Sponsor pitches repeal of Vermont’s clean heat standard (Act 18) as too costly and complex

Representative Jim Harrison presented H.16, a bill that would repeal the Clean Heat Standard enacted as Act 18. Harrison told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee the bill “repeals the clean heat standard, which was adopted and is now known as Act 18,” and described the legislation as short and intended to remove the existing statutory framework.

Harrison said a recent Public Utility Commission report estimated lower overall costs than an earlier Public Service Department analysis but argued the Clean Heat Standard remained “too complicated, onerous, and expensive.” He told the committee the repeal would remove the statutory infrastructure created by Act 18 and allow lawmakers to “start over with a new bill” rather than amending the existing law.

Committee members pressed Harrison on alternatives. Representative Campbell asked what would replace the Clean Heat Standard to address climate pollution; Harrison said he had “no good answer” but suggested lawmakers could pursue other options and possibly leverage federal funding. Representative Southworth and others asked whether parts of Act 18—such as unfunded PUC positions or a fuel dealer registry—would still be enacted if the legislature did not repeal the act; Harrison said some registry functions exist already but that the registry language in Act 18 may need clarification.

Members also raised legal questions about whether courts could require action if the legislature did not act. Harrison said he was not an attorney but expressed concern that, if statutory rules were available, a court could order implementation in the context of suits brought under the Global Warming Solutions Act. Other legislators on the committee clarified the GWSA’s supervision provisions are narrowly tailored and that the likely court remedies center on requiring the Agency of Natural Resources to issue plans and demonstrate progress rather than imposing specific regulatory programs.

Harrison framed H.16 as a response to constituent pushback about costs and property tax impacts associated with Act 18. He said the repeal would ease constituent concern while leaving open work on alternate approaches to reduce emissions. The committee treated Harrison’s remarks as a pitch; no vote or action was taken, and members asked for additional information and potential witnesses before deciding whether to pursue the bill further.