Scheuermann: Return to Montpelier following Town Meeting Day break

There has been considerable discussion of late regarding the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) that passed the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago, including some criticism of my vote, so I feel it important that my friends and neighbors here in Stowe and in the region know and understand my thoughts on it.

As I've said many times, addressing climate change and its consequences is critical, and while what we do in Vermont will have little impact on the challenge globally, Vermont has been an environmental leader throughout our history, and continues that longstanding tradition now, so I am confident that our little state can have a meaningful impact.

At this time, I support much of what is currently drafted in the GWSA. I support making the current carbon emissions reduction goals statutory requirements.

I support the creation of a Climate Council that would develop a Climate Action Plan for our state.

I support the opportunity for lawsuits if a plan is not developed or the emissions reductions goals not met.

And, I am especially pleased that the bill provides for significant efforts at adaptation and resiliency for families and communities throughout the state. We have seen the impact the changing weather patterns have had on all of our communities and we must provide the tools necessary for our communities, businesses, and families to both adapt to, and to create more resiliency to, these weather patterns.

My source of objection to the GWSA is simple. I am not willing to so enormously cede our legislative authority and responsibility to the Executive Branch. At this time, that is precisely what this bill does, by empowering the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to promulgate rules to implement the Plan that the Climate Council develops.

I simply don't think it appropriate or wise to give this much power to make policy to the Secretary of ANR and the Executive Branch. I think it is of critical importance that public policy decisions be made by those who are elected. We are the elected officials closest to the people. And we are accountable to those people. Any public policies that need to be modified or adopted in order to put into effect the Climate Action Plan should come back to the legislature for such adoption or change.

Frankly, the GWSA, as currently drafted, is the legislative equivalent of the Staples ® "Easy" button.

We don't have to make any of the hard decisions; the difficult votes. Instead, other than an increase of a tax or a fee, whatever policy changes are required to meet the emissions reductions will come from an unelected bureaucrat.

Unfortunately, I have seen far too many times our own legislative bodies cede our responsibility and authority to the executive branch and unelected boards. I remember well, for example, arguing on the House floor against ceding all of our authority for school district reform to the State Board of Education under Act 46; that it was inappropriate for 9 unelected and unaccountable people to be able to force the elimination of school districts. Yet the majority of the legislature did it anyway.

What was the result? Neither the Stowe School District nor the Elmore-Morristown School District exist anymore.

To those who argue that my decision to vote against the GWSA bill at this time is out of step with the majority in the House, you are absolutely correct. The majority of the House overwhelmingly approved this bill, and seemingly don't believe that this ceding of our authority is problematic.

Remember, though, the majority of the House also supported Act 46 and seemingly didn't believe that that ceding of our authority was problematic.

I absolutely stand by my decision back then to oppose Act 46, even though I was in the minority voting against it. And, I know a number of legislators past and present who supported the bill wish they had made a different decision back then.

To get back to the GWSA, I tried throughout the time we worked on the bill to find a way for people to support the idea of the Climate Plan and any public policy changes to implement the Plan come back to the legislature for approval, but I was unsuccessful before it passed the House.

That said, I am committed to continuing this effort because I truly think we can all come together on the importance of addressing climate change.

At the start of this legislative session, the unlikely duo of Governor Phil Scott and the Vermont Natural Resource Council unveiled a joint proposal to reform Act 250. And, while everybody had something to dislike in the proposal, the fact there was a compromise at all, albeit a very fragile one, was important given the longstanding battle lines drawn each time an Act 250 reform discussion begins.

For this reason, and the supposed commitment to reform that would make the process more predictable, more consistent, and ultimately more navigable for our families, small businesses, and entrepreneurs, I was incredibly hopeful.

Make no mistake, we need real Act 250 reform.

We need to listen and understand the concerns of so many who have experienced the process; who are committed to environmental stewardship, but who simply need the process to be more fair, more consistent, and more predictable,

unfortunately, the bill that passed the House the week prior to Town Meeting Day break does none of that. In fact, it makes the process more complicated, less predictable, and ultimately much more difficult for Vermonters.

Indeed, H. 926 does a few important things.

It eliminates Act 250 jurisdiction for projects in Downtowns, Neighborhood Development Areas, and possible Village Centers.

It makes important changes that help our state's forest products industry.

And, an amendment that passed on the floor of the House to make it easier for the development of trails is certainly positive.

I'm also pleased to report that all three of the above items are either in other pieces of legislation already, or are expected to be.

Overall, there are two significant concerns with H. 926 as it passed the House.

Even more, under the "Environmental Justice" criteria, it makes clear that a permit will not be granted if any municipality or "group of people" (the definition of which we don't know either) is disproportionately impacted by a project.

This makes little sense to me. Inevitably a municipality in which a project is proposed is going to be disproportionately impacted by the project compared to the municipality next door.

And, my ultimate fear is that a project will be objected to on this ground if the project is simply something that an adjourning neighborhood doesn't want. That neighborhood can simply claim that their neighborhood will be disproportionately impacted by the project. And, inevitably, they will be correct, in that, compared to another section of town or another municipality altogether, that neighborhood would be disproportionately impacted by the project being proposed.

Again, Vermonters have pleaded with us to reform the Act 250 process; to make it more predictable and more consistent, to make it more navigable so that our neighbors can invest in Vermont, and invest in our communities in an environmentally responsible way.

In passing this bill, were representatives able to return home for Town Meeting Day and tell our constituents that we have improved the Act 250 process?

I don't believe so.

We can do better than this, and I'm hopeful we do so by the time we adjourn.