Vermont committee reviews proposal to require workplace protections for extreme heat and cold

The House General and Housing Committee reviewed a long-form draft of a bill to protect workers from extreme workplace temperatures during a May 7 committee meeting. Sophie Sedatni, legislative counsel with the Office of Legislative Council, said the draft — introduced on the Senate side as S.153 — was prepared after the committee instructed staff to convert a short form request into a standard bill.

"The purpose, the language is that thousands of workers become sick from occupational exposure to extreme hot and cold temperatures each year, and many of them die," Sophie Sedatni said. She told the committee she used advocates' requests and federal guidance in drafting the proposal, and that the bill borrows concepts from the federal rulemaking on extreme heat and NIOSH guidance on cold.

The bill would add a subchapter to Title 21 to require covered employers to develop an ‘‘extreme temperature prevention plan’’ that is site-specific, posted and updated annually. Among the draft provisions Sedatni highlighted: employers must display thermometers at indoor and outdoor worksites and in work vehicles; use wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) measurements for heat exposure; provide access to potable water and appropriately sized shaded or cooled break areas; train employees and supervisors at no cost in language and literacy levels they understand; monitor employees (by buddy system or supervisor/ designated observer, with no more than 20 employees observed by one person); and provide paid compensable rest breaks at specified thresholds.

The draft sets multiple temperature thresholds and responses: when WBGT exceeds 80°F, employers must implement steps in the prevention plan; if site temperatures exceed 90°F, employers must provide at least a 15‑minute paid cooldown break every two hours in a cooldown area; if temperatures exceed 100°F, the bill requires at least a 10‑minute paid break every hour. On the cold side, the draft uses a 60°F threshold for initial steps, requires a warm-up break (15 minutes every two hours) at 40°F or below, and additional reminders and protections at 30°F or below. The draft also describes an acclimatization schedule for new hires (20% of a normal shift on day 1, 40% on day 2, and so on) and for employees returning after 14+ days away.

Committee members voiced repeated concerns about the bill's breadth and administrative burden. Several members said the draft appears written for larger employers and may be impractical for small businesses, farms and forestry operators who commonly work outdoors or in vehicles without modern heating/air‑conditioning. One committee member asked, "Am I providing long underwear and mittens to all my employees? Am I making hot chocolate every morning?" — a line that highlighted disagreement over statutory prescriptiveness versus common‑sense safety practices.

Members pressed on vehicle coverage, asking whether the bill would require employers to guarantee air conditioning or heating in employee personal vehicles. Sedatni said the draft covers authorized work vehicles (cars, trucks, vans or other authorized transport), but it does not currently impose requirements for employees' personal vehicles used for work.

Several legislators also asked about the source of numerical thresholds and break lengths. Sedatni said those elements came from a combination of advocates' requests and the federal proposed OSHA heat rule and NIOSH cold guidance. She also flagged that some slide text shown during the walkthrough was inconsistent with the draft language (for example, 80°F in the bill vs. 90°F on a slide).

The committee took two procedural steps during the meeting. Members reported they previously voted to take the short-form request “off the wall” and instructed staff to draft a long form; the committee also agreed to take testimony at a subsequent hearing. The clerk and members identified witnesses scheduled to appear, including union representatives (Teamsters), industry participants (representatives from Ski Vermont and the Associated General Contractors' safety director), and individual workers; committee staff were asked to invite the Department of Labor and VOSHA to testify on state rulemaking capacity.

Throughout the discussion, members emphasized the central policy point — that temperature-related injuries and deaths are real — while disagreeing about the best legislative route. Some members argued the state should delegate specifics to an agency through rulemaking; others said Vermont’s VOSHA is too small to undertake complex rulemaking and that statute may be necessary to create baseline protections. The committee deferred substantive drafting changes pending testimony, with members instructing staff to gather examples of how other states (e.g., Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, California) have handled heat and cold protections and to provide the committee with relevant OSHA rule materials.

The committee did not adopt or amend statutory text at the meeting. Members agreed to hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. on the next scheduled day for the bill and requested additional information from agencies and out‑of‑state examples before considering revisions.

The committee's next steps include hearing testimony from scheduled witnesses, receiving materials on federal and other states' rules, and further committee discussion to determine whether and how to narrow the proposal or move protections to administrative regulation if capacity allows.

Ending: The hearing schedule and follow-up requests indicate the committee will continue exploring this issue; members asked staff to return with VOSHA and Department of Labor input, examples from other states, and clarification of numeric thresholds before the committee advances any statutory changes.