Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Will the senate please come to

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: order? Yeah.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the proposal of amendment offered by senator Williams be substituted as offered by senator Watson? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to report the straw poll from committee of the National Resources and Energy as we looked at, this amendment, and it was, supported by the committee, three to two. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. I understand the need for this amendment. Clarity is necessary, but it's still sad. I appreciate the comments of the senator from Windsor, and I want to rise up on behalf of midlife and older people who also care and who are deeply involved in combating climate change. Many of them are using techniques that they've and skills of just basic conservation, and that's been a I see a a Vermonter spirit in conservation generally, and I see it specifically, in the work of, third act. So I just wanna rise, in support, and thank you very much I will be voting yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: I just wanted to make a couple of remarks response to the senator from Rutland's original comments on the underlying amendment that we're voting to substitute that was on the check back that that there's somehow the check back didn't work or that we didn't use it. Check back works perfectly. That's why you the the way it was designed and the way those that Roy advocated for it was the way it played out. The PUC did issue a report. They didn't say it was unworkable. They just said it was going to be very costly, very complicated, and not just a flat tax on fuel oil would be much easier and you could kind of make the same goals. Came back the next year to do the check back and we didn't move forward. That's what the check back was. You had to move forward. You had to have positive legislation to move the cleaning standard forward. So we didn't do anything. Then it wasn't moving forward. There there is a type

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: of check back where you would have

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: to have positive actions to kill it. And that's what some people were arguing for with the clean heat standard saying like, well, let's what let's do the study, but it's just gonna go into effect unless the legislature acts to stop it. That's not what we did. We said the legislature has to act to continue it and so we didn't act. And so it was dead. So there was a comment made by the senator from Washington that there were some confusion from the public on that. It's accurate. There might have been, but I thought it was like a purposeful misinformation campaign to try to scare people that this was happening unless it was repealed. But we didn't need to repeal it. I'm willing to go along with the repeal as a symbolic measure. I think it has no meaning other than symbolicness. It does clean up the statute maybe, but it doesn't change the legislature's ability to do this in the future. There's been comments in the past like we have to repeal it or it's going to go into effect or could go into effect. Our ability today to enact the cleaning standard is the same as it will be tomorrow if we repeal it. It still takes a bill to go through all stages of passage either way. So I just wanna make sure that we're clear on that. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. If I may reply to the to the comments of the senator from Washington. At the end of the last biennium, my understanding was that PUC was required to report back on in January with report. They did. They they reported to the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee. My other understanding was that at

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: the

[Senator Terry Williams]: end of at that both chambers, the senate and the house had to vote to repeal that bill. If it if it failed, then the Affordable HEAT Act died. If I'm if I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong. But I I appreciate the opportunity to be able to say that. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Talking too much today, but I just wanna echo a lot of what senator Washington just, senator from Washington just said regarding the check back. I I think it worked exactly as expected. And then beyond being a symbolic motion to repeal the clean heat standard, I another piece of this argument that I've heard many times is that with it on the books, the Global Warming Solutions Act, where we could be sued to enact things. There is concern that if this is on the books, then a judge could decide that we failed to meet those conditions and that we could then turn on the Clean Heat Act. And that is the real concern I've heard out in the communities. So I do think that this is the right thing to do. It was proven for all the reasons we've heard to be problematic, to be costly, and that there are alternative methods. So I do agree with everything that that the senator from Washington said, and I do think this is an important thing for us to do to respond to the constituents out there with real concerns and questions about the construct that we had contemplated with the Clean Heat Act in the last biennium. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. What what I'm not hearing, unfortunately, in all the conversations from from any side of the aisle, on why this is an important and effective amendment, Mr. President, is because we should collect good data and we should want good data that should not become a partisan question. And we should want good data regardless of what policies are enacted or not. What I worry about, mister president, and I would say this on a on a tripartisan or multi partisan basis, is that we we should get good data and then decide how to move forward as a body. When we created this whole notion of a check back, I think it was a really critical step for people to recognize we're listening to all Vermonters. And we're saying to all Vermonters, we will make sure you are heard before we act. But what we shouldn't do moving forward is essentially create a mechanism by which we say to Vermonters, if this data comes back this way or this data comes back this way, you know, that sets us up for a major decision. We should always be looking at data. That should not be a partisan question. We should want to collect important data to know how to save Vermonters money, and they should not fear how we will use that data. That should not be a partisan statement and on anyone's part, on any political question, we want Vermonters at a very difficult and dark time in this country to know we still ask good questions to get information that helps them. And we then decide what would be most helpful to them. But I hope moving forward on whatever side of the aisle, Vermonters know that they can trust us to collect good information and that it is not tied to a political decision, except if we find that it is in the best interest of all Vermonters, their economic, their environmental, and their social well-being, that we move forward with a fully and robustly debated policy. But I truly hope it does not become a partisan question in this body to collect data and make good decisions. And with that, I hope my colleagues will vote yes for this amendment that was more carefully thought out and make sure that Vermonters do get the message that the clean heat standard was not that policy. The clean heat standard is now no longer a specter in people's lives. We will take the data that we get and we will make good decisions in a difficult political and environmental climate, but we will fully debate those decisions and Vermonter should have the trust that we will do that. So I feel it is the right thing to do to both fully repeal the clean heat standard and make sure we are collecting the data. And I hope that, those don't become political questions in the future, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanna appreciate the comments from the senator from, Chittenden Southeast, because that is the difference between the, substituted proposed substitute amendment and the amendment offered, by the senator from Rutland is, is the data collection. Do we believe that collecting robust data on our expensive fossil foreign fossil fuel, industry is is worth collecting? I believe it is. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Essex. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Mister president, we do have great data collection. We're already learning that the fuel that auto fuels are using is declining in a significant way. We also know that better than 80% of all Vermonters need to use fossil fuels to heat their homes because the other costs as far as to switch to a heat pumps are just way out of line as far as what an average Vermonter can afford. And to be fair, some parts of the state, especially in the rural areas, the grids will not support the, the usages of the, high impact of what, a heat pump takes of electricity. The lines just won't support it. You know, and there was also other data. I can remember during all the discussion about the clean heat standard, some of my colleagues on the other side were saying, you know, our other our people are gonna speak up, aren't they? Our people are gonna speak up. It was overwhelmingly the voice of Vermonters who wished not for the clean heat standard to come into effect, overwhelmingly. And yet it was rammed through anyway. So we have a lot of data. It's just probably not the data that some people wanna wanna listen to. But I'm glad that we're getting to this mode of repealing the clean heat standard regardless of the the thought process of how it was supposed to work. It was a public perception that it was coming back to both chambers to be voted on in today's that day. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter of the amendment?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The presenter of the amendment is interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: We've been going round and round so much, mister president. I cannot remember. Are there other states that collect this type of data about fossil fuels transportation what this what this amendment is asking for?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you Mr. President yes other states do collect this kind of data. Thank you.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Mr. President can she, sorry, Mr. President can the senator give a name of few states that do please?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you Mr. President. I, there are two that I have in mind. I believe is one is Massachusetts and the other one is New York, and and also Washington, collect this kind of data.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I thank the senator. I just like to state that as I agree with my the senator from

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Windham? Windsor.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Windsor, sorry, that we do have to answer to our 15 and 16 year olds. I hope that a lot of people take in account that we're a state of 640,000 and our what we produce is minimal but we as a state do not take that as a minimal look we have more registered cars as far as hybrid and electric than New Hampshire who's double our size. Vermont does a very good job and will continue to do

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: a good

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: job to conserve it. Believe this is has no purpose and will serve no purpose. So I will be voting no. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. I'm not sure what we're afraid of when we don't wanna collect data. If we don't have the data, then how do we know we're doing a good job? If we don't have the baseline and collect the data this year, how will we know we've done a better job next year? There's a whole scientific process. I think I learned it in sophomore year in high school. And you need the data to compare. We are looking to get a baseline to see what it is. That's and then we will know next year if we've made a 10% improvement or 50%. The problem has always been, and I was one of the people that really pushed for the check back because of the concern about the cost. But we also know that river was high last week, and I can tell you the people in Montpelier were nervous because that kind of flooding is new. I we're if we have forest fires like they are in the rest of the country, we're in big trouble because I doubt that we're equipped or trained to fight massive forest fires because we've never had them. We need the data to know how well we're doing. We need to develop a transition. I have two heat pumps, and I can tell you when it was cold this winter, they kept my kitchen from freezing, but they did not keep it warm. One didn't. That is a technology that also needs to evolve. This is changing, but we need the data to know where we're starting. That's all this is doing, is collecting the baseline so we know if we've done better or worse next year or ten years from now.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. I support the substitute amendment, and I think it does a good job balancing two things. I support repealing the the language in the statute that, is known as the Clean Heat Act or the, Clean Heat Standard or whatever you wanna call it for many of the same reasons that my colleague from Washington and, Chittenden Central already have stated. And in fact, the Senate Natural Resources Committee voted last year in a bill to repeal this exact language, to repeal the Clean Heat Act, last year in a bill. It was a

[Senator Anne Watson]: vote of

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: four one, and that bill moved over, and ultimately didn't come to the floor. But in in a slight bit of irony that the only senator who didn't support that bill was the senator for Rutland who who offered the original amendment. But, so I think I'm already on record as are most of the members of the Natural Resources Committee for repealing this language. And I agree with my colleagues who are making the argument about data collection. And I I I just right now, we are in record high fuel prices because of the war in Iran. Vermonters, for the last month and a half of winter, because we all know winter goes through the April here, could not afford their heating costs because the the skyrocketing price of fuel. And I just read an article recently by an excellent reporter who's from my district who mentioned that Vermonters all over the state are trying to find alternative fuel sources to heat for next winter, and they're looking at things like, high efficiency wood pellet stoves. They're looking at things like, a a system of, heat pumps in their in their house. They're looking at alternatives to fossil fuels because fossil fuels are unaffordable. And what this this bill would do in terms of data collection is really important because it will help us as policymakers, and it will help policymakers at the local level, and it will help policymakers in our state agencies know how to help Vermonters help themselves in changing their fuel systems and changing their heating systems before next winter and in winters following. Because it identify where the most fuel is being used and where we might target, oh, this county or this town needs extra help or these types of dwellings need extra help. So it is data that is well worth collecting. And as the senator, my chair in the finance committee said, you always need good data no matter what kind of policy. The my colleagues in finance committee hear me say this all the time. We need good data to make good decisions, mister president. And that's what this bill does. It repeals something that is no longer necessary or not going to be enacted and not going to move forward. I'm totally in support of that. I I love to clean up the statutes, and I love to collect good data that make that leads to good public policy. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: I I find it incredible, mister president, that we're talking about educating ourselves to have informed decisions.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Let me

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: let me say that again. We're talking about educating ourselves so we can make informed decisions.

[Senator Anne Watson]: I

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: appreciate the senior senator from Washington, and I appreciate the senior senator from Addison. To point out how ridiculous this discussion is, we want to have the most data and information that we can have so we can make informed decisions however it comes out. I'll tell you what. Let's do this. Every chair, forget about getting testimony because you don't need that testimony. You don't need testimony from different sources so you can find out data. Forget about it. Don't need it anymore. Senator from Bennington, don't forget pack up

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: pack up the

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: child. You don't need to work on education. Don't need to do it anyway. That we don't need to educate our kids. We don't need to have the best education system because we we don't need to learn and get better. Shame on you. Shame on you for not wanting to find out the truth about these things. Let's find out the real data. And then whenever it goes

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Mister president, point of order.

[Senator Terry Williams]: I believe there's no What is your

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: point of order?

[Senator Scott Beck]: I believe there's no shame

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: in debate in finding that senator senator's comments rather derogatory and, you know, informed. And I would would request that the president take a look at the nature of the conversation and focus on the debate. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: But also the board of students who would like

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: to Senator Baruth, you have the floor. I find your point of order not well taken, but I would advise the senator from Windsor to please be careful with comments if they don't feel pointed or derogatory towards any other senator.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Thank you, mister president. From Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Thank you, mister president. I I would like to apologize to the senator from Rutland if he did or or any other member of this body took what I said as derogatory or shaming. But I I just want to emphasize more than anything, what we should be doing is educating ourselves so we can make informed decisions. As a matter of fact, I believe last week, I made a statement of a clothier in West New York that says an educated consumer is our best customer. Let's think about that when we make bills and we pass laws. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Orleans.

[Senator John Morley III]: The president may inquire of the report of the amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The report of the amendment is in there.

[Senator John Morley III]: Under section one e two, at the very towards the very bottom, where basically says the secretary shall adopt a rule at a minimum includes the types and volume of fossil fuels sold by sector for the transportation and residential commercial industrial sectors and by zip code municipality or the smallest geographic level practical. How small is that?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. So that language, as I understand, was included because there was a question as to whether or not the data would be available specifically by zip code or municipality and so, down to the smallest level practical, but we did not that is why we have this, additional phrase here that also, protects the, individual identities of consumers.

[Senator John Morley III]: Those are in my mind, those are two different things, mister president. So the smallest geographic level practicable that also protects the individual identities of consumers. So you're trying to protect the identities of consumers, but I still don't. The more I sit here, the more I read and think, I just I don't know what smallest geographic level practicable means, and I have some concerns about that. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you. Yes. Okay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: If you would like to speak senator from Washington, you are certainly welcome to the floor, but the senator is questioning himself. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I appreciate that. And that was a provision put in there with consideration to fuel dealers for whatever was practical for them. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Rutland.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you Mr. President. Someone said that this was a sad vote I hear that I echo that. My office worked very very hard to pass the clean needs standard and we did so for some obvious reasons. So if you walk downtown, you walk by businesses that have been flooded multiple times. And if you've talked with business owners in Montpelier, you understand that some of them have it in their minds that the next time it happens, they must leave. So the viability of Montpelier as a city, that's just one example, mister president, in Vermont, is in question because of the effects of climate change and the warming of the planet. If you think about where we are with regard to the war in Iran, the Strait Of Hormuz being closed, you couldn't ask for a better example of why fossil fuels are unreliable and far too expensive. They are rare, and they are subject to extreme political pressures, in this case, military pressures, and our prices at the pump are skyrocketing. And as other senators have pointed out, that makes alternative fuel energy seem sensible, more sensible even than it does in a straight on comparison with fossil fuel. So moving toward the clean heat standard was not a crazy idea. It was an attempt to help the bottom line of all of our constituents, an attempt to make us a sustainable state and a sustainable city, the place where we're sitting right now. The other thing I would say, president, is that over the years, I've picked up a couple of rules in this building and one that I would offer to my colleagues across the aisle is this, don't be afraid to take yes for an answer. We get so locked into our back and forth across the aisle sometimes that when you're offered what you asked for, sometimes the immediate reaction is to say no and to find reasons to say no. I know from talking to all of my colleagues across the aisle that they have wanted this language, repeal of the clean heat standard that they could take back to their constituents and say, I did for you what I promised I would do. Now here's the irony Mr. President, given the substitute amendment arrangements there will be probably one vote on repealing the clean heat standard we are going to roll call that vote. If everyone across the aisle decides for whatever reason they don't want to be a yes on that vote that will be on them. The Democratic majority not the super majority the Democratic majority post election saying to you here, here is the the repeal you sought. The only thing we ask in return is that you allow us to gather some data so that we can make in the future some sensible moves on renewable energy. So again, there will be one vote on the clean heat standard. I would ask my colleagues across the aisle, take yes for an answer. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I think it's been said by a number of different senators, but the reason why I am gonna vote no on this substitute amendment is not because I'm not interested in data or I'm not curious or not educated as some have implied, but rather as many senators have implied, this is the data that will lead to a decision. And I believe that decision that some are looking for different form is a decision to tax Vermonters on transportation fuels and carbon fuels in excess of what already occurs. And so I will be no voting no on this substitute amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Thank you, mister president. This may also be data that saves Vermont. This may also be data that saves our economy. This may also be data that makes us helps us make great decisions about how we can be better stewards of this world we care so much about.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the proposal of amendment offered by senator Williams be substituted as offered by senator Watson? Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Scott Beck]: I believe a roll call has been asked.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Yes. The secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Heffernan. Nay. Senator Ingalls. No. Senator Lyons. Yes. Senator Major. Yes. Senator Matos. No. Senator Morley. No. Senator Norris.

[Senator Robert Norris]: No. Senator Pershing?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Plunkett? Yes. Senator Warren Hinsdale? Yes. Senator Bahoski? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Weeks? No. Senator Weston? No. Senator White?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Should I ask him to repeat? That

[Senator John Morley III]: was a yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast. There is con

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I was a yes with pretzels in my mouth. My apologies. That's why I was chuckling. It was a yes. Please don't put that on my nose.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Seven.

[Senator John Morley III]: One three. Got it.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Those voting yes, 17. Those voting no, 13. And we have substituted the amendment as offered by senator Watson. The question now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by senator Williams as substituted by senator Watson? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I move that we divide this question, in the first instance of amendment sections four and five, and the second instance of amendment sections one, two, three, and six.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Point of inquiry, do we need to vote to amend the bill that is on the floor still? Wait. The question that I heard post was are we going to

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So the

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: the where we're at right now, senator, is we have accepted the substitute that senator Watson offered in place of the one that senator Williams offered. And now the question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by senator Williams, but as substituted by senator Watson.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Voting on the amendment, and there will be a subsequent vote to send the amended bill back to the house if it is in fact amended.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The so if we accept everything, of course, the question is being the motion is now moved to divide, but if we accept everything, we will be doing the third reading of the bill as amended by the senate.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Okay. Yep. We need to take a quick recess. Senate please come to order. Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to, amend my motion and, instead of two instances of amendment, I would like to instead divide up into three instances of amendment. The first instance of amendment would be sections one, two, and three. The second instance of amendment would be sections four and five, and the third instance of amendment would be section six.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: So the question has been divided. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. I will be, yes on all of these questions. It is my hope that my caucus will as well. And, again, I would hope that folks from across the aisle would join us not just on the repeal, but on the other elements of this bill. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Roll call.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested. When the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. So the question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by senator Williams as substituted by senator Watson in the first, second, and third instance only. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central, Southeast.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. Generally, my understanding has been that as a courtesy when a colleague is dividing the question and is furthermore changing the division of the question without further opportunity for members to have all of the language available to them in the right order. That Mr. President, that member at least be asked as a courtesy to explain the subject matter in each question so that we are clear as an entire body what we are voting on in case people wanna go back into the record and understand our actions. So, Mr. President, I I am just asking in a friendly manner for, the proposer of the the split vote to, explain his intentions. Thank you, mister Kesha.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. My intentions are pretty straightforward. In sections in the first instance in first instance of amendment, I would like the, the senate to be able to vote separately on whether we are to adopt the greenhouse gas registry that was contemplated in the underlying bill, House Bill seven forty. In the second instance of amendment, trying to give the all senators the chance to vote separately on the repeal of the clean heat standard and then assuming that one or both of those are voted in the affirmative we would need an effective date and that would be the third instance of amendment when we vote for the effective date on that vote. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by senator Williams as substituted by senator Watson in section one, two, and three only. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck? No. Senator Gulick? Yes. Senator Hardy? Yes. Senator Harrison? Yes. Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan? Nay. Senator Ink? No. Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Major? Yes. Yes. Senator White? Yes. Senator Williams?

[Senator Terry Williams]: No.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Those voting, yes, 17. Those voting, no, 13. And we have a sec accepted the proposal amendment in sections one, two, and three. Now we will move on to the question, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by senator Williams as substituted by senator Watson on section four and five? Are you ready for the question? No. Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. Just for clarity's sake, section four and five is a straight repeal of the clean heat standard, and I'll be voting yes for this instance of amendment. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. I saw this amendment as a compromise in the process of democracy. And to take one side of the compromise and not the other, I think breaks the deal, and I will be voting no.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister president, point of inquiry. Once each separate segment of the vote is voted on, there is no further vote on the entire bill as amended sections one through six.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: So the amendment that we are currently debating will be passed in sections, so there will be no vote on it all consolidated. But there will then be the question, shall the bill be read a third time and shall the bill pass? Well, will also be the opportunity for other amendments but I was

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank thank you mister Winston.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Roll call.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: you ready for the question? The secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Williams? Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Six four. Got it. Those voting yes, 26. Those voting for, those voting no for, and we have accepted the proposal of amendment on section four and five. Now the question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by senator Williams as substituted by senator Watson in section six only. Are you ready for the question? And that is effective dates for everyone. Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Yes, mister president. That is exactly what I was gonna clarify. This is simply for the effective date of the, of the amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Hopefully, we can come together on this

[Senator Anne Watson]: one. Are

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have accepted the proposal of amendment in section six. Are there any other amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Washington, Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. I have another, proposal of amendment. And we have oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. I jumped the gun.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Can help me. Here

[Senator Terry Williams]: you go. So second amendment?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator, from Rutland, you're good to go.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you.

[Senator Terry Williams]: The second, it's a similar amendment to eight seven forty, And I rise to offer this amendment because I believe this remain the h seven forty. And it's a basically, what it does, it concerns greenhouse gas reporting, fuel supplier accountability, emissions tracking in Vermont's continuing climate policy framework, Act 153, the Global Water Solutions Act of 2020 created that framework. My amendment addresses that foundation of the same system this bill continues to expand. One of my concerns with act one fifty three, this isn't the first time I've mentioned this, is that the framework often seems designed only to identify next regulation or mandate rather than recognizing the progress Vermonters have already made voluntarily and technologically. Modern vehicles are far more efficient. Virtual meetings and remote work reduce community, fuel consumption, electric usage, and water and wear and tear on the road. Businesses and families have already adapted in meaningful ways. These accomplishments matter. Yet many Vermonters feel those gains are really acknowledged within the broader regulatory structure created under f one fifty three. I also remote, mister president, I also remain concerned about affordability, energy costs, implementation, authority, and the growing transfer of policy making authority away from the legislature and for regulatory and legislative driven enforcement structure, specifically the climate council, which is a group of nonelected individuals that are making policy that affect every day of the month. This amendment is may fail today. But public record matters, legislative accountability matters, and Vermonters deserve to know that some of them some of us attempted to to revisit a law that fundamentally reshaped climate governance in the stage. That is, oh, by the way, caused a few lawsuits because of the private right of action for anybody in the world to sue the state of Vermont for not meeting its goals. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. I would question the germaneness of this amendment given, its scope and where it locates itself in the title.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: We will take that as a point of order, senator.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you very much, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: So the question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Lewis? Senator from Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Defer to the

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank mister president. National resources, did huddle while we took a break and took a brief, moment to, look at this, amendment, and we do not recommend, supporting this, three against two for.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Chair of the windows.

[Unidentified Senator]: Mister president, I believe there were some statements made earlier that anyone in the world can sue the state of Vermont and there are several lawsuits filed already. I'm I'm curious about this, and so if I may inquire of the presenter of the amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Presenter is inherited.

[Unidentified Senator]: Could the senator please describe what parties have filed these lawsuits and where they've been filed?

[Senator Terry Williams]: I believe it was the Conservation Law Foundation and Lake Champlain Committee.

[Senator Anne Watson]: And

[Senator Terry Williams]: And it was the the lawsuit was filed, but it was withdrawn.

[Unidentified Senator]: And where were they filed?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Federal court.

[Unidentified Senator]: And how were they related to this amendment?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Because we did not meet our climate goal or mandates.

[Unidentified Senator]: And what can the senator describe the complaint and how and what the complaints were referring to regarding the, mandated goals?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Can you repeat the question, mister president?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Can the senator repeat the question, please?

[Unidentified Senator]: Can the senator describe the complaints filed and how they were related to the mandated goals?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Not verbatim.

[Unidentified Senator]: Pardon me?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Not verbatim. But I could.

[Unidentified Senator]: The senator provide a summary?

[Senator Terry Williams]: I can provide summary of why they were drawn because they they jumped the gun on the on the dates. I can't hear you.

[Unidentified Senator]: I thank the senator. Mister president, for the first time I'm having a I'm I'm having doubts about the genuine willingness, to compromise here based on the conversation we had, regarding the prior amendment. I'm automatically a no on this amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I would also like to offer that my understanding of the lawsuits that have been filed do not match, what was just described and and I'm wondering about process for well, I'm gonna sit down, but I'm just going to question.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Williams? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia. Thank

[Senator Anne Watson]: you,

[Senator Scott Beck]: mister president. And for the for me, this is, I guess, fairly simple. I I think the Global Warming Solutions Act is way too ambitious, with mandates that really open up the state of Vermont to any number of lawsuits, in the future and I think we would be best to rid ourselves of this and to move towards something that's more productive and gets us to where we want to be. I'll be I'll be voting yes for this amendment and I ask for that vote to be taken by roll.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator has requested a roll call and when the vote is taken it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Thank you, mister president. Just quick comments that there was comments that the act one fifty three doesn't track progress. It very much tracks progress because that's the whole purpose is to track our progress towards the requirements. So there are both when we're meeting their requirements and making good progress, those are celebrated and recorded. So there's no truth to the statement that Global Warming Solutions Act and climate plans that that are part of it don't track the good work that we're doing. And there is good work that's happening. I think it's important to to say that. So, I'm going to vote no for this amendment. I think there there might be discussions about private rights of actions in in general, but there isn't a requirement that that this will do. They they can have a lawsuit. A judge could say, you're not meeting your requirement, but would still would still be us, the legislature, and the governor that would have to enact something. The judge cannot enact it. So they could just say, you you passed this. You're not meeting it as as laid out. You've made this progress here, you didn't make progress on the requirement here. Then that would be on us to to act. So there isn't a threat of something being forced on us by act one fifty three in the greenhouse gas reduction requirements.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Once again, we are being asked to make a decision without any data based on people's gut feelings, what they think, what they may have read in a newspaper somewhere, sometime. These are serious decisions. These are decisions that impact the lives of every one of our constituents, both now and our future constituents, and they deserve to be given the consideration of a rational committee discussion, not a short, you know I make this motion, everybody vote on the floor without any background to any of the information that's being given out. I think this is a sad day for democracy.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. I am gonna vote yes on this. This is consistent with what I said on the campaign trail is, it never seemed right to me that we were yielding or advocating our responsibilities to, the judicial system to have policies be enacted by force of of ruling and law. I I get the concerns. I this was passed before I joined the legislature, and I said to people that I didn't think it was good policy, and I need to be consistent with that. From what I understand about this, I I don't think this is the right thing for Vermont, and I do agree that it is a bit of a distraction when we have to fend off or be afraid of lawsuits when we fail to meet objectives that were set almost a decade ago. And so I just trust the future legislatures to continue to address this without this looming threat overhead. So I will be voting yes on this amendment, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Williams? Secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Baruth? No. Senator Pesha? Yes. Senator Bongartz? No. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Brock? Senator Westman. Yes. Senator White.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: No. With explanation.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Senator Williams. Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Those voting yes, 14. Those voting no, 16, and the amendment has failed. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: I vote no today to protect future generations of Vermonters from the greatest existential crisis of our time.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Secretary (Clerk)]: H seven forty, an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Roll call.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? The secretary shall call the roll. Those voting yes, 17. Those voting no, 13. And the senate has concurred with proposal of amendment on h seven forty. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. That is a long morning's work, especially on the last bill, and my thanks to everyone for making use of the process. We made full use of the process today. With that said, mister president, I would move at this time that the rules be suspended and that we message the actions just taken on h five seventy eight and act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses, h seven twenty seven and act relating to sustainable data center deployment, and h seven forty and act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry. The message to the house for this.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The senator has moved that the senate suspended the rules in order to action message our actions on h five seventy eight, h seven twenty seven, and h seven forty two, the house forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The motion carries. I have some conference committee announcements to make. We have received h six sixty back from the house. They've refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and have appointed a committee of conference. On behalf of the committee on conference, the following senators are appointed to the committee of conference. Senator Lyons, senator Gulick, senator Benson. We have received h eight sixteen back from the house. They have refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and have appointed a committee on conference. On behalf of the committee on committees, the following senators are appointed to the committee on conference on the part of the senate. Senator Gulick, senator Lyons, senator Benson. We have received h nine forty four back from the house. They have refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and have appointed a committee of conference. On behalf of the committee on committees, the following senators are appointed to the committee of conference on the part of the senate. Senator Westman, senator Perchlik, senator Harrison. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. Pending further known announcements, I would move that the senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Wednesday, 05/20/2026.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Senate Finance will meet at 02:30 in order for committee conference to meet, but I'm gonna ask the committee members to meet around 02:15 in the committee room. We have a little last day ceremony to take care of.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Thank you, president. Senator appropriations going on a tour. If you still wanna go on the tour, we're gonna meet in the lobby. If you don't wanna go, we're gonna meet at two.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator Rutland.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: The senate government operations will meet at 01:40.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions, community conference will meet immediately after this.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Wednesday, 05/20/2026. Are you ready for the question? So, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 10AM, Wednesday, 05/20/2026.

[Senator John Morley III]: Unplugged.