Vermont Climate Council members outline draft Climate Action Plan, warn funding and implementation remain unresolved

Jared Duvall, an appointed member of the Vermont Climate Council, and Richard Cowart, co‑chair of the council's Cross Sector Mitigation Subcommittee, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on March 20 that the council has drafted priority recommendations for Vermont's revised Climate Action Plan and is seeking public feedback ahead of a July 1, 2025 deadline.

"The primary responsibility of the Climate Council is to draft and then every 4 years revise and update the state's climate action plan," Duvall said, describing the council's role under the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Nut graf: The speakers said substantial technical work and public engagement are underway, but emphasized the distinction between the council's advisory role and the separate responsibility held by the administration and the legislature to implement policies and provide sustained funding. They identified three high‑impact recommendations from the first plan (the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, a regional cap‑and‑invest idea tied to the Transportation and Climate Initiative, and a clean heat standard) and said only Advanced Clean Cars II had been implemented to date.

Duvall and Cowart described how the council produces recommendations. Duvall said councilors have become the primary authors of chapters for the current revision and that subcommittees and workgroups produced draft material through repeated meetings (the transcript records a thermal workgroup meeting roughly 18 times in the fall and winter). He said the council will increase meeting frequency as it approaches the July 1 deadline and that draft priority recommendations have been shared for public engagement: seven in‑person events around the state and two virtual events.

Both witnesses stressed the statutory guidance that frames council work. Duvall quoted the Global Warming Solutions Act's direction that recommendations be "grounded in a consideration of and prioritization of what are cost effective and equitable strategies for Vermont and Vermonters." He added that draft recommendations from subcommittees "have not yet been approved by the Climate Council" and remain subject to further deliberation and public feedback.

On policy priorities, the witnesses reviewed the first plan's three high‑impact pollution reduction recommendations. Duvall said the council's first plan identified three actions expected to deliver more than 10% of needed emissions reductions each: adopting California's Advanced Clean Cars II (which has advanced), joining a cap‑and‑invest program like the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) (which has not advanced), and creating a clean heat standard (which also has not advanced).

Cowart framed the gap between recommendations and implementation around funding and program scale. "You can't save if you don't invest," he told the committee, arguing that stable revenue sources are necessary to run programs at scale, develop the workforce and market capacity, and sustain private‑sector participation. He and Duvall listed possible funding tools discussed in council deliberations: a thermal energy benefit charge (for example, a modest per‑gallon fee), on‑bill financing tied to building meters, income‑tax‑based funds, cap‑and‑invest proceeds, or other sustained revenue mechanisms. Both said any revenue approach could be designed with explicit cost caps and protections for low‑ and moderate‑income households.

The witnesses outlined economic and household impacts cited in council materials. Duvall said Vermont spends about $2 billion a year on fossil fuels and that average Vermont households face roughly $5,000 to $8,000 a year in energy costs. He cited examples the council has used to illustrate lifetime savings: an electric vehicle can avoid roughly $9,500 in operating costs versus a comparable gasoline vehicle, and a heat pump water heater can save about $3,000 in fuel costs compared with a propane water heater, not including incentives. Cowart noted that past investments in electric‑sector energy efficiency produced multi‑billion‑dollar net savings to Vermonters over time and urged similar sustained investment in the thermal sector.

Committee members pressed on legal support and council structure. Several representatives noted a statutory change discussed in testimony that clarifies the council has access to administrative, technical and legal assistance from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and other executive branch agencies. Duvall and Cowart said the council relies on ANR staff and outside consultants for technical and logistical support but stressed that the council is not an implementation body: it makes recommendations that agencies or the legislature may adopt.

Committee members also asked how the council can better reach rural and isolated communities. Duvall said the Climate Action Office organized seven in‑person events across regions so there was at least one within driving distance for most Vermonters, and noted two virtual events to broaden access; he and Cowart acknowledged logistical limits and urged continued outreach to remote communities and RPCs (regional planning commissions).

On proposed legislation, counselors responded to questions about H.289/H.2809 (bills discussed in committee testimony) and potential changes to council authority. Duvall and Cowart said shifting the council's composition or removing statutory references to agency legal assistance would change the council's role and could shift more authority for plan content and implementation to the executive branch. Both witnesses emphasized that the council's collaborative structure was intended to provide a legislatively appointed, expert voice in the planning process.

They also discussed program design choices intended to limit cost uncertainty, including explicit cost caps, gradual phase‑in, targeted low‑income assistance, and mechanisms to moderate risk from fossil‑fuel price volatility. Cowart described risk reduction as a quantifiable program benefit ("risk reduction, like any insurance policy, is something that's worth paying for") and recommended program designs that provide certainty while starting modestly and ramping up.

The committee session included technical questions from members about cost‑benefit data on direct health and economic benefits, to which Duvall said he could follow up with the committee. No formal votes or motions were recorded during the hearing.

Ending: The committee concluded the hour of testimony by scheduling follow‑up questions and signaling further review of the council's draft recommendations during the public engagement period leading to the July 1, 2025 plan deadline.