Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Stuck in when I went through.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome back, It's House Energy and Digital Infrastructure, and we are here to walk through a bill on the residential energy code. I don't know the bill number.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: 718.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: H718. Alright, take it away. Oh, no. I'm sorry.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Good to introduce ourselves. Kathleen

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: James, Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Scott Campbell, Saint Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Richard Michael, Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Raleigh, Name?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. We're actually gonna have our bill sponsor give us a little intro and overview.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: K. Alright. So this is a bill arising out of the Building Energy Code Working Group that I we were recorded from which I described a video of, I don't know, whenever it was, a week or two ago. You all know the problem. We have mandatory energy codes. We have no enforcement. We have no MLT. And so as a result, especially on the residential side, we have limited compliance because a lot of people don't even know about them, even though we've had them since 1997. But getting enforcement or a penalty really is realistic right now. In the current environment, the administration will not support that. The challenge is stimulating more voluntary compliance, I I should put it, and trying to have that be positive a or at least a cost effective system for ensuring compliance and over a reasonable period. So this bill is built around that idea that for we're not we're going for voluntary compliance. We're not we're not gonna try to have any enforcement or any of that. And it has three major parts. I guess she needs a little help. Three major parts. First is setting a date certain for the Division of Fire Safety to adopt a Resident in Building Construction Code. As you recall, I mentioned when I was talking about the Building Energy Working Group report that we now don't have an enforcement mechanism for energy codes. We don't even have infrastructure of a residential building construction code to build onto. The first part is setting a date when the DFS would adopt a building code, and that date is 01/01/2028, It gives them They already have a process they had started to hear from stakeholders and try to assess what that would involve just certain amount of alignment that has to be done between exempted codes. They have what they call the fire and building safety code that they apply to commercial properties and including residential properties that are rentals down to three units and up. Don't have so they would have to melt a residential code that would apply to single family rentals and duplexes with that code and with, of course, electrical and plumbing codes. So if they've started this process, this just sets a date certain when they would complete that process. The second part is establishing a task force that would support the Office of Professional Regulation in really improving the Builder Registry. It's leveraging the Builder Registry, which already exists and is actually required for residential contractors to, again, inspire more compliance with energy codes by giving them credit, giving them an avenue to obtain voluntary certifications in things like the energy code, building science, it could be anything. And the task force actually is, for the purposes of the task force, to identify those specialties that would be appropriate for certification and who the credentialing bodies would be for those certifications and recommend those things to OPR so that they don't have to do that work. And the third the third thing that the bill does is it allocates some money, 5% of, I think you might have called me mentioning that RGGI revenues, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative revenues, that the state receives have been accumulating surplus revenue over the last three years. It amounts to around $8,000,000 a little bit more than $8,000,000 right now. So the bill allocates about 5% of that, 400,000, to help with improving the website, really setting up a usable consumer oriented website that includes things like filtering and sorting and mapping so that consumers can access the information that they want. For example, if they're looking for a roofer or a framer, they can sort based on their specialties. So if they're looking for somebody who specializes in energy efficient building, we can look for that. And so we provide money for them to do that, and also marketing in order to raise the profile of the builder registry so that consumers and contractors actually. Again, many contractors don't even know about some contractors aren't even required to be registered or not registered. And so, we're going inspire more contractors to get registered if there was a market for using that registry. So those are the main things. Are some other parts that were not explicitly called out in the voting energy code report, explicitly authorizing Munis, municipalities to administer and enforce energy codes, which was actually debated in the working group, but was not approved for recommendation. But it seemed to me to be an important avenue as well and something that I think would get support in our group and legislature generally. Another part is, a sort of minor thing, is we have required training, what's called an energy module that is required right now of trades and professions to advise them on the existence of energy codes and what they require. Unfortunately, that energy module now is just a description of what the goals are and a description of the statute, which is pretty meaningless to most people. What's in the field would recommend that that energy module be transformed into something that is really useful to people in whatever trade and profession they're working in. Another thing is requiring residential contractor registrants. Again, they're required to register, to disclose any criminal convictions, adverse civil judgments, or violations that they have been convicted of as part of the registration process that is not in the requirements now. The last major thing is, or a minor thing, is directing OPR to assess whether and what would be the appropriate regulation of HERS raters, that's Home Energy Rating System raters, and energy professionals, whether those are professions that should be included in OPR's professional registration. HERS raters are certified now by Public Service Department. And the reason why they're there is because when this came up, there was only one first rater in the organization in the state, and that was efficiency of the fund, or it was at PBIC. I mean, it might have been actually energy rated homes. In any case, so that's how it came to be at public service. But it seemed appropriate that they might be better included in the opioid professional regulations. So those are the major parts of the bill. The task force would be made up of relevant regulatory offices, including OPR, DFS, and public service, and ANR, stakeholders in the construction industry and also construction education, CTE, and energy. And it would be monthly in the first year and then at least bimonthly thereafter. It would cease to exist in June 2029. So that is sort of the major points of thought.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, Scott, I know this is a area of expertise for you and a working group and effort you've been involved in in a long time. Does your bill take, pretty much take the recommendations of the working group and

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Well, some of them, not all And of I mentioned one that was not approved by the working group, seems to me to be an important part of it, the one about the municipalities. We heard, and I think it was not this past year, I think it was two years ago, that there is apparently not a direct line of authority from the legislature to municipalities to be able to enforce energy codes. Yet some municipalities are enforcing energy codes. And so this would clarify that and also provide a pathway for other municipalities to do that if they wanted to. There is another effort underway at EAN, the Energy Action Network, by the Energy Futures Group people to just create a a sort of a standardized system for those municipalities who want to enforce energy codes so that there would be not a different energy codes or different processes, I guess, because the energy code would still be the RPs. It would not be a different code in each jurisdiction. But there are not only not only ought to be as the same code enforcement, there are also ought to be the same processes. So same forms and same that sort of thing so that so that a a builder working in different municipalities doesn't have different things to learn.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Alright. Ellen, can you show us the bill?

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Ellen Jacobski, Office of Legislative Council. I'm here on h seven eighteen as introduced. So I did just wanna give you the heads up. As representative Campbell mentioned, this covers a a few different topics. And so I was only one of the drafters, Damian Leonard, and and I'll point out which sections are for who. Dave Damian in my office and also contributed language to this bill because it does span topics other than energy directly, which is what I handle. Right? And so I'm gonna do the walk through the full bill though just because I think I can provide you the basic overview, and then if you have any questions specific to their sections, you may wanna have them in. So the first section, on page one into page two is a finding section. So the general assembly finds that onto page two. Recommendations by stakeholders and building efficiency experts in the 2023 Building Energy Code Study Committee and the 2024 and 2025 Building Energy Code Working Group consistently find that Vermont's mandatory energy codes, the residential building energy standards, the RVs, and the commercial building energy standards, the CDs, are a subset of the building construction codes and should eventually be administered by the Division of Fire Safety, which administers all other building codes. Vermont has not adopted a residential building construction code, which means there are there is no administrative infrastructure or enforcement mechanism for implementing energy codes consistently and effectively. Lack of a residential building code also means for what lacks a standard of care reference for the public, builders, designers, insurance companies, or the courts, and such lack also may limit the state's ability to access certain federal funding. Lack of consistent and effective implementation and enforcement of the RVs in particular has resulted in low compliance rates according to studies by the Department of Public Service. Recommendations of the 2024 and 2025 working group include leveraging the Office of Professional Regulations Residential Contractor Registry to provide market incentives to contractors to register and, onto page three, obtain voluntary certifications including in energy codes. However, the registry has not so far proved effective for the public, contractors, or OPR. OPR does not have adequate resources to make substantial improvements in the registry. The 2025 working group recommended convening a task force and appropriating funding to assist OPR. While the RVs do apply to single family residences, the Department of Public Service has advised the General Assembly that enabling legislation does not provide clear authority for municipalities to administer and enforce the RVs at the local level. Some municipalities do wish to have that authority. So on page three, section two, adoption of residential building code appropriation position. This, as Representative Campbell mentioned, is about the Division of Fire Safety adopting a code. So, Damian in my office handles building codes, whereas I handle energy codes. So Damien wrote this section, but it's pretty short, so I'll walk you through it. The Division of Fire Safety shall adopt a residential building code to take effect on 01/01/2028. The residential building code shall be based on the international residential code. The establishment of one permanent exempt full time residential building code administrator in the division of fire safety is authorized for the year fiscal is authorized for fiscal year 2027. So that is like a very quick direct way to direct the division to do this work. Should you seek to work on this, you may wanna consider if other statutory changes are necessary.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So this face this little section says, this tiny little section says, Vermont doesn't have a residential building code. Now we have one. Go make one.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay. Just wanna make sure

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was understanding the upshot there.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Or adopt?

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Adopt one based on the international residential code. Right. Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On to page four, still related to the section three grant funding for development of the residential building code. The commissioner of public safety shall seek grant funding to facilitate the development and adoption of a residential building code pursuant to section two of this act. The commissioner shall seek funding for both federal and private grant programs. There

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: was a a grant program through that would support this. They the DFS applied for it and was granted it, but it was pulled back. So but there it's it's possible that that I think there were lawsuits about that. It's possible that it will be reinstated. So that's where that got from.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, and so section four is moving on to a different topic. As was mentioned, this is the task force related to OPR's registry. And Tim in my office works on that because he works on OPR issues. And there's a change that missed. This refers to the Presidential Contractor Regulation Task Force. I'm Oh, going to say type registry Yes. Hypos happen. Yeah. I think there's another small typo in here as well, but Okay. Okay. I will note it. Thank you. So page four, line 10, creation. There is created the residential contractor that will be registry for task force. To improve the existing residential contractor registry and expedite the creation of certain voluntary certifications, the task force shall act in an advisory capacity to the Office of Professional Regulation. Membership. The task force shall be composed of the following members. There are 11 of them. One member appointed by the Secretary of State, one by the commissioner of public safety, one member appointed by the field the Vermont Builders and Remodelers Association, one by the American Institute of Architects at of Vermont. Onto page five. One member appointed by the secretary of education, one by the Chancellor of Vermont State College Systems, one by the Vermont Works for Women, one appointed by Resource, one appointed by Efficiency Vermont, one member appointed by the Commissioner of Public Service, and one member appointed by the Secretary of Natural Resources. The task force shall address shortcomings in the existing residential contractor registry, including public facing web presence, identifying cost efficient marketing strategies to the public and residential contractors, identifying and creating lists of trade specialties, and clarifying the relationship between business based registrations and individual based certifications. The task force shall expedite the creation of voluntary certifications, including identifying, vetting, and recommending credentialing entities with initial certifications in the following or similar subject areas. On to page six. Construction site supervisor, basic energy code, both residential and commercial, and high performance buildings, high performance building. And the task force shall assess whether the regulating entity for residential building contractors should be transferred from the Office of Professional Regulation to the Division of Fire Safety. Assistance. The task force shall have the administrative, technical, and legal assistance of OPR. The Division of Fire Safety and the Department of Public Service shall provide informational assistance and technical expertise to the task force regarding issues related to building codes and energy performance. Reports. The task force shall submit annual reports on for November 1, beginning in 2026 to OPR, the committee, energy and digital infrastructure, and on general and housing, and the senate committees on economic development, housing, and general affairs, and natural resources and energy, with any finding and recommendations for legislative action. On to page seven, meetings. The Secretary of State or designation shall call the first meeting of the task force to occur on or or 08/01/2026. The task force shall then meet at least monthly through July 2027, and then thereafter at least bimonthly. By the way, bimonthly can meet either every other month or twice a month.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are you sure? Yes. I spent time this morning.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yep. That is true.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought it meant every other

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: month is only. Recommended to avoid bimonthly and biweekly and say every other month or twice a month or every other week or twice a week depending on what you mean.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: It's just

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a fun grammar thing for all of you today.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It is a fun grammar thing. Okay. Wow. Alright.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: K. Every other month?

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Probably. It's The taskbar shall elect select a chair from its members at the first meeting. A majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum, and the taskbar shall cease to exist on 06/30/2029. Members who are not otherwise compensated by their employer shall be entitled to per diem compensation, and that'll be paid out by the Office of Professional Regulation. The first appropriation here is for $5,500 to OPR to fund those per diems.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: So,

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that is the task force. On to page eight.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Then OPR was is tantalum. Is that right? Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is this the first appropriation out of the general fund that we've come across? Yes. As a general fund.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yeah. That's like, know what happens with appropriations out of the general fund. Okay. So it's okay.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page eight, still related to OPR's contractor registry, this is the criminal background disclosure. So section five twenty six BSA fifty five zero nine requirements for registrants, so this is the contractor registry. Adverse background, a person registered under this chapter prior to executing a contract pursuant to subsection b of this section shall provide a client with a written disclosure of any prior criminal convictions, adverse civil judgments, and violations pursuant to five thousand five ten of this title. 5,510 of the title is the next section still under the contractor registry about the unprofessional conduct and things by which they can be charged related to their services to the contractor, and I am not an expert on that. Rep Southworth?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: I'll hold I'll hold on. Okay. Rep. Has this been an issue problem? Wait. At what? This this whole section, the adverse back Well, it's it's been identified as a gap. So the purpose of the registry originally with OPR was fraud prevention. There are always one or two a year, I mean, that always is typically one or two a year examples of a contractor, for example, taking a deposit and then disappearing, or some dispute between contractors and and and a homeowners building owners that did according to the attorney general. So the reason for for that the OPR wanted to have a registry, they were the initial got to activate a previous legislature requested a Sunrise Report to be done by OPR to decide whether and what kind of regulation should be made for residential contractors, they decided that this registry should be required, and the reason was to address the fraud issue. But this one particular clause or section wasn't included. It was just a gap in that in the in in the design of the registry. It's

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: still not that strong a consumer protection. It's it's a disclosure. It's not, like Oh. Background check or any kind of Right. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: And and right.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I guess it's better than what we have now. But

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yeah. Which is nothing. The registry, again, is required, but the penalty is sanctions the would be investigated by OPR, there are sanctions. But OPR has a lot of things to do, and they are not really, and it's also sort of complaint driven. It's not like they go looking for contractors. They don't chase pickup trucks down the road. They're not like building inspectors that do that. Thank you. Yeah.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then starting with section six, section six through 10 all have the same language. This is sort of an overlap between Tim and I. This is about the required education, the education requirements for the professions under OPR. So, as R. Scott Campbell mentioned, there is this existing requirement that certain professions receive education module on the state's energy goals. And so, there are a number of statutes that includes this identical language and these provisions update it to change it. So, section six is the is the OPR's general statute related to education for licensees. And so on page eight down at the bottom, the office shall require the office, there being professional regulation, shall require each of the licensees described in subsection a to complete an education module regarding the state's energy goals and how each licensee's specific profession can further those goals. The education module, currently, there's a requirement that says shall not be more than two hours that is being struck. The education module shall be required as a condition of initial licensure and each license renewal. The module shall explain how the work of the profession or trade intersects with the energy codes and affects the energy, airflow, and moisture management. Onto page nine. Moisture management dynamics of the buildings as an integrated system and include education on any state or utility incentives relevant to the profession. It then also strikes that the module will include general information regarding the energy goals and updates on those energy goals. Those the professions that are covered by this section six are architects, landscape architects, pollution abatement facility operators, total water and wastewater system designers, professional engineers, property inspectors, real estate appraisers, and real estate brokers and salespersons. The next four sections are Red Palin

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: did you No. That's it. She she she tried it. Previous we were talking about registering this document refers to individuals who have additional licenses of their OPR.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And so, OPR, I don't I'm not super well versed in it, but they do license a number of different professions. And so this first group is the ones I just listed. Section seven is a different aspect related to the rules, but then sections eight, nine, and 10 are all different professions that I'll get to. So section seven, twenty BSA, twenty seven thirty one rules, inspections, variances. The commission, the commissioner, so this would be, public safety, is authorized to adopt rules regarding the construction of buildings, maintenance and operation of premises, and prevention of fire and removal of fire hazards. And so on to page nine, the commissioner shall require each of certificates to complete education module regarding energy goals. And so that language is on page 10. So, again, the same language. The education module shall, and it strikes the the less than two hours, and then adds that it shall explain how the work of the professional trade intersects with the energy codes and affects the energy flow, moisture management dynamics of the building in an integrated system. Section eight then amends 20 BSA 28 A four, which is the qualification of inspectors, specifically inspectors of boilers and pressure vessels. They have this education requirement as well. On page 11, section nine has the identical language again for the education requirements for electricians. I realize that that is not easy to tell because none of these statute names have those professions in them. I'm sorry. I think I can add section headings in the updated draft if that would be easier so you know which one is for which. Yeah. Because then section 10 has the identical language for plumbers.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. And where were contractors, like, building?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Company number, the first one.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Oh, the first one. Yeah.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So those are all making uniform across the board the education requirements for the professions regulated by OPR.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre. And who creates the energy module? The content?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Publisher department for or networks department. OPR for the professionals that they regulate, and DFF, the vignifier safety, for the trades that they provide licenses to.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Plumber told me he had two hours of this. Oh, has

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. I was

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It was once every three year education. Mhmm. So Did he

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: say he was really useful? I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: don't don't wish to involve children.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: They're too hard to come

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: by. Yeah. I I looked at it, by the way. In fact, I I it's a twenty minute well, it's twenty minutes if you if you watch every second, and I'm I'm but it's not very useful. So And I can

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: share my comment his comments with you. He found the same thing. Yep. That it was he didn't get much out of it. Right.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So on page 13, section 11, this is a report about energy professionals as previously mentioned. So the Office of Professional Regulation shall conduct a sunrise process to assess whether home energy rating systems raters and energy professionals should be professions regulated by the office. Energy

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: professionals is intended to be a term. Should it be capitalized? Should it be end quote? Is there a way of calling that out as a specialty somehow?

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I didn't necessarily know what you meant by energy professionals, so I do think you can clarify it. But I don't think it would be a proper noun with capitalized. Okay. Maybe individuals providing an interpreter for professional services or something like that. Or Yeah. Yeah. You may wanna consider more specificity about who Okay. Which individual types of professions you're thinking.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: I think persons, because that perception would be not just individuals. Right? Okay. Businesses also, I guess. Are they are they

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what what type of work are are they I don't What does that mean? Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Well, a person who does energy arms, for example Okay. Who might not be a heard writer Sure. But understands the dynamics and and approaches a construction site with that sort of lens on. Okay. Would be an energy professional.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. A building energy profession. Maybe just add the word building. Opposed to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Lower case. Person or

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: yeah. Building.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yes. Maybe. Okay. Maybe building. Is that does that seem like a? Yeah.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, think the real question will be if you work on this section, you may want to hear from OPR about how much specificity they want when they do their study. The offer shall assess whether the regulation of residential building contractors should be transferred from registration to certification core licensure. On our report 07/01/2027, the office shall submit a report with its recommendations to this committee and GovOx and the Senate Committees on Economic Development and natural resources and energy. Alright. On to page 14. So these are sections I wrote. So section 12 is the R. B. S and section 13 is the CVs. They're identical language. So, for the CVs municipal enforcement, a municipality may administer and enforce the RVs within the municipality in compliance with this section. And then same in section 13, may administer and enforce the CVs within the municipality in compliance with this section. I think potentially administer may need to be specified slightly. DPS does currently have administrative authority over the RVs and CPs because they're the ones who do the rule updates every cycle. So, you may you may want to clarify exactly the authority you wanna grant the municipality here. Because I don't think you're saying you want to have them adopt the updated versions. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yes. Good. Good. Good. I'm I'm it in the in the case of of building construction codes, the Division of Fire Safety, the commercial buildings, the Division of Fire Safety has jurisdiction over those buildings and has the authority, I think, by rule to grant that authority to advance penalties if they if they serve much of a DFS, they have sufficient resources to administer the building codes. So I'm trying to think of how do I make that sort of analogous in this situation. So you're right. Public service department would still be, in this scenario, would still be developing and updating RVs and CVs, but we're just trying to allow the RVs and CVs, RVs in particular, as developed by public service to be a I'm not sure whatever the word is to but it's by by municipalities because, apparently, at least according to counsel at at at public service, if there wasn't a clear it wasn't clear in statute that that so corrected that that is that authority exists. So that's what this is trying to address.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And I believe I think Burlington and Montpelier specifically requested authority from the legislature through charter changes to be able to have authority over bills.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Is that how it happened? Yes.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So they they sought specifically charter changes in order to do that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Oh, thank you. Sorry. I didn't know that. So I yeah. I think I think this probably need more, but I I don't know how that's instilling it. So I

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can think about it. More. Yeah. And then lastly, as was mentioned, there are two appropriations. So at the bottom of page 14, appropriations. In fiscal year 2027, the sum of $200,000 is appropriated from the fuel efficiency fund to the Department of Public Service for the purpose of funding as part of the energy efficiency utilities 2027 through 2029 demand resource plans, consultation and technical support to municipalities that elect to adopt and enforce the residential building energy standards and the commercial energy standards, the the RVs and the CVs. I do wanna point out, I think this is my mistake. So when you're drafting appropriations, it's always the languages from a fund to a government agency so that they can administer the the disbursement. And so it's important to identify that these are not general funds, but which funds they're coming from. And representative Campbell was specifically interested in the RGGI fund that he mentioned. I I actually I thought they were the fuel efficiency fund, but I think they might actually go to the the electric efficiency fund.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: So It's handled as the thermal, the TEPF thermal efficiency process fuels. Yeah. But it's probably a subset of electrical efficiency charge or something. Or no, not the best charge.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They go into the same fund even though they're separate sources.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yeah. Okay. I'm trying for you to identify that too.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. On this one, had a question because I I've often heard of the reggie funds and forward capacity funds coming together, I think. Yeah. They're they're I just wondered if you care. Like, can it be from both? Like, why does it have to be veggie? Or Aladdin, you mentioned really both of those. Is it the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: I I mean, I I I starting in the veggie fund because they're in the pot of money there, and so this is taking a little bit of that to force increasing code awareness to code environments.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: But I'd just say, why am I making sure that if there's more capacity?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yeah. I mean, it's sort of this will be opposed by and and and so so I was just trying to make it as allocable as possible, but, you know, if there is if that's possible.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then finally, on page 15, in fiscal year 2027, $200,000 from that fund to OPR for the purposes of launching by 12/31/2027, a consumer oriented web and a comprehensive marketing plan to raise public and contractor awareness of the residential contractor registry. And the effective date is 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hey. I want to give folks a break before floor. And just to note that this bill would need to move to I just always want us to think about timing. This bill would need to move to general and housing for sure.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Yeah. I think although I'm not I'm not a 100% sure.

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Quite positive.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: I'd like it to.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I I I think it should, and it would, and they want it. I mean, this it Okay. We're envisioning enacting a statewide residential building

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: to judiciary as well because of the penalties and

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I think way I think ways and means, maybe. I I mean, I I'm just approves for sure.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That criminal clause in there, I would think, would have to go to judiciary, what statutes, you know, once somebody's done their time, paid their penalties. I mean, I can records just Yeah. Follow them. They had contractor that stole a sick pack when he was a kid.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sure about No.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: They're always related to to the the war. I mean, It's not just any any offense of any kind. Right. Is there a statute of limitations that that would apply to and and so on? That's my question.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm gonna give rep Campbell because I really wanna give us a break. I'm gonna give we'll give rep Campbell an assignment. General and housing, I know for sure. Probes, I know for sure because you've got $5,000 in there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair, bill sponsor)]: Did you

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you check about in there.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Gov ops. Because

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of opium. Oh my god.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Opium. Yeah. The box has mentioned this to somebody that receives a report. Yeah. Scott, your assignment

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is to run this language, the little appropriate sections, just informally just by judiciary, gov ops, and ways of means to say, do you need this bill? Would you need a drive by? Do we need to care about do do you guys need to care about this bill? Because Because I know for sure about general, and I know for

[Ellen Jacobski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sure about approves. Okay? Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks everybody.