Updates from Laura Sibilia

Governor Scott’s Vetoes

In my last newsletter, I noted I was taking some time before writing about the Governor’s vetoes. I wanted to review not only the bills themselves, but the veto messages. I’m generally disappointed that these bills were vetoed, and know first hand that the governor’s stated veto concerns were not well communicated and therefore not well considered. That means the vetoes were more politically divisive then necessary, and possibly completely avoidable.
Every day in every way, people with different opinions, but holding mutual respect for one another, work through differences about what to have for dinner, what color to paint the house, how much work and how much play we will do on the weekend. Governing provides us with the same opportunities to work through differences – as long as we show up, communicate and show each other respect. Elected officials owe it to their constituents and to the elected officials representing other Vermonters to try as hard as possible for resolution. That definitely did not happen on H.727 and H.710.
The vetoed bills are

H.727, the Sustainable Data Centers Act – a bill I was the lead sponsor on
H.710, relating to electric generation
S.190, relating to health care affordability

img_1841-1-edited image
H.727 – Sustainable Data Centers Act

What the bill was trying to do
H.727 was Vermont’s first comprehensive framework for evaluating and permitting large data centers. Rather than encouraging or discouraging data center development outright, the bill established a predictable regulatory process intended to answer an important question before projects moved forward: under what conditions, if any, should Vermont host large-scale data centers?

I was the sponsor of H.727 because I did not and do not believe Vermont should wait until a developer is at the door to decide how we want to regulate large data centers. Although Vermont is not the most attractive location because of New England’s electricity costs, we do have sites with existing infrastructure that could attract interest. I believed it was important to establish clear rules ahead of time so that Vermont’s environmental protections, ratepayer protections, and permitting processes would work as intended and provide certainty for everyone involved.

Among other provisions, the legislation:

Established criteria for qualifying “sustainable data centers.”
Required review of electric rate impacts.
Addressed impacts on water resources.
Included reporting and planning requirements.
Added provisions regarding land use review.
Was amended by the Senate to include additional ratepayer protections and Public Utility Commission oversight before projects could proceed.

Why Governor Scott vetoed it
Governor Scott concluded that H.727 created a new regulatory system that was unnecessary because Vermont already has authority to review and regulate large development projects. In his veto message, he pointed to Act 250, Public Utility Commission oversight, environmental permitting, energy siting rules, and municipal zoning as existing tools to address potential impacts from data centers. He also argued that creating an additional regulatory framework would send the wrong message to businesses considering investment in Vermont and could make the state less competitive for economic development. He suggested going back to the version of the bill the House originally passed.

My perspective
The governor’s suggestion that the legislature consider going back to the House version of the bill is particularly frustrating. When the Senate passed the bill back to the House, there was opportunity to consider the Senate’s actions and whether or not we agreed and to hear more from the governor. This is an emerging area of policy and state governments across the country are trying to get it right. Instead we were told by the governor’s administration that they would not come and testify in the the House and we could look at their one page fairly curt testimony provided in the senate. That’s not good governing, it is not negotiating in good faith, and it is way more cynical then I want to believe when considering the chances for compromise. Especially frustrating because we worked so closely with the governor’s team on the draft that the House passed.

Should the voters send me back to Montpelier in the next biennium I will reintroduce a bill to regulate the siting of data centers.

H.710: A Veto About Wind? Sometimes a debate becomes focused on something that isn’t really at the heart of the legislation.

H.710 – Electric Generation
What the bill did

H.710 began with a recommendation from the Public Utility Commission to update a confusing definition in Vermont law that determines how renewable energy projects are reviewed. The Commission spent months working with stakeholders to develop a clearer definition that would reduce regulatory uncertainty, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and make the permitting process more predictable while preserving Vermont’s environmental review and public participation requirements. The bill also strengthened requirements for decommissioning energy facilities and directed a study on encouraging solar development on already disturbed land, such as rooftops and parking lots.

Why Governor Scott vetoed it
Governor Scott’s veto did not focus on the technical improvements requested by the Public Utility Commission. Instead, he expressed concern that the bill could encourage the expansion of existing industrial wind projects with fewer opportunities for local scrutiny.

I respectfully disagree.

The bill did not eliminate Public Utility Commission review or public participation for amendments to existing projects. In fact, the Commission’s report specifically explains that additions to existing facilities require a new petition and are reviewed through the same process used for new applications.

I have never shared Governor Scott’s opposition to ridgeline wind, but I respect that it has been a consistent part of his energy policy. Vermont’s permitting standards have made approval of new utility-scale wind projects extremely difficult if not impossible in Vermont. That is why I was surprised the veto centered on wind. H.710 was a technical Public Utility Commission bill about improving the administration of Vermont’s energy laws, not changing the state’s policy on wind development.

This bill was intended to make Vermont’s permitting laws clearer, more predictable, and easier to administer for all renewable energy technologies while preserving environmental protections and public review. That is why I supported it.

S.190 – Health Care Affordability
What the bill was trying to do
S.190 was intended to address rising health care costs through several related reforms centered on the Green Mountain Care Board and hospital pricing. The bill included provisions related to:

reference-based pricing;
oversight responsibilities of the Green Mountain Care Board;
hospital financial oversight;
and other tools intended to improve affordability and accountability within Vermont’s health care system.
The legislation reflected several years of discussion about how Vermont can slow health care cost growth while maintaining access to care.

Why Governor Scott vetoed it
Governor Scott stated that while he shared the goal of making health care more affordable, he believed the bill relied too heavily on additional regulation and did not provide the flexibility needed to implement meaningful reform. His veto message also raised concerns about governance, implementation, and the potential unintended consequences for Vermont’s hospitals and health care system.

What Happened Next

Less than a month after vetoing S.190, Governor Scott issued Executive Order 05-26, launching what he called a Healthcare Affordability Initiative.

The Executive Order and S.190 share an important goal: making health care more affordable for Vermonters. Both recognize that the current system is becoming increasingly difficult for families, employers, providers, and taxpayers to sustain. Both also identify reference-based pricing as one tool that could help slow the growth in health care costs.

The differences are in how those reforms would be implemented.

S.190 established a statutory framework adopted by the Legislature. It directed the Green Mountain Care Board to begin implementing reference-based pricing through a phased approach, with the initial savings focused on some of Vermont’s largest purchasers of health insurance, including public employees and individuals purchasing coverage through Vermont Health Connect. The Legislature’s approach reflected both the complexity of the transition and the desire to demonstrate measurable savings before expanding the program more broadly.

Governor Scott objected to that phased implementation, arguing that affordability reforms should benefit the broader commercial insurance market rather than selected groups first. Instead of signing the bill, he directed his Administration to pursue affordability using existing executive authority while developing additional proposals for the 2027 legislative session. His Executive Order also includes work on broader market reforms, such as expanding additional health insurance options for employers, alongside continued work on reference-based pricing.

As implementation of the Executive Order moves forward and the Legislature returns next year, I expect reference-based pricing and broader health care affordability reforms will continue to be central to the conversation.

New Laws Taking Effect
Since July 1 marked the beginning of Vermont’s new fiscal year, additional laws have taken effect.

Miscellaneous Motor Vehicle Changes (Act 153 / S.326)
One of the bills that took effect on July 1 doesn’t make headlines, but it includes dozens of updates to Vermont’s motor vehicle laws. Many are technical changes requested by the Department of Motor Vehicles, while others respond to issues raised by law enforcement, municipalities, and Vermonters over the past several years.

Here are a few changes you may notice:

Vehicle inspections. The Legislature directed the Department of Motor Vehicles to revise the state’s inspection manual so inspections focus on conditions that present an immediate safety risk, eliminate outdated procedures where appropriate, and provide clearer guidance for both inspection mechanics and vehicle owners. Those changes will be made through rulemaking over the coming months.
Kei vehicles. Vermont law now formally recognizes and allows registration of kei vehicles and kei trucks, the small utility vehicles commonly imported from Japan. Once properly registered, they may generally be operated in the same manner as comparable passenger cars or farm trucks.
Smugglers’ Notch. Civil penalties for oversized commercial vehicles that ignore the seasonal prohibition on traveling through Smugglers’ Notch have increased significantly. The goal is to reduce the costly traffic disruptions and emergency responses that occur when trucks become stuck in the Notch.
Motorcycle noise. The law establishes new standards prohibiting modified motorcycle exhaust systems that bypass or remove noise-reducing equipment. Motorcycles with prohibited exhaust systems will no longer pass Vermont’s annual safety inspection.
Cold-weather boating safety. Beginning this fall, anyone on the open deck of a boat while underway between November 1 and May 1 must wear a U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket, with limited exceptions. The Department of Public Safety will also conduct a statewide education campaign before the new requirement takes effect.

As with many “miscellaneous” bills, Act 153 contains dozens of additional technical changes that help modernize state law and improve the day-to-day administration of Vermont’s transportation system. While most won’t affect your daily routine, together they help keep our laws current and address practical issues identified by Vermonters, municipalities, and state agencies.

Hospital Service Elimination Process (Act 146 / S.189)
Act 146 establishes a new process that hospitals must follow before eliminating certain essential health care services, including emergency departments, obstetrics, inpatient psychiatric care, dialysis, substance use treatment, inpatient pediatric services, and primary care practices.

Under the new law, hospitals must first provide advance notice to the Agency of Human Services, the Green Mountain Care Board, and the Office of the Health Care Advocate. That notice must explain why the service is being considered for elimination, the financial impact of maintaining or closing it, and the alternatives that were evaluated.

State agencies may then work with the hospital to explore options that could preserve the service.

If a hospital decides to move forward, it must provide at least 60 days’ public notice, notify local legislators, post the proposal publicly, and hold one or more public hearings to gather community input before the service can be eliminated.

The law does not prevent a hospital from closing a service. Instead, it is intended to ensure that decisions affecting access to essential health care are made transparently, with meaningful public engagement, and with an opportunity for state agencies, local communities, and hospital leadership to explore alternatives before a final decision is made. If a service is ultimately eliminated, the Green Mountain Care Board may also adjust the hospital’s budget to reflect those changes, including directing that savings be reflected in insurance premiums or reinvested in community-based health care services.

As always, I’ll continue highlighting new laws throughout the summer so Vermonters understand not only what changed, but why those changes were made.

Finch Paper
Vermont is also facing a serious new threat to our forest economy. Finch Paper in Glens Falls has announced it will stop producing its own pulp and will no longer purchase the large volumes of low-grade wood it has historically bought from loggers across Vermont and the Northeast. Finch is one of only two pulp markets in eastern New York serving contractors from multiple states, and it purchases much of its wood from New York and Vermont.

This is a major blow to loggers, truckers, landowners, sawmills and the broader forest products industry. Low-grade wood is not waste. Markets for pulpwood make it financially possible to thin forests, remove lower-quality trees and improve the long-term health and value of a forest stand. Without those markets, responsible forest management becomes harder to afford, while already-struggling logging businesses lose another source of revenue. Regional logging contractors report that wood markets have already declined by about 40 percent over the past five years.

This is exactly the kind of rural economic challenge Vermont must take seriously. The loss of a single regional buyer can ripple through an entire network of small businesses and working lands. I have been in touch with leaders of this industry and their representatives. We need to work with the industry, neighboring states and federal partners on both immediate assistance and new markets for low-grade wood.

Endorsements
There are two important elections happening in the Primary Election on April 11. Multiple qualified candidates are running on the democratic ballot for governor and for lt. governor.

I don’t always make endorsements, and I never make them based solely on party affiliation or ideology. Like the decisions I make in Montpelier, I try to evaluate each candidate individually, considering their judgment, integrity, willingness to listen, and ability to govern.

This year I have endorsed:

Aly Richards for Governor. After years of supporting Governor Scott, this year I am endorsing Aly because Vermont is at an inflection point. We cannot continue to just manage our way through challenges that require real change. Aly brings the experience, the work ethic, and the practical ideas to help Vermont build a stronger future. Read my full endorsement here
Ryan McClaren for Lieutenant Governor. I am endorsing Ryan because he leads with humility, listens before he speaks, and puts relationships ahead of ambition. Vermont needs more public servants who are motivated by service rather than the next political opportunity. Read my endorsement here

I hope you’ll learn about these candidates and their opponents, and I hope you will vote in the party primaries on August 11th. Like me, you do not have to be a member of any party to vote, and you can take the Republican, Democratic of Progressive ballot. Remember, you will not see my name on the primary ballots because I am an independent. If you like you can write my name in, but it is not necessary.

hdp_2021_richards-46-scaled-e1775081750181-1 image
Aly Richards Candidate for Governor

d19e75_b67903134ee24aa0ab15946730c2d071mv2-edited-1 image
Ryan McClaren candidate for lt. governor date for lt. governor

Office Hours

One of my favorite parts of serving as your representative is hearing directly from constituents. Whether you have a question about legislation, a concern about state government, an idea worth exploring, or simply want to stop by and visit, I hope you’ll join me.

Upcoming office hours through September:

Saturday, August 1, 11:00 a.m. –Find me at the Dover Blueberry Festival Parade
Wednesday, August 12, 6:00 p.m. – Visiting at the Community Gathering on Route 30 or in the event of rain, at the Jamaica Town Office (second Wednesday)
Friday, August 15th 4-6 PM – Meet and Greet with Ryan McClaren for Lieutenant Governor – I’m proud to be supporting Ryan and invite you to come and meet him at River & Rye in Jamaica
Thursday, August 20, 6:00 p.m. – Wardsboro Public Library(Third Thursday of each month.)
Saturday, September 5, 11:00 a.m. – Dover Free Library (First Saturday of each month.)
Wednesday, September 9, 6:00 p.m. – Visiting at the Community Gathering on Route 30 or in the event of rain, at the Jamaica Town Office (second Wednesday)
Thursday, September 17, 6:00 p.m. – Wardsboro Public Library(Third Thursday of each month.)

As always, please reach out if you need help navigating state services or want to share what you’re seeing locally. I read and value your notes, even if I can’t always respond immediately. I do not have staff and I work year-round, so if you do not hear back in a day or two, please follow up or send a text. If you find my work useful and are able to support it, you can do that here.

Thank you for staying engaged and staying in touch!

Rep. Laura Sibilia

Windham-2 District (Dover, Jamaica, Somerset, Stratton, Wardsboro)

Email: lsibilia [at] leg.state.vt.us (lsibilia[at]leg[dot]state[dot]vt[dot]us)

Phone: (802) 384-0233

Sibilia Announces Campaign for Reelection to Represent Windham-2