The bill would replace the state’s renewable energy requirements with a clean electricity standard that includes nuclear power. Advocates worry the change would shift money from solar and wind to nuclear projects. The bill would also reapportion efficiency funds — which now pay for a range of services including home energy assessments, commercial lighting support, and financing programs – to support weatherization, a narrower focus which advocates say would not have as much impact on greenhouse gas reductions as the broader array of options.

The bill would remove the Climate Council’s authority to direct policy, making its role merely advisory. The legislation would then create a separate body tasked with developing its own ​“companion implementation strategy” to be delivered in December 2026, after the next legislative and gubernatorial elections.

“This brilliant idea is ​‘Let’s roll back the things we have done, wait for an additional 18 months, then trust me, we’ll make some real progress at that point,’” Edgerly Walsh said.

At the same time, Democrats — aware of Scott’s resistance to any clean energy action that comes with a price tag — have proposed just one major energy bill.

“In terms of larger, more comprehensive actions, the path this biennium is extraordinarily difficult given Gov. Scott’s consistent opposition to anything of that kind,” Edgerly Walsh said.

Democrats’ proposal would expand the mission of the state’s energy-efficiency utility, Efficiency Vermont, to include a broader range of emission-reducing and cost-saving solutions, including fuel switching and electric vehicle adoption. The program currently has a very narrow mandate to reduce the consumption of electricity. Bill S.65 would direct the organization to prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions and authorize it to undertake programs beyond its traditional scope.

Johanna Miller, energy and climate program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, is hopeful, however, that Scott would not veto the measure, as it leverages existing money rather than adding cost.

“The governor has made it clear that his veto pen comes out when there’s any cost implications,” she said.

The dynamics in the state have been building to this moment for some time. In addition to the cost-of-living concerns that are widespread nationally, Vermont last year dealt with a surge in property taxes to fund its schools.

Outside voices have started to creep into the state as well: In 2024, Americans for Prosperity, the conservative political action group founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, launched a campaign against the state’s Clean Heat Standard, a proposed measure that aimed to reduce emissions from heating sources. The organization’s mailers used distorted descriptions of the proposed plan to rally opposition. In the end, legislative leaders decided not to proceed with a vote to approve the standard.

These circumstances have left Democrats and environmental advocates girding for two years of staving off attacks on clean energy and energy-efficiency programs while struggling to make much progress.

“I ultimately think we’re going to be able to hold the line,” Edgerly Walsh said. ​“But it’s going to be a lot of hard work between now and the end of the session.”