Sponsor proposes removing citizen suit enforcement from Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act

Representative Jim Harrison presented H.52 to the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee, saying the enforcement design of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) — which channels citizen suits — “philosophically” should be the voters’ tool rather than the courts’. Harrison told the committee he wanted to repeal the citizen‑supervision provision and alter the statutory mandate so enforcement rested with voters and the political process.

Committee members pushed back on that premise. Representative Matt Campbell and others said the GWSA’s right‑of‑action was intentionally narrow: it channels litigation to defined topics, timelines, and remedies. Campbell pointed to testimony from Massachusetts and said that including a right of action with clear parameters was intended to avoid open‑ended litigation that delays climate action. Several legislators said the court’s likely remedy is to require the Agency of Natural Resources to produce or implement a plan, not to impose specific regulatory mechanisms.

Discussion broadened into a review of the Climate Council’s work and of state spending on climate programs. Representative Mark Higley summarized the council’s 13‑page report and quoted a figure in committee discussion that “$524,430,768” had been spent in the 2025 budget for direct climate action; another member noted much of that funding is federal. Higley and others described operational challenges at the Climate Council — staff capacity, prioritization, and reliance on agency support — and questioned whether removing judicial oversight would weaken progress toward benchmarks the council has identified.

Legal exposure was debated: a committee member asked about financial risk. The sponsor and others noted that suits under the GWSA do not award broad financial damages but that the state could be responsible for attorney fees if it loses. One legislator framed the choice as who should hold government accountable — voters at the ballot box or courts through limited judicial remedies.

The committee also discussed downstream policy consequences if statutory mechanisms (such as the Clean Heat Standard) are left in place or removed; members noted that removing one statutory tool might prompt agencies to propose alternative regulations or programs to meet required benchmarks. The session was a pitch; no formal committee action was taken, and members requested additional information and legal analysis before further consideration.