Vermont documents $500M-plus in climate spending; officials warn of weatherization and EV funding cliffs

Vermont officials told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that the state has documented more than $500 million in climate-related appropriations and authorizations for fiscal 2025, but much of that growth relies on one‑time federal grants that may not continue.

Secretary Julie Moore, head of the Agency of Natural Resources, said the FY25 accounting shows "a remarkable more than half billion dollars worth of money" directed at climate work and that "about two thirds goes into things we would call mitigation," including weatherization, heat pump incentives and electric vehicle programs.

The nut graf: Committee members heard that while federal programs such as the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and ARPA drove a significant recent increase in climate activity, many of those funds are time‑limited. Officials said that unless the state secures new or reallocated ongoing funds, programs such as weatherization and vehicle electrification face sharp reductions in capacity.

Most important facts and context

Moore said the FY25 portfolio is large but “not exhaustive,” and flagged two funding themes: mitigation (about two‑thirds of documented spending) and adaptation/resilience (the balance). She described mitigation examples as weatherization, electric service panel upgrades, heat‑pump installations, modern wood heat, EV incentives and charging infrastructure.

On weatherization, Moore said Vermont is currently spending "on the order of $40 to $45,000,000 a year." She said that state and federal one‑time funds (notably ARPA, IRA and IIJA money) caused a substantial ramp‑up in recent years and warned of a coming “funding cliff” that could reduce activity to roughly half current annual levels "absent some change in funding programs dedicated to this work." Committee members pressed staff for a breakdown of which funds are recurring state dollars versus one‑time federal grants; Moore said the Climate Spending Report spreadsheets underpinning her presentation would be circulated to the committee.

Electric vehicle programs and infrastructure

Moore said Vermont had more than 15,000 registered light‑duty electric vehicles as of July of the previous year and "just over 30" medium‑ and heavy‑duty EVs on the road. She cited state modeling showing that to meet the Global Warming Solutions Act’s 2030 targets Vermont would need about a tenfold increase in light‑duty EVs and roughly a 300‑fold increase in medium/heavy‑duty electrified trucks.

Officials noted substantial uncertainty about federal charging dollars. Committee staff and Moore said the federal NEVI program remains paused for Vermont because federal approval of the state plan was rescinded; that rescission means the state currently does not have access to NEVI funds. Moore and other staff also described a newly enacted flat EV registration fee and other state sources being directed to level‑2 charging and incentive programs, while large federal awards (shown in Moore’s slide set as bond or grant lines) supplied most DC fast‑charging and large‑scale buildouts.

Proposals and near‑term budget moves

Moore said proposals in House bill H.289 were intended to ease gaps by redirecting state energy‑efficiency utility revenues and some RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) proceeds toward weatherization, heat‑pump deployment and an energy navigator program at community action agencies. She described a potential reallocation of RGGI surplus to the Agency of Transportation to support vehicle electrification as one option under consideration.

Federal versus state funding

Moore and department staff emphasized that federal funds are typically one‑time or conditional awards tied to specific programs and disaster declarations; state dollars are more under state control and thus central to sustaining long‑term program capacity. Committee members asked staff to flag in the spending report which federal streams are most uncertain going forward.

What the committee asked to follow up

• Circulate the underlying Climate Spending Report spreadsheets cited in Moore’s presentation.

• Clarify the mix of state ongoing funds (for example the fuel tax and energy‑efficiency utility revenues) versus time‑limited federal grants supporting weatherization and EV incentives.

• Identify which federal awards (IRA, IIJA, NEVI, FEMA, ARPA) are conditional or paused.

Ending

Committee members pressed for updated, line‑by‑line funding certainty in the Climate Spending Report to show which mitigation and resilience programs could sustain current activity and which will face reductions as federal sources expire. Moore said the agency would update and share the spreadsheets and that some funding‑reallocation proposals in H.289 aim to shore up near‑term needs.