cost-recovery funds from responsible parties in future years.

No formal amendment vote on the Climate Superfund clarification was recorded in the transcript. Committee members acknowledged the technical rationale for using extraction/refining data and flagged staffing and consulting budgets as items to consider during budget talks.

The discussion left a proposed clarifying amendment on the record while committee staff and members planned follow-up on funding and implementation sequencing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Natural Resources and Energy's Zoom Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Committee hearing included a proposed clarifying amendment to the Climate Superfund statute to tie covered emissions to extraction/refining within a covered period and discussion of funding requests (including a treasurer consultant request) to support cost-allocation work.","taxTitle","Natural Resources & Energy, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",48480,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6089142,"Committee reviews HS319 rollout: battery stewardship report delay, phased household-hazardous-waste plan, and underground tank changes",0,2870000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5&start=2870&end=2870","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5/thumbnail_2870000.jpg","/articles/6089142/Vermont/Committee-reviews-HS319-rollout-battery-stewardship-report-delay-phased-household-hazardous-waste-plan-and-underground-tank-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089142-8fb3408716acf8dbb6018194ee15a0af/orig.mp4?Expires=1773750860&Signature=MP1dNmPXjU25u9n7OdcQjcBtnQs2VddNydzxjjhXWq71c1JKjAOQaxAD2agUZBPYUjgmuM6UmnN4wOt--w9jD4BOw6vt7YCmHLBXy-tgI9Imz1qGp-ctuLqklXHNlfhzaKxqSN2LAbkjlTDZEKPTJ9ePQ6-9j8IpoBRkv5wEDhGSDzIAjSH9DhNNr2qcgXkD-aWkTbsu0T6inMmKqxM0kZvhaAShSLQ9fQ2IcbtLMgtQS1v2-FeRmdZjFUAwgA~38vgr7PjGL7QQKRarSxNpBKEo0d-u1gJJl24ncDyDXlb6aRotGF8Pn3ENt0aIc~-JAj6nWd9Yh1POav0WaLW9hg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members reviewed multiple sections of HS319 on April 4, discussing implementation timelines and technical fixes for several stewardship and environmental-protection programs.

Staff told members the product stewardship/battery-report requirement will be met by the producer stewardship organization but that the group requested an additional year to deliver the report. The committee recorded that the organization expects to complete and provide the report and staff indicated they would allow the requested extension.

Section 3 — the household hazardous waste extended producer responsibility (EPR) program — was discussed at length. Staff described a two-phase approach: an initial, scaled collection plan for a three-year period to allow the stewardship organization to test locations and procedures, followed by a full collection plan (including convenient collection points, paint collection and educational requirements) that would go into effect after the initial period. Committee members noted this is intended to give the steward time to work through “growing pains” such as staffing, collection-site siting and cost-allocation decisions. The transcript records that paint coverage remained unresolved; members said a paint amendment may be proposed later and that the committee left placeholder text in the draft to allow discussion on the floor if needed.

Staff also walked members through Section 2 changes for underground fuel-storage tanks. The draft refocuses delivery standards for underground storage tanks (typically the large tanks used by service stations) and clarifies that the common residential heating tanks in basements are treated differently because they are classified as above-ground storage under the statute. Staff noted an exception in the draft for certain state-owned tanks and said the changes aim to reduce delivery of product to tanks known to lack valid permits.

Other edits discussed included registration requirements for manufacturers of covered household-hazardous products, timing adjustments for manufacturer registration and clarifications about the initial and subsequent collection plans. Staff explained that much of the collection-plan detail is deferred until after the initial three-year pilot period so the stewardship organization can compile operational data and cost assessments.

Committee members raised questions about staffing at implementing agencies and whether additional budget resources would be needed to support rollout and oversight; staff acknowledged capacity constraints and recommended the committee discuss prioritization during budget consideration. The committee left HS319 open for further amendment and possible action pending additional language on paint and clarification of implementation timing.","The Natural Resources & Energy Committee reviewed draft language in HS319, including a one-year extension for a battery stewardship report, a phased three-year rollout for the household hazardous waste EPR collection plan, and clarifications to underground fuel storage-tank delivery and state-tank exceptions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6089146,"Senate Natural Resources Committee amends S.124, advances draft 2.3 with technical edits",6816,4000,6820000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5&start=4&end=6820","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2876144-0061aa474aa77d9117f18042f915d6e5/thumbnail_4000.jpg","/articles/6089146/Vermont/Senate-Natural-Resources-Committee-amends-S124-advances-draft-23-with-technical-edits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089146-0b3ca0caa31ed085ae36954c6bb20b63/orig.mp4?Expires=1773750860&Signature=nL3LCMJH1iwN3aCtgWOjmMUh-8oOmb89CTTHHr2Qur6SP-quPW5NThjb50cBgwo1ElTwv-YELlydQikeIKVCwqBZr7aAkiSBqq73aD0w754uu-2DxdGmPBKkxW1XH1922VdrWPz96T~BJSHp8iNdXhdnscFqfnOlGdJ9sUMcvyszRC8GcYd2BZ6a1PYwHW0TJUXOxqQ1IA55-9OyPdBrAFmGC7ZP2vgjcQvZD6ghfDGI1wMWDliXl~BDlNYT2ITfDaONnxEqCSooYiYKRGoEJUjeGIvZqnENShNZnlmzbwDy9ayIsQ~Lqk5D6YMb0uq9qSEzxhcRWZzaqUpAhEMTxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Vermont Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee voted April 4 to amend S.124 to draft 2.3 and advance the bill with a favorable recommendation after reviewing a new draft and several technical edits.

The committee’s discussion focused on clarifying statutory language and consistency with Title 6 and federal references. Staff described changes including replacing the term “operation” with “farm” where Title 6 uses “farm,” removing defined terms that are unused in statute, incorporating references to federally defined waters into the committee’s local “waters” definition, and standardizing a reference to the state permitting database (transcript: \"BIPT\" used in most places where an EPA draft had used a different name). Staff also explained insertion of a missing word in a manure/waste provision and other line-edits for clarity.

Those changes were followed by targeted debate about the stakeholder-engagement paragraph for a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) program. Committee members and staff agreed to remove language that explicitly authorized “discreet meetings” with particular groups; the committee settled on broader language requiring public notice, informational hearings and opportunities for listed stakeholders — livestock farmers, farm groups, agricultural consultants, watershed groups and water-quality experts — to provide input. Staff also confirmed the statute’s use of “secretary” can accommodate a designee rather than requiring the secretary’s personal attendance at every meeting.

Committee staff also noted edits elsewhere that substitute consistent terminology (for example, aligning the rule language with Title 6 wording) and fixed typographical and tense issues throughout the draft. Staff identified where prior EPA edits had referenced a national permitting database differently than state usage and corrected those cross-references.

At midmorning the committee took a motion to amend S.124 to draft 2.3 (the motion language read, in part, to amend S.124 to draft 2.3 dated today at 09:26 a.m., favorable with amendment). On the roll call taken during the meeting record, the following members were recorded as voting “Yes”: Senator Beck; Senator Butler; Senator Hardy; and Senator Watson. The motion was approved as moved and the committee prepared to send the bill forward as amended.

Committee members asked staff to check whether the bill would be reported to Senate Finance or another committee; staff noted the bill contains fee language but no direct appropriation and suggested it may move to Finance for further consideration.

The committee paused then adjourned to reconvene for other business and floor scheduling.","The Vermont Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee voted to amend S.124 to draft 2.3 after staff walked members through technical changes to definitions, cross-references and stakeholder-engagement language; the committee recommended the bill favorably as amended.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Witnesses and senators debate data approach, timing and funding for Climate Superfund amendment

Committee reviews HS319 rollout: battery stewardship report delay, phased household-hazardous-waste plan, and underground tank changes

Senate Natural Resources Committee amends S.124, advances draft 2.3 with technical edits