Senate rejects bid to fast-track repeal of Affordable Heat Act after heated floor debate

A motion to relieve the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy of S.68 — a proposed repeal of the Affordable Heat Act — and bring the bill immediately to the floor failed after extended debate and a roll-call vote.

The motion, moved by the senator from Rutland, sought to bypass the normal committee timing and have S.68 considered on the floor rapidly. The motion prompted substantial debate from members across the chamber: proponents said Vermonters wanted a swift decision; opponents, including the chair of Natural Resources and Energy and the president pro tem, argued the committee process should be respected and that less than two weeks in committee did not amount to being bottled up.

Senators speaking against the motion emphasized the role of committee hearings and testimony. The chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee told the Senate that S.68 was scheduled for committee consideration later in the week and said the committee had already taken testimony on related matters earlier in the session. "We did take testimony on Act 18 in a joint hearing," the chair said on the floor, adding that the maker of the motion had not approached the committee chair directly before seeking to relieve the committee. Other senators warned that routinely displacing committee jurisdiction would set a precedent that undermines the committee system.

Supporters of the motion, including the senator from Rutland and the senator from Franklin, said voters had asked for action and that the bill’s proponents sought prompt clarity before town meeting day and eventual public discussion. Proponents also cited a letter referenced on the floor — described as published February 20 from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — asking that the process be moved because of requirements and the funds already expended for studies tied to Act 18.

Procedural attempts: During debate, one senator moved to postpone consideration of the motion until Friday of the week; that postponement motion was put to a roll-call and failed. The Senate then proceeded to a roll-call on the main motion. The clerk reported the roll-call results: the motion to relieve the committee failed (yeas 12, nays 18), and S.68 remained with the Natural Resources and Energy Committee for its scheduled consideration.

Why senators opposed fast-tracking: Senators defending the committee process said the Affordable Heat Act and the related check-back provisions required careful consideration of the PUC report and equity advisory input and noted that committee chairs have discretion about when to bring bills forward. One senator warned that bypassing committee deliberations would effectively remove voters’ choices from the process.

Why supporters wanted floor action: Supporters argued the check-back provision and the timeliness of constituent concerns justified rapid action on the bill. One senator said the state had appropriated money for studies (the speaker mentioned $1.725 million spent on the PUC and equity advisory group) and that the public wanted the matter settled in short order.

Outcome and next steps: With the motion defeated on the floor by roll-call, S.68 remains in the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy and the chair indicated the committee intends to take it up later in the week; members urged that substantive conversations happen in committee rather than by floor motion.

Votes and tally: The roll-call to relieve the committee failed; the clerk reported the yeas 12, the nays 18. No final action on S.68 was taken on the floor during this session.

Speakers noted on the record included the senator from Rutland (mover), the chair of Natural Resources and Energy (responding to inquiries), the president pro tem and several senators from Chittenden, Caledonia and Franklin counties who debated procedure and the merits of fast-tracking the measure.

The transcript reflects a procedural and policy dispute about how quickly controversial measures should be moved to the floor and reiterates that the committee process remains the primary venue for consideration of S.68 at this stage.