Editor’s note: This article was updated at 4:11 p.m. Tuesday, May 2.

A member of the Office of Legislative Counsel on Thursday told the Vermont Senate Resources and Energy Committee that S.5 doesn’t “bind a future legislature” and allows “flexibility” in how future lawmakers choose to act on the policy.

S.5, which passed in the General Assembly, aims to reduce CO2 emissions in the thermal sector by imposing costs on fossil fuel dealers and using the money to subsidize the electrification and weatherization of homes and buildings across Vermont.

The committee voted unanimously to approve the bill’s recent changes made by House lawmakers, and the full Senate voted 20-10 on Thursday to pass S.5, sending it along to Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. Scott is expected to veto the legislation as he announced on Friday.

Among the governor’s chief concerns is a future “check back” provision in the bill that has confused lawmakers as to what will be required by a future legislature to enact the specifics of S.5.

“When I resisted the Legislature’s original approach to the bill, they inserted a ‘check back’ provision, saying it satisfied my concerns. It does not. Some claimed the bill is essentially a study. It is not,” Gov. Phil Scott said in a statement Friday.

“As recently as Thursday’s debate on the Senate floor,” Scott continued, “senators from both parties have called the check back in the bill contradictory and confusing. Even Democratic senators who voted for the bill acknowledged the check back is a ‘leap of faith,’ meaning a future Legislature could interpret the language much differently and only pass legislation that rubber stamps the rules and insulates themselves from the tough policy conversations, including details and costs. I believe it is irresponsible to move forward on a policy with such enormous consequences based on a ‘leap of faith.’”

Last Thursday, legislative lawyer Ellen Czajkowski said the bill, as written, doesn’t force future legislators to take up any specific measures. And if actions are taken, those must go through the traditional legislative process.

“The steps are there in a way that doesn’t bind a future legislature and require them to act in any way, it also allows the legislature flexibility in how they choose to act,” Czajkowski said. “So it does require an up or down vote on the rules, but it prohibits the legislation from moving forward without the future legislature [on board with] this.”

Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, chair of the committee, pressed Czajkowski for more clarity.

“So a future legislature will have to decide how to respond, if at all, but without the act [of legislation] the rule can only be developed and plan presented, but it cannot be implemented?”

Czajkowski answered in the affirmative, saying, “the rules that require the obligated parties to do something … cannot be implemented [without legislation].”

Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, pointed out that in prior years, the Legislature had passed resolutions on matters ranging from shutting down Vermont Yankee to improving sewer systems.

Czajkowski said such action didn’t necessarily work out well.

“The language I think dealing with Vermont Yankee was found to be problematic because that would be known as what is called a legislative veto,” she said, and reiterated that future legislation “needs to be enacted.”

Can Vermont be sued if it misses carbon reduction targets?

The passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020 still contains a provision allowing  lawsuits against Vermont if the state fails to meet its carbon-reduction mandates.

Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, introduced legislation to repeal the Global Warming Solutions Act, but the bill was not taken up by House colleagues.

Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at bielawski82@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.