Phil Scott will veto a priority energy bill introduced by Vermont lawmakers

Gov. Phil Scott on Thursday vetoed a bill requiring Vermont utilities to buy more renewable energy at a faster rate, with most utilities buying all their energy from renewable sources by 2030.

Scott cited the cost of H.289 as his main concern.

“I don’t think there’s any debate that H.289 will raise utility rates for Vermonters, probably by hundreds of millions of dollars. And while that alone is reason enough to merit a veto, it is even more frustrating when you consider that our Department of Public Service has proposed a much stronger plan to the Legislature at a fraction of the cost,” Scott wrote in a letter to lawmakers explaining his veto .

The Scott administration, lawmakers and supporters and opponents of the bill debated the bill’s potential cost during the recently adjourned legislative session. Although members of the Department of Public Utilities predicted the bill would cost ratepayers $1 billion – a figure that caught on in the public sphere and was often cited by the bill’s opponents – the state’s Joint Fiscal Office later said the bill’s price tag would be less than half the department’s estimate.

Nevertheless, Scott wrote, “given all the other taxes, fees, and higher costs the Legislature has passed over the past two years, I simply cannot allow this bill to become law.”

H.289 would increase the state’s renewable energy standard, which requires utilities to purchase a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources. The law currently requires utilities to purchase 75% of their energy from renewable sources by 2032.

The bill would accelerate this transition by requiring most utilities to source 100% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030, and all utilities by 2035. Over time, it would also require them to purchase about 20% of their power from small, state-owned renewable sources and an additional 20% from regional renewable sources capable of transmitting energy directly to the New England grid.

Scott’s announcement Thursday afternoon immediately sparked a wave of criticism from the bill’s supporters, including lawmakers and environmental lobbyists.

In a statement, environmental groups including Vermont Conservation Voters, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and 350 Vermont called the veto “an appalling attempt to impede Vermont’s environmental and economic progress.”

“Unfortunately, Governor Scott and his party automatically oppose any policy that moves the needle on fossil fuel dependence,” Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, said in a press release shortly after the governor issued his veto.

“Every session we introduce carefully crafted legislation to reduce Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions while protecting lower-income Vermonters; Then Governor Scott and his allies do everything in their power to defeat the bill,” Baruth said. “This is a shameful dynamic, especially in a world where our state capital still does not have a functioning U.S. Post Office due to persistent climate-related flooding.”

Peter Sterling, executive director of the trade group Renewable Energy Vermont, said the Scott administration’s alternative proposal includes increasing Vermont’s reliance on nuclear power and reducing compensation to Vermonters with solar panels for the energy they send back to the grid. After reviewing public comments on the department’s plan, Sterling said he found no support for the ideas.

“Is it cheaper? Yes, because it does less to stop climate change,” Sterling said in an interview.

Also on Thursday, members of the Vermont Youth Lobby gathered outside the Statehouse to support environmental conservation efforts in the state.

“Our lawmakers have passed historic climate bills. Ones that will put Vermont at the forefront of climate action in the U.S.,” said Jenna Hirschman, a fourth-grader at Essex High School who spoke Thursday. “Yet our governor has made it clear that he will veto any climate bill year after year.”

Lawmakers in both chambers may have the two-thirds supermajority needed to override Scott’s veto, but the margins appear slim. House members voted 99 to 39 on the bill amendment with 11 absences. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 18 to 8 with three absences.

Related