Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. This afternoon, we are going to start off by hearing from some Middlebury College students who are in an environmental policy class. Welcome. Thanks for

[Dominic Shackleton]: having us. I'm Dominic Shackleton.

[Ela Chapin (student presenter)]: I'm Ela Chapin.

[Dominic Shackleton]: And, yeah, like you said, we're an intro environmental policy class. And I just wanted to preface by saying, first of all, thanks for having us. And second, we're still learning. So, some of these ideas may not be the best informed, but we'd definitely love any feedback. And recently our class had kind of a project where we all looked into a certain policy that's a recent environmental policy in Vermont. Mine was the Global Warming Solutions Act 2020. So, I just wanted to share some recommendations that I came up with based on my research that basically on the basis that Vermont's doing a really good job of planning emission reduction, but not really doing such a good job of implementing the plan. So, first, one thing I think could be a real benefit would be better funding. The GWSA was passed without a dedicated revenue stream, and as federal dollars from the IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law wind down, Vermont's climate funding has been nearly halved in just two years. The 2025 Climate Action Plan itself concedes the state cannot fully fund the work it envisions. Of all the available options, I think a cap and invest program appears the most feasible. The 2025 Climate Action Plan already prioritizes it, and Vermont could join an existing market such as the Western Climate Initiative used by California, Washington, and Quebec. This would deliver predictable revenue, price emissions, and fund affordability problems needed so that rural and low income households don't carry a disproportionate share of the renewable transitions cost.

[Ela Chapin (student presenter)]: Secondly, we also kind of wanted to talk about the accountability of this idea. And looking at the climate council, which sets pathways the legislator never votes on, which has fueled litigation and friction between the branches. We're talking about requiring legislative ratification of the Climate Action Plan, or at least its major pathways. And we think that would put accountability back on elected officials, give agencies clear guidance, and narrow the ambiguity that invited the Conservation Law Foundation lawsuit and executive pushback. Pairing this with interim statutory deadlines backed by default rulemaking authority if the legislature doesn't act in time would keep ratification itself from becoming a new source of delay. The GWSA made climate planning mandatory rather than optional. With dedicated funding and clear legislative ownership of the plan, it could move from being primarily an accountability statute to a true engine of decarbonization. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: About the tight quarters, but Hi, welcome to the

[Chloe Young]: thank you for having us. My name is Bo Young. I'm an Earth and Climate Science major student at Middlebury College.

[Sebastian Bonobis]: I'm Sebastian Bonobis. I'm an Environmental Anthropology major at Middlebury College.

[Chloe Young]: I want to start by addressing that in this day and age, there feels like there's no hope for climate and climate work. And I sit here to appreciate the work that you guys do and say we focused on the Climate Superfund Act and just how that felt for me as a student as a breakthrough in hope for climate change.

[Sebastian Bonobis]: I agree. It's it's it's really incredible to to witness such an unprecedented passing, such unprecedented action from the Vermont legislature. However, we acknowledge that the bill is being legally disputed and that it may be years before Vermont's field of relief and promises and that while we're sure you know more than us, the urgency needed to support for monitors in this current moment and we're sure you know more than us. The stark reality that this bill may not survive the legal onslaught it faces at all. We went so we want to ask about some solutions that we have.

[Chloe Young]: So, we're approaching you asking what do we as Vermont? What do we as students? What research investigative interests can we put forward to look for adoption without this act? Right? It's a long process, we know this. But what can we do as students to look for resilience and adaption? And asking you guys what you're looking for?

[Sebastian Bonobis]: Yeah, just asking about if there's any solutions or any courses of actions that you guys already have on the table that you may be working on?

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: So it's a question also, students want to get involved with the type of research that you might be invested in. Okay, next group. You can maybe respond at the end if you respond at all.

[White Adams]: Hi. My name is White Adams. I have not declared yet, but I am a prospective environmental policy major.

[Emma Ackerman]: I'm Emma Ackerman. I'm an environmental architecture joint major. Thank you so much for having us today.

[White Adams]: Yeah. I also just want to preface and apologize. I'm getting over a

[Hayes Littlefield]: little bit of

[White Adams]: a cold, so sorry about the congestion. I don't know how audible that is. Then secondly, I'm obviously not a policy expert. You guys are. So this is a little bit more of a naive, like, have you considered as opposed to a discreet, you know, policy proposal. Kinda recently, talked about in class extend user responsibility, which has gained a lot of traction in, like, the EU and is gaining more traction here in The US. I know recently Act 59 passed around hazardous household waste, so, like, you're obviously familiar with it. And I think it's very important right now in an age in which market mechanisms tend to be the most apologies if I can't hear word. But market mechanisms seem to be the most favorable climate policy in this current age. And I was wondering whether or not it might be possible, especially since Vermont already has a framework of EPR with household waste, like why not expanding that framework to cover other realms like packaging or electronic waste? There are other states in The US that have passed this sort of measures, and they've seemed generally fairly effective. Like, Connecticut has been able to divert millions pounds of paint, for example, from being disposed. It's either been recycled or at least diverted away from landfills. So it's clearly a measure that does work. I think Vermont is particularly suited towards this.

[Emma Ackerman]: Yeah, just kind of jumping off of that. We believe that, like, Vermont already has the framework for this implementation to be really effective with 59, universal recycling law foundations, and politically favorable demographics. We also see our state is small enough for this pilot system to be successful. And although we do have a small economy and are a small state, I think that by joining a coalition of other states in implementing this, we can like kind of turn the tide and like shift these kind of like, you know, market mechanisms towards like more manufacturer responsibility in this.

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: We do have a lot of committee work, so master Thank you. Yeah,

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we have time. I just want to mention that at 02:30, unfortunately, that's when we're going to take up our current EPR bill, which is related to updating our bottle redemptions.

[Hayes Littlefield]: Hi, I'm Hayes Littlefield. I'm an environmental economics major at Middlebury College.

[Nikki Cohen]: I'm Nikki Cohen, and I'm a conservation biology major. So the last topic we wanted to discuss was industrial symbiosis, which is a circular economy strategy where the waste stream of one business becomes the resource for another. So it reduces disposal costs, pollution, and energy use while strengthening local economies. This model has been more formally implemented in countries like China and Finland, and we think that Vermont is in a unique is uniquely positioned to develop similar systems Because of Vermont's small industrial clusters, existing culture of collaboration, and programs already in place, we believe that it's a prime position to coordinate industrial symbiosis policies.

[Hayes Littlefield]: Yeah. And a lot of this kind of shared energy and waste streams already exist in Vermont. So for example, in Saint Almonds, there is purpose energy biogas, which treats food manufacturing waste and creates renewable energy for the planet and reduces emissions, and it serves as a very key model. And I think something that we're wondering about is if these kinds of models can be more widespread and more adapted into other places in Vermont and not just in, you know, St. Albans or in Burlington. At Middlebury, we're actually thinking about what a geothermal energy network could look like where the waste of one building is shared. Here is used as energy for another building. So we're wondering about that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Do members have questions for the presenters or other Yes. Representative Labor.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair. I see a group of young collective minds. I enjoy that. Have you studied any of the biodiversity? Biodiversity heating and cooling solutions at Middlebury, RE, or Wood Boiler? We're so a lot

[Hayes Littlefield]: it's less of my direct work and more of other students' direct work. But, I mean, they're meeting with the office of the provost today, and there have been a lot of conversations. But to answer your question, I personally have not studied what kinds of, like, specific That

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: question is open to all.

[Dominic Shackleton]: Yeah, I have we've been talking about that quite a bit in one of our classes, because they're implementing some geothermal solutions, and they're really looking at plotting that as the bio plant is winding down, and they need to look for more net zero solutions. But I think largely, the school's committed to maintaining carbon credits through preserved forest and solar projects. That's another solar project.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Next question for Amal. Have you heard of the hydrogen highway that neighboring countries to The US are already exploring?

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: I just need to remember

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the Yeah.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Can you tell us?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Were there any oh, excuse me. Go ahead.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: It is already being done in Canada, going from the East Coast to the West Coast, and the pumping stations are all in place. So my question to you, how do you transport hydrogen from one area to the other without an explosive result?

[Hayes Littlefield]: Representative

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Austin.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I'm wondering, have you studied nuclear power and if there's any advances in disposing of the waste of it? I'm just trying to think if it's a viable source of energy for us.

[Dominic Shackleton]: Same class, kind of looked into that. I know to my knowledge, it remains an issue. And I think another issue with nuclear is what happens when you need to like France, for example, 90% of their energy sourcing is from nuclear, the next twenty years, they're gonna need to completely redo all their plants to maintain them. And I know those are two kind of problems with nuclear energy, and I I can't speak to the best, most modern ways of dealing with those issues, but I'm sure that technology is also evolving. But I would say from my opinion, in my opinion, wind and solar seem to be More valuable.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, can you say for the record what your name is?

[Dominic Shackleton]: Sorry, my name, I'm Dominic Schachtson. I'm a resident of Kirby.

[Chloe Young]: Sorry, I'm Chloe Young and I'm Earth and Climate Science, specifically geology. And something that is interesting in the discussion about nuclear energy as a possible viable sustainable solution is The US's critical mineral dilemma of when we're talking about batteries uranium and things where are we getting these minerals from and the truth is that The US imports a lot of all the critical minerals that's what the definition defines it as, is stuff that we don't produce here or mine here. So I think that geothermal and other options can sometimes be more sustainable also when we're looking at like nationalising our power grid and being independent as a Vermont state too.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Wass? Yep, was just reading an article last weekend about El Nino and the impact because of climate change, you know, the huge impact that it's going to have, not so much on our country, but we will get some effects of it. But like in other definitely poorer countries in terms of droughts and mainly droughts and also weather events. But I'm wondering, have you you know, what they're saying is we're now at a tipping point with climate change. That if we don't act soon, it's gonna know, life is gonna get difficult probably for us a bit in The US, but definitely for other populations around the earth. Do you have you heard anything about El Nino and why this is such a dangerous one that's heading our way?

[Sebastian Bonobis]: I'm absolutely no expert on this. I did watch some YouTube videos on it. Vandervas. And they said the danger is that normally when they're predicting El Ninos, there's a variable range from like, you know, 1.5 degrees in excess to like, you know, two. But the predictions are placing this at around in excess. And that will mean like, as you were saying, droughts, you know, strained food supplies for a lot of countries in a probably a big

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: tax cut.

[Sebastian Bonobis]: Flexing prices for for Americans too. Should it affect them and the industries that we rely heavily on imports for. But in relation to adding on to the the climate tipping points discussion, I did see an article maybe and I was wondering if you what you guys thought about it, about the AMOC and how they finally ran a computer simulation that was that was powerful enough to predict maybe more accurately when the tipping point of the AMOC was. And they found that a good indicator of how it when it's going to tip is when the Amok in the Gulf Stream moves northward around 135 kilometers and they found we're dangerously close to that. So I was I was wondering if, you know, if this has been on your radar at all and what Vermont may do in a situation where the amyl collapses.

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: In different class, we critique that idea of a tipping point as well as if it's a singular I say if it's as simple well. I'm professor here, and we critique that idea of a tipping point as if it's singular.

[Hayes Littlefield]: And

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: we've already tipped in certain realms, food scarcity and drought in certain realms of the world, and even with more severe flooding being regular. So, we've already tipped in some ways that I think when we think about ocean currents and complete climate chaos, that's maybe a harder to predict term, but I think it's helpful to think about it, but I also think it distracts from the changes that are already pretty massive. After that as reframe, if that's helpful.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Great. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. We're grappling with big things, so are we. And really appreciate that you reached out. I talked to a few of you for your research research work, and I'm grateful that you joined us. Just to orient you a little bit to where we are, it's the end of our session. It's also the end of the second year of a biennium, which means that any of the bills that are going to actually get to the governor for him to either sign or veto need to get across the finish line. So what we're doing with our afternoon is looking at three bills that we expect to get from the senate soon. We don't actually have them here yet, but we're gonna be hearing from our legislative council who'll be sitting in that seat any minute now. Okay. I might text her. May I? Do you have a question for us?

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Hi,

[Hayes Littlefield]: I'm Hayes Littlefield. I was wondering, we heard a lot from Senator Hardy about how historically the governor has been vetoing a lot of bills, and I'm wondering how that has affected your committee and how the thinking that goes into what kinds of things go into the bill and whether or not the governor will veto it and what kinds of different things guide you thinking of that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Next question.

[Hayes Littlefield]: Even tougher question.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It depends on the topic. Whether or not we are working with the agency of natural resources, which is our primary agency that we're in our area of jurisdiction, and whether they're able to work with us on something or thought. That kind of happens a lot. Short answer is it depends on the topic. And this is our legislative counsel, Chikowsky, who's going to walk us through one of those Senate bills right now. Welcome, Ellen.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Chickaskey, Office of Legislative Council. H nine thirty two is an act relating to the regulation of four strander Act two fifty. So posted under my name today are the bill as passed by the house, which you all saw, and then the amendment that passed out of Senate Natural Resources. So this bill was sent to Senate Natural Resources. They received a request from the Land Use Review Board to make a change in one sentence. They voted the bill out of committee and the bill was sent to Senate Finance. It is still in Senate Finance. They haven't taken it up yet. It is on their calendar for Thursday. So, also posted under my name is the change that was made in Senate Natural Resources, the new language is highlighted in yellow. So, it isn't substantive change. This was a change that the Land Use Review Board requested, I guess, based on conversations they had with the stakeholders for clarity. So if you're looking at draft 1.1 of the senate natural resources amendment, this is amending subsection f of 6,001, which is the last paragraph on page one of the house version. So it's just amending this section. So I'll read it to you. When development is proposed to occur on a parcel or tract of land that is devoted to logging and forestry, only those portions of the parcel or tract that support the development shall be subject to regulation under this chapter. That hasn't changed at all. The second sentence has changed. Permits issued under this chapter shall not impose conditions on, apply to, restrict or conflict with the acceptable management practices for maintaining water quality and logging jobs in Vermont, on other portions of the parcel or the tract of land that do not support the development. So, they have slight they proposed to slightly rephrase the sentence. The last language that's on line 14 was previously higher up in the sentence, but they've added apply to, restrict or conflict. I do want to point out that I made a typo in this sentence that I am hoping someone will fix. As it is on line 12, the new language that's highlighted, there are serial commas here because of the verbs. So, they shall not impose conditions on, apply to, restrict, or conflict. But restrict should actually be modifying with conflict the AMPs. So the comma after restrict, I think, should be removed. And I propose this to the chairs of Senate Natural Resources and Finance to be fixed by one of them, hopefully. And I've already confirmed with the Land User View Board that, yes, they would like to remove that comma and add an or before so that it's or restrict or conflict with the AMPs.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So they took out the necessary mitigation piece. Yes. Do you know why?

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: No.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They discuss it?

[Sebastian Bonobis]: This

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: would have seemed like an important piece of the language that we received. Do have any thoughts on what we're losing? Losing the medication piece?

[Unidentified Middlebury College professor]: No.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just will follow-up with them on that. Do members have questions? Thank you, Ela. Good question? Maybe we could let Bradley know we're ready. We'll go offline for a brief recess.