Scott was re-elected to a fourth term with 71 percent of the vote, and a recent poll showed him to be the most popular governor in the United States with an approval rating of 78 percent.

By Rob Roper

When Gov. Phil Scott vetoed S.5, the clean heat standard bill, he needed to convince at least one senator to change his or her position or four or five more representatives. In the end, no senators switched, and four representatives did — only to oppose Scott, not support him.

The final override vote in the Senate was 20-10, and 107-42 in the House. The initial vote to pass S.5 in the House was 98-46 with six not voting. Of the six Democrats who originally voted no on passage of S.5, John Andriano (D-Orwell), John O’Brien (D-Tunbridge), and Dennis LaBounty (D-Lyndon) stuck to their original position and voted to sustain the veto.

Kristi Morris (D-Springfield), David Templeman (D-Brownington), and Progressive Taylor Small (P-Winooski) flip-flopped and voted to override.

Nelson Brownell (D-Pownel) originally voted against the bill but was absent from the override vote due to heath reasons.

Scott was re-elected to a fourth term with 71 percent of the vote, and a recent poll showed him to be the most popular governor in the United States with an approval rating of 78 percent. The governor put out a statement and an accompanying video on social media urging legislators to sustain his veto and for citizens to call and email their representatives urging them to do the same. While the former request fell on deaf ears, the latter seems to have reaped at least some results.

Several legislators cited receiving more phone calls and emails on this bill than any they had ever experienced before — overwhelmingly opposed to the bill and in support of the veto.

Rep. Adriano made a passionate speech on the floor urging respect for constituents wishes in a representative democracy:

[This debate] has also forced me to think about the question of what it means to be a representative in a representative democracy. I had a very interesting email exchange with a constituent over the past week who was urging me to vote in favor of overriding the veto. … He said, it’s not your job to listen to what people are saying. It’s your job to study the bill, decide what’s best for people, and then tell them what you’re doing. That struck me so much because that is so different from how I view what my job is here.

I’ve noticed that ninety-five, maybe ninety-nine percent of the time I don’t hear a peep out of my constituents about what we’re doing. But since I last spoke on this floor about S.5, the number of people I’ve heard from [on this bill] has increased so much, and nearly every single one of them has told me either that they are proud of me for voting against it in the first place, or encouraging me to keep my vote the same during the veto override. And that, in my view, is what representative democracy means. … We elect people to do what we want to see done in this state. And when I hear from over one hundred and fifty people and over ninety percent of them are telling me that we do not agree, we have looked at this, we have read about this. … Who am I to stand in the way of over ninety percent of my constituents and their wishes for what they want the laws of the state of Vermont to look like?

Obviously, this is not a sentiment shared by the overwhelming majority of his party.

Rep. Gina Galfetti’s comments provided a comprehensive overview of Republican’s objections to S.5.

The Governor vetoed this bill for good reason. This bill is not a study. It will begin the implementation of policy that will set the stage for a carbon tax. Once the bill is enacted and the wheels are set in motion, it will be impossible to turn back. The bill favors those in Chittenden County who rely on natural gas lines, and penalizes those in rural communities who must use propane. It will set the stage for yet another regressive tax that will hurt low income Vermonters folks that need it the most. The savings predicted in the Cadmus pathways report are non-existent as the model is wrong and does not even take into account that heat pumps have a lifespan of ten to twelve years in their thirty year savings model. We lack the workforce to install the pumps, and we will open up the state of Vermont to costly lawsuits when we inevitably fail to mee the timeline. We do not have a grid that can handle the demand for electricity that all of these technologies demand, and we are still gleaning much of that power from fossil fuels. Our increased demand for electricity will increase our demand for fossil fuels. We will push the state of Vermont to burn wood to heat their homes and buildings, increasing our carbon output not reducing it. It will accelerate climate change, damage our air quality and create health risks. And finally, most importantly, we will break the backs of Vermonters chasing an unrealistic goal.

Rep. Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney), the minority leader in the House, also recounted she had never received more constituent feedback on any bill than this one, and that Vermonters deserve to be listened to before reminding the body that, “We are already spending $200 million in this budget to address climate change.”

Now that the clean heat standard “is established” in law, the next steps will be for the Public Utilities Commission to start writing the rules that will govern the program, building and staffing the bureaucracy that will run the “carbon credit” exchange, registering all Vermont fuel dealers to pay carbon credits, and contracting with an entity that will serve as the “Default Delivery Agent” for retiring those credits.

Estimates for the impact of what the clean heat standard will cost Vermonters who heat with oil, propane, natural gas, and kerosene are between an additional $0.70 and $4.00 per gallon.

Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. © Copyright True North Reports 2023. All rights reserved.