House committee: Clean Heat Standard dormant; members push weatherization funding and targeted incentives

Members of the Vermont House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee discussed the status of the state's Clean Heat Standard and options to aid Vermonters in weatherizing homes and managing electrification costs during a committee meeting.

"It's the opposite of that, actually. The check back provision that we wrote into the bill required the PUC to... and the clean heat standard very specifically cannot go into effect without affirmative action by the legislature," Rep. Kathleen James (Bennington-4) said, describing the statute's requirement that the Legislature must enact any implementing bill before the standard could take effect.

The exchange, which included members across the committee, centered on two linked questions: what parts of the Clean Heat Standard remain active and how the state should fund measures such as weatherization, electrical panel upgrades and incentives to make heat pumps and other low-carbon options affordable.

James said the primary provisions still in force are a fuel dealer registry and several unfunded Public Utility Commission positions. "The parts that remain are the fuel dealer registry," she said, and added that three positions at the PUC are currently unfunded.

Committee members repeatedly described weatherization programs as the most direct near-term vehicle for reducing household energy burdens. Rep. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury) and other members pointed to existing delivery channels, including Efficiency Vermont and local weatherization providers, and urged bolstering those programs rather than immediately advancing the PUC's Clean Heat Standard design.

Members cited recent funding figures from program managers: one committee member said the state-level weatherization program is funded at about $20,000,000 per year for the next three years, while another said current total weatherization spending is about $47,000,000 and will fall when ARPA funds expire. Committee members stressed the need to fund ancillary repairs — electrical work, asbestos abatement and structural fixes — that often must precede effective weatherization.

James also described the Clean Heat Standard as a potential revenue source for incentives if implemented: "The revenue raised would go to incentives," she said, adding that those incentives were intended for households that cannot afford upfront costs.

Several members warned of political and economic constraints. Members said public messaging and outside advertising had amplified claims that the Clean Heat Standard would sharply raise heating fuel costs, which they said complicated the politics of pursuing the policy this biennium. One member named a national advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, as running a postcard and social media campaign opposing the policy.

Committee members outlined possible next steps: some urged a combined legislative approach that bundles weatherization, panel upgrades and targeted assistance; others argued for stepping back and revisiting statutory inputs and obligations (reducing any obligations, changing credit prioritization or narrowing the scope) to make a market-based mechanism more workable. No formal motions or votes were recorded on implementation or repeal during the session.

Rep. James closed by rejecting repeal as an initial strategy: "I feel very strongly that collaborative work, compromise, finding a path forward does not start with repeal," she said, and pledged the committee would continue discussions about funding and statutory clarifications.

The committee indicated it will follow up on the status of the unfunded PUC positions, the scope of the fuel dealer registry, and precise dollar figures for continuing weatherization and related programs before pursuing legislative action this biennium.