Week 16: April 18th to April 21st

In Addition . , . 

The only other mildly controversial piece of legislation to come to the floor was S.37 relating to "access to legally protected health care activity and regulation of health care providers."  The portion of that last sentence in quotes is a long way of saying "abortion services and assisting people in obtaining a abortion is not illegal in Vermont." For good measure an amendment was added to assure that the FDA-approved drug for medication induced abortions remains available in the State. S.37 passed the House on a 114 to 24 vote. 

Around the corner

The 2023 session is about three weeks away from a self imposed target end date of May 12th. There are big issues yet to be resolved: Early Care and Education (ECE), Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance (PFMLI), Universal Pre-Kindergarten, Universal School Meals and, of course, the Budget.

Early Care And Education (ECE)

The trouble with kicking the can down the road is that eventually you get down the road and have to decide whether to kick again . . . or not. Act 46 passed in 2021 did some can kicking. That act required two reports: 

• By July 1st of last year Building Bright Futures (a State/Private partnership) must contract with a consulting firm and issue a report to provide analysis and recommendations on Vermont’s child care and early education systems for children from birth through five years of age. Foresight Law & Policy produced the report.

• By January first of this year the Joint Fiscal Office was to contract with a consulting firm and issue a report that evaluates "economic impacts of and potential funding mechanisms to adjust Vermont’s regulated child care system for children 0–5 years of age with consideration given to the intersection of and impacts on child care for children from six through twelve years of age." The RAND corporation produced the report.

With both reports and considerable research in hand, decisions must be made, so last week the House Ways & Means committee (of which I am a member) concentrated on early education funding in Vermont. In particular the early years: zero to kindergarten. S.56, the Senate's Early Care & Education bill has left the House Committee on Human Services with a vote of 10, 1, 0 (for, against, absent) and is now in House Education. It should be coming out of that committee next week and may come to House Ways & Means. That's where the funding gets figured out. 

There are currently a rather bewildering number of funding sources, programs, and proposals regarding early education. There are federal and state funds funneled to grants, loans, and subsidies. Some are "means tested." That means one's ability to pay determines the cost to the individual. A person with less means is not charged as much for a slot in an Early Education Center as a person with considerable means. 

The cost of a program like ECE (we no longer call it Childcare) depends on what subsidies are offered and when, who qualifies, and how much is covered. Legislators come up with proposals and inevitably face the questions: "How much will it cost?," and  "Who is going to pay for it?" The Joint Fiscal Office does its best to game out the costs and impact to the State's finances. 

What does it cost now?

The Joint Fiscal Office presentation on Early Care and Education Programs in Vermont identifies the following contributors to Early Education:

• $55.75 million from the State General Fund for the Child Care Financial Assistance Program (CCFAP) for income-based subsidies.

• $7 million from the Federal Government through Child Care & Development Block Grants.

• $62 million from the State Education Fund (paid for through property taxes) for Universal PreK (10 hours per week at approved programs).

• State grants for Essential Early Education for PreK special education.

• Other Federal funds: Head Start, Early Head Start and school meal assistance are added to the mix.

The Goals

The RAND report proposes "High Quality" Early Care and Education. What does that mean? For those familiar with Vermont's child care system it means all child care centers and family child care homes are consistent with a 5-Star rating on the state's quality recognition and improvement system. Here's a link to the details. The RAND report also assumes those working in ECE centers and in family child care homes (FCCH) receive the salary, benefits, training, and professional development equivalent to public education positions in early education.

What will it cost?

The RAND report estimates the TOTAL cost of a statewide high quality Early Care and Education system to be $645 million a year in 2022 dollars. But . . . "These costs would be paid for by a combination of family contributions and public funding at the federal, state, and local levels." So that's EVERYbody including parents who pay the full cost at a private child care center. This amounts to about $30,000 per child per year in 2023 dollars. As a comparison k-12 public education is paid for out of the Education Fund. That's about $2 billion for around 80,000 students or $25,000 each per year. That does not mean that implementing S.56 will double your property taxes. 

How will it be paid for?

How S.56 is funded has yet to be determined. The Senate's suggested method was with a payroll tax of 0.42%, but that has been taken out in the House version. The Senate also wanted to help the financing by repealing the Vermont Child Tax Credit which refunds $1,000 per child (age 5 or younger) to Vermonters. Repealing that assistance could save the State $31.8 million which can instead be spent on ECE. That too has been removed from S.56. There are a number of schemes being discussed regarding the financing of ECE. Most likely there will be a gradual development toward full implementation over at least five years. More about this in future weeks.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to Early Care and Education are significant and costly. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, but it does mean they have to be done carefully. S.56 recognizes the importance of those first five years of a child's life and proposes to professionalize the business of child care and early education. That's something many are reluctant to put in place.

Listening to the Debate

The debate last Thursday went from 1:23 in the afternoon for close to four hours. If you watch the video, you may be able to speed it up so as to shorten that time. The bill is introduced by Rep. Laura Sibilia at 17 minutes and 2 seconds into the recording. She gives a good introduction but is not quite accurate in describing the commitment made by the legislation. Rep. Anne Donahue countered that explanation about 1 hour and 37 minutes into the video. There were several proposed amendments that all failed, but each roll-call vote takes about a half hour. The final vote is 3 hours and 53 minutes into the tape. At that point we recessed for forty-five minutes for dinner. A different bill took us to the 8:00 PM end of the day's session.

The case for "No"

I heard two major arguments against the proposals: cost and uncertainty. They are connected. Apparently, early in the game, Julie Moore, the Vermont Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources estimated that S.5 would result in a $0.70 increase in the cost of a gallon of heating fuel. Those feeling the pinch of recent increases in the cost of fuel strongly objected to yet another increase. To switch from carbon-based fuel to heat pumps or other electricity based heating is also expensive, particularly for low and middle income Vermonters.

The bill also leaves nearly all the details of implementation to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Legislators objected to voting "yes" when the specifics are not known and will be determined by unelected officials. 

Expense of Switching

Those with the means to do so are already switching from carbon based fuels to electricity. S.5 will work to help low and moderate income Vermonters do the same.

The basic concept behind the Clean Heat Standard is that low and middle income Vermonters will receive incentives to make their homes more efficient in retaining and/or producing heat. Those companies that sell carbon based fuel (Obligated Parties) will be required to retire a certain number of Credits each year in order to meet the goals of Vermont's Climate Solutions Act and the Paris Accords. They retire those credits by providing Clean Heat Measures to customers, contracting with others to provide those measures, or by paying the cost of a Credit. Some of the costs will, no doubt, be passed on to the customers but . . . the customer will be burning less fuel, or will switch to electricity,  

The unknown costs

Yes, we do not have the data necessary to predict the various costs involved with much accuracy. But there will be two years of setup time and research during which those costs can be developed. We cannot know the true costs until the program's Technical Advisory Group established by the bill has time to do the research and development necessary. In addition, the Clean Heat Standard Equity Advisory Group will be developing the means to deliver the program's benefits to low and moderate income Vermonters in a fair and equitable way.

Listening to my constituents

It is always good to hear from the people of Colchester. When I receive notes or emails about an issue I first check to see who wrote the message and whether they are a constituent. I pay particular attention to those from Colchester. I received many more messages asking me to vote "no" than I did from those asking me to vote "yes." But this is a complicated and important issue that most people do not have the time or inclination to research all that is involved. That's my job. There has also been a good deal of misinformation and misunderstandings surrounding the bill. Short messages telling me only to vote "no" with no explanation make it hard for me to know if the person sending the message has really thought about the issue. I vote for what I think is best for the State of Vermont. For controversial issues I do the research people in Colchester with fulltime jobs, families, and other interests cannot do. 

Conclusion

The Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) produced a Fiscal Note on the cost of S.5 to the state. For FY2024 that cost is about $1.7 million to get it started. Much of that is for the five additional people needed to plan the program. The JFO states that there is a possible $6.4 billion in benefit by 2050. That may be a little deceptive as those benefits require more than just the Clean Heat Standard as mitigation.  

I voted "yes" to S.5 because it is a careful, but significant step forward in getting low and middle income Vermonters off price-volatile carbon based heating fuels that degrade our environment. I will watch the developments outlined in the bill and in two years the Legislature will have another chance to evaluate the progress, better know the costs, and make any adjustment necessary for the program to succeed. If the cost is too great the Legislature can repeal it all.

Coming Up
Time on the floor will only increase as more controversial bills come up for debate and votes. The end-of-session pressure is growing.