Senate amendment would bar Vermont from adopting California vehicle emissions rules and repeal citizen enforcement in climate law

A proposed budget amendment from Senator Beck would repeal several Vermont statutory and regulatory provisions related to vehicle-emissions standards and would eliminate the statutory cause of action in the Global Warming Solutions Act, committee counsel told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy committee on April 30.

LJ Cox, Oxford Legislative Council, told the committee the amendment "does 3 things." He said the first two instances repeal statutory references to the P&D standard and related tax-data-sharing language; the third instance "repeals the Global Warming Solutions Act cause of action." Cox said later in the discussion that "there is an ongoing lawsuit currently with the Secretary of Natural Resources under this provision."

Why it matters: removing the cause of action would prevent future citizen lawsuits under that statutory provision, while the other changes would limit Vermont's ability to adopt California's motor-vehicle emission rules and would repeal state rules that implement those California standards.

Committee counsel outlined the pieces of the amendment. Cox said the proposal would: repeal a statutory chapter referenced in the amendment (described in testimony as "chapter 94, title 30"); repeal a tax-data-sharing provision that currently allows fuel tax data to be shared with the Public Utility Commission and Department of Public Service for auditing fuel-dealer registries; repeal the Global Warming Solutions Act cause-of-action provision; add language to bar the secretary from adopting California vehicle standards authorized under the federal Clean Air Act; and repeal the Department of Environmental Conservation rules implementing Vermont's low-emission and zero-emission vehicle programs (described in testimony as DEC chapter 40).

On how vehicle standards work, Cox summarized federal law: the Clean Air Act preempts state standards generally but includes a provision, often called Section 177, that allows other states to adopt California's standards identically. "You can either opt into the identical version of California or use the federal [standard]," Cox said. He added that, under those federal provisions, states cannot modify California's rule when opting in; the choice is between the California rule as written or the federal standard.

Cox also described the citizen-enforcement mechanism in the Global Warming Solutions Act. He said the statute allows a person to give 60 days' notice to the secretary and then file suit in the Washington Superior Court alleging the secretary failed to adopt or update rules to meet the act's requirements or that the state failed to meet those requirements. Remedies described in the statute, Cox said, are limited to court orders directing the secretary to adopt or update rules; the statute also includes a prevailing-party attorneys'-fees provision similar to Vermont court rules.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about scope. One member asked whether the amendment would strip all authority the secretary has to adopt emission-control rules; Cox replied it would target the specific DEC rule set implementing the California programs (described in testimony as Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Trucks) and the statutory authority to adopt those California rules, not every possible air-quality authority.

No action was taken on the amendment at the meeting. The committee chair said Senator Beck was not present to explain the amendment and the committee scheduled a break; the senator was expected to brief the committee later. Committee testimony and counsel's remarks indicate the amendment, as described, would not affect ongoing litigation but would bar future suits under the statutory cause-of-action provision if enacted.

LJ Cox and committee members framed multiple items as discussion points rather than decisions: the changes described are proposals contained in the amendment under consideration, questions about fallback standards (federal vs. California) were raised, and counsel noted procedural timelines in the existing statute for notice and court filing. The committee did not vote or direct staff to take further steps during the session recorded in the transcript.