Extensive damage to Red Village Road in Lyndon, seen on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. Photo by Jeb Wallace-Brodeur/VTDiggerLast year, the Vermont Legislature made history by passing the nation’s first “climate superfund” law. This year is about figuring out all of the follow up questions that come with setting precedent. One piece of that is how much money and time state agencies will actually need to carry out the research the law tasks them with.Act 122 takes the polluters-pay framework from the federal hazardous waste Superfund and applies it to the costs of climate damages, like flood recovery or harm from extreme heat. Essentially, the law rests on the idea that Vermonters should not be the ones left with the bill for messes caused by climate change. Instead, the multinational oil companies responsible for extracting the fossil fuels driving climate change should be.But figuring out what those companies are liable for and how much climate damages actually cost is no small order. It relies on the rather-nascent field of climate attribution science, which essentially uses modeling to figure out how likely a weather event would be if greenhouse gas emissions were at pre-industrial levels. Scientists have gotten really good at doing this for heatwaves, but when it comes to flooding, especially in the unique mountain-valley topography of Vermont, a lot of the research simply doesn’t exist yet, Deputy Treasurer Gavin Boyles told the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure Friday afternoon.That’s why the Office of the State Treasurer and the Agency of Natural Resources are asking the Legislature for an extra year to do these assessments and for an additional $825,000 and $675,000, respectively, in order to hire people who can help them assess climate damage costs to Vermont. ANR is also hoping to put a portion of those funds toward hiring an additional attorney to navigate incoming lawsuits.That brings us to the second piece of this: in December, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute filed a legal challenge.  Among its claims, the lawsuit hinges upon an argument that the federal Clean Air Act preempts Vermont’s law. It cites existing legal precedent that says the Clean Air Act allows the federal Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not just air pollution. The fact that this comes as the EPA is acting to dismantle the powers included in the Clean Air Act, leads to “complete cognitive dissonance,” Anthony Iarrapino, an attorney who lobbied for the law’s passage, said in an interview.Changes at the EPA would not affect the ability of Vermont’s climate superfund to go into effect.However, those changes might muddle the fossil fuel industry’s argument in the lawsuit “What the Trump administration is doing to weaken the Clean Air Act only strengthens our argument that states have a right to act and fill in where the federal government has retreated,” Iarrapino added.The lawsuit itself appears to be moving slowly; “I totally thought I’d be subject to depositions and records requests, but I’ve heard nothing,” Legislative Council Michael O’Grady told the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure. “It’s curious that it’s been pretty silent.”— Olivia GiegerIn the knowThe Vermont Agency of Transportation expects that it will pave about 220 miles of state-owned roads over a yearlong period that ends in June. In the year after that, though, it’s set to pave only about 125 miles, according to the agency’s latest spending plans — a nearly 45% reduction.That drop has raised concerns among the leaders of the Legislature’s committees on transportation in recent weeks, who said that while the amount the state paves varies each year, the projected change from the 2025 to 2026 fiscal years stands out. Miles paved over the 2026 fiscal year, which starts this July, would be the lowest since 2020, agency data shows, when the state paved 157 miles of roads it owns and operates. “We’re in a bad place,” said Sen. Richard Westman, R-Lamoille, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee.Read more about the state of the transportation fund here. — Shaun RobinsonThe Green Mountain Care Board unanimously approved a settlement with the University of Vermont Health Network Friday, paving the way for a deal in which the hospital network will pay millions to primary care practices and the state’s largest private insurer, and will fund an outside observer to oversee the hospitals’ spending and operations.It’s not yet clear who that observer — officially called a “liaison” — will be.But Mike Smith, a former Secretary of the Agency of Human Services and the Agency of Administration, said in a brief interview Friday that he had had conversations with the board and the health network about the role.“There’s a process, and let me just say that I’ll let the process play out and see where it leads,” he said. But, he added, “I mean, obviously, if I’m talking to people, I’m interested.”Read more about the Green Mountain Care Board’s vote here.— Peter D’AuriaFor the second time this legislative session, Gov. Phil Scott vetoed a mid-year spending package Friday over disagreements with lawmakers about Vermont’s motel voucher program. In his veto letter, the five-term Republican governor rebuked lawmakers for continuing to use the mid-year budget adjustment bill to seek an extension of the voucher program’s winter rules, which ended earlier this week, forcing out hundreds of Vermonters who have been staying in motels. Read about the veto and the response here. — Habib SabetVisit our 2025 bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following. Read the story on VTDigger here: Final Reading: Vermont’s ‘climate superfund’ comes with complications. ...read more read less