On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee took up H.492, which sets the property tax yield amounts that determine local property tax rates. Representative Kornheiser and Representative Beck from House Ways & Means joined the Committee to explain the bill.

The Committee began marking up S.5 on Wednesday. Chairwoman Sheldon asked if cooking was included in the definition of thermal sector and therefore covered under the bill. Legislative Counsel confirmed that it was included and transitioning from gas to thermal induction stoves in restaurants qualifies for credits.

Key Points:

• It came to light that S.5 was not intended to help low-income Vermonters replace aging heating sources.
• Federal dollars are being used to "prime the market" for CHS.
• Language around "ownership" of the clean heat credits clarified.
• Limits placed on technologies that can be used to generate credits.

The Committee reconvened on Thursday to review Draft 3.1, which included their edits from the day before. This was the final day of debate before voting the bill out. Smith led off by asking if each gallon of fuel sold in the state was going to be monitored and wondered if it would be illegal for someone to go out of state to buy their fuel. Legislative Counsel clarified that it would not be illegal.

Key Points:

• New LIHEAP provision added to provide financial incentive for fuel dealers to continue participating in the program.
• Language added to study the "public health benefits" of the CHS.
• Penalties reduced to 2x of the credit amount.
• Additional flexibility added for PUC to pause implementation of the CHS.
• Committee voted 8-3 in favor of the bill.

On Wednesday, Chairman Campion asked Legislative Counsel to share, with the Senate Education Committee, background on Act 49 and Act 173 and how they relate to independent schools. Act 49 was passed in 2017 and created a task force on independent schools. The task force was split and could not find a consensus; instead of offering a comprehensive report, each member issued their own recommendations around enrollment policy, if schools should be required to deliver special education and which categories should be required, and special education required reporting. The legislation also paused rulemaking until the legislature could act on these issues.

Key Points:

• Committee is clearly concerned about unintentionally prohibiting parents from visiting schools prior to enrollment.
• Director of the Compass School shared how the bill would hinder the work they are doing to provide equity to students.
• The blind admissions process and tuition parity raised as significant issues.
• Claim that small schools are more expensive by nature disputed.

On Thursday, Sue Ceglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association) who noted that she was testifying on behalf of the Education Equity Alliance, which consists of Vermont School Boards Association, Vermont NEA, Vermont Superintendents Association, and Vermont Principles Association. She claimed “Vermont is at a crossroads” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s new rules for states’ funding private schools. This puts Vermont in a difficult position as it seeks to comply with the Court's ruling, she noted, while “still upholding its own constitutional protections, democratic values and traditions.”

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee took up water quality on Wednesday, hearing from Eric Blatt (Director of Engineering, Water Investment Division). Chairwoman Emmons noted that Appropriations usually includes 1:5 matching funds for the revolving loan fund as well as a state match for clean water and drinking water grants.

Housing Opportunities for Everyone (S.100) - Wednesday

Susan Minter (Executive Director, Capstone Community Action) shared with the House General & Housing Committee on Thursday a report by the Community Action Team reiterating that housing was needed. Minter gave a very similar presentation to the one given in the Senate regarding S.100. The same risks were identified as in the Senate the same powerful stories that demonstrated the need for more housing. 

She reiterated, again, that there was no focus on Act 250 or business issues addressed in the bill. Even so, Minter supported the bill as it was.