Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alrighty. Welcome back, everybody. It's House Energy and Digital Infrastructure, and, we are taking some more testimony on h seven eighteen, an act relating to building energy efficiency. And we are going to hear first from Andrew Brewer, the manager of government and public affairs at Downs Rutland Martin. And then we are, I think, waiting to wrestle up our other witness from the league of cities and towns. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell, big dog, Brian. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Christopher Howland, R. L. N. Ford. Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden Thirteen, Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. And in the room.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dana Lee Perry from New Brassen Group.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Jeremy Little, Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Ellen Checkhouse, the Office of Legislative Council.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: All

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right, for the record.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: All right, Andrew Brewer with Donald Drackland and Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Vice Chair and members of the committee. Today, I'm gonna speak mostly I think you all know that I represent the Home Builders Association, Vermont Builders and Remodelers Association, and the Architects Association. You heard from Tom Bursey, I guess, two weeks ago now from from the architects. So today, mostly my comments are going to be coming on behalf of the Home Builders Association. There's often a lot of symmetry between the home builders and the architects and the way to deal with these issues. Before I turn to, typically, to 07:18, I wanted to zoom out for a minute

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: and try to look at

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: the universe of how builders are feeling about the atmosphere. From a builder's perspective, energy codes, enforcements, liability, professional regulation, innovation in construction, they they don't operate in silos. They they function as one system from their point of view when they're working on a project. But they feel that here at Montpelier, some of these issues are being shaped in different committees. In this committee, we're refining RVs, we're increasing technical standards or updating compliance pathways, strengthening documentation requirements for energy codes. In house judiciary right now, there's ongoing discussions about construction liability. Builders and architects are asking for a thing what's known as a statute of repose, which creates an outside time limit on claims after a project is complete. In Senate Judiciary, they're working on a bill around intentional fraud and bad faith committed by construction folks. In housing in general, there's thoughtful work underway regarding off-site and modular construction. Lots of conversations happening, but all affecting the same group of people. Each of these conversations makes sense on its own, but on the ground, they accumulate and they stack up on top of each other, and they start pulling at threads. Over the past several years, past several code cycles, RVs have become more detailed and more technically complex. Builders are not opposed to that direction generally. Many are already building at or above some of those codes, so the issue is not the standards themselves, It's the institutional framework around them. Today, Vermont does not have a unified residential building code. We do not have a clear binding statewide interpretation and appeals process for codes. We don't have a consistent statewide enforcement structure for codes. So we have an increasingly technical energy code that carries real legal and financial consequences, but without the administrative architecture that typically supports that complexity. From the builder's standpoint, the direction of travel could feel very asymmetrical. Standards increase, documentation increases, potential exposure increases, structural clarity does not. They're not asking any committee, this committee in particular, to lower standards. They're asking for symmetry. If the state is going to attach legal consequences to compliance with a very technical code, that code should operate within a coherent regulatory structure, clear authority, consistent interpretation, training inspection, liability boundaries. That's the whole nine yards, everything that goes with a residential code. The long term structural answer is not complicated. Chair James, I was going to say if you just wanted to take up H717, which is the bill right before this, just pass that this afternoon. That'd be That's the that's the bill that representative Campbell introduced that we're referring to as the aspirational bill. It's the road map bill for where, ultimately, builders and architects would like to go. We know that politically and institutionally, our agencies, we're not there yet. We're not ready for that. H. Seven eighteen recognizes that reality. It does not attempt to leak directly to full residential code adoption. Instead, it makes a more measured step, studying adoption, strengthening the contractor registry, clarifying municipal enforcement authority, and stabilizing the current transition. It's not the full system that we hope to get to, but it's moving in the right direction. With that framing, I do have some thoughts on seven eighteen and the latest draft. I'll just touch on some of the sections that we have real interest in. I like the addition of some of the changes in the findings section that helps clarify and frame more structural, Section less two is the section on residential building code that initially required a date certain when DFS would switch to code. Now it's we've asked Mike to come back in a year with recommendations on on whether and how to adopt a residential building code. It's a step, and I and I I've spoken with Mike at length about it. I think he owned the fact that he didn't finish this project when he started it probably over a year ago, but I I absolutely take him at his word. Know Mike's will will do what he says he's gonna do, and I think in a year, he'll be back with good recommendations on whether we should adopt a residential building vote at this stage. We wholeheartedly support that change. The task force, the Residential Contractor Registry Task Force, The draft correctly acknowledges that the existing registry has not functioned as intended. And so expanding the task force task force's mandate to evaluate certification, licensure, and possible regulatory alignment with DFS is very constructive. So we support the task force. One thing that I will jump ahead to on the task, I think the task force is gonna make recommendations about whether or not OPR should conduct the Sunrise on hers raters. Well, let's see.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think actually, think that sunrise is in a separate section.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: It's a separate section. But I don't think it's Not part of the task force specifically? Okay. Alright. Well, since I mentioned it, I'm there. I'm gonna skip right to that part anyway. So I think that's section nine. I guess the way I'd put it is I think the builders are kind of agnostic about that point. I spoke with one of our builders who's a HERS rater. I would say he's probably 15% of the HERS raters in Vermont. Literally, I think there's seven or eight HERS raters in the state. And so it was Jim Bradley who I spoke to. He's with Hayward Design Build. He was I asked him, What do you think of the section? And he was kind of like, I'm not sure how I feel about that. He says, I guess my question is, who would OPR be recommending to license? There's literally seven or eight of these folks in the state doing it, and the ones who are getting any real work tend to be the multiunit larger projects. Jim even questioned whether or not he was going to maintain his first license. There's so little business there. I don't think we're going to oppose that language, but if we do move forward with it, I guess the request is that we make sure the scope is proportionate to the size of the market and the actual policy needed? I suppose that's what the Sunrise Report does, to answer those

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: kinds of questions. Yes. I would point out that first raiders are regulated somehow. They're certified at the Department of Public Service right now. I wondered actually if that should be mentioned in the bill. Would that make sense to mention that? I'm the looking the L of Dutch Council.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Maybe? May or may not be. Okay. I'll ask you quick question. A quick point about licensing. When you build a home, the architect who designs it is licensed. Electrician is licensed. The plumber is licensed. If you buy or sell a home and you do your due diligence and you hire a home inspection person, that person's licensed. We're talking about licensing bursary potentially. Do you know who's not licensed? It's the guy who builds your I always find that irony pretty stark. Maybe that's the way we get at it. Just license everybody and there's only one person left, which is the builder.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: To be clear, that sunrise process did not necessarily lead to Resulted license, correct. Is to decide whether that industry should be regulated some way. It could be your registration. It could be some certification that is not exclusive, and it could be a licensure that does include an exclusive certification. Right.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: I think the one section of the bill that is causing some concern for builders is the section that I hopefully will hear about from the about municipal afford enforcement and municipal authority. I suspect what you'll hear from the league is that they believe they that ability already exists for the for them to have municipal authority. The concern with builders is a patchwork of towns across the state with different codes. Correct me, Scott, if I get this wrong, but I think your options now since the executive order are you can choose twenty twenty Arby's. You could build the 2024 Arby's. Each of those also has a stretch code. So I think there are four options that a town could choose from. Think I have that right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I that I don't know about choosing a strep throat. That's a good question. Okay. But yes, presumably if I'm going to whether 2020 or 2024. The wait is that? Yes. Well, it's actually not even. Do we have a correction here from me?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'm happy to wait until after,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: but I disagree Okay. That a town could choose 2020.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Gonna have to We'll talk about that. Yes. I was about to say. Pending the legal Yeah. Rule of doctors.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Pending the legal adoption. Right now, with legal leave, statute says 2020 Correct.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Thank you. And so that's the concern, is just, as you've heard several times over the past this year and last year from our convention builders, is their general concern even about the statewide RVs code that we have in difficulty of compliance with builders, the lack of a foundation, and so introducing more complexity and more options into the system under that same cycle of not really having any underlying foundation is daunting for builders. That's their main concern with that, yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The reply to that is that they would not be allowed to change the codes. They would be allowed to adopt adopted state. The language in the bill is may incorporate by reference.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: have no jurisdiction over adjustments or wording changes or anything like that in RVs or CDs. It's just adopting them. And then unfortunately. And this is, as you know, I think, partly to facilitate a parallel non governmental effort to create a uniform set of processes for towns that do wish to adopt or enforce energy codes that's going on through the Energy Action Network.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: You're right. In town by town, the text of the codes would be the same, But the administration would not.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the effort that's underway.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: And so I think that the interpretation creep is what builders fear, is how different towns are. Without, again, that underlying agency or underlying structure, creeping interpretation a big deal. That's what they fear. So that's our concern with that section. K?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Slightly tangential, but we do have codes for three units and about. Mhmm. And so how do people feel that, like, those codes work or the system around it? Is that do people happy with that?

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: I think so. Yep. I think fire and safety does a great job. Fire and safety. They're really checking for fire and safety codes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. But the builders, they feel like there's a structure that they understand and it's Yep. Reliable and

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: when it's three units and above, you're talking about the single family owner occupied home builders. I mean, I think there are probably builders out there who have no experience with fire and safety because they're building one off homes. So three and above, really, you're probably mostly talking about whole thing event builders. Yes. I think they would say fire and safety does a great job.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And remind me, are there building codes for there are building codes for those units. Correct? Or you might Well, there's there's fire safety has has adopted what they call a fire and building safety code, which does apply to three year development, but it is based on a commercial code. Actually, the come up between residential and commercial depending on on on who you're talking to and what program or agency you're talking about. When I was in and and and working at Trinity Thermal, it seemed to me that four units and up was some sort of a threshold. So so I okay. Don't know how I wanna accomplish it.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Never thought it was I supposed do it. Think to answer your question, they're not looking at construction code.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The building the fire and building safety goes up there. It does incorporate IBC, the International Building Code, which is a building code. So there is a building code. Yes.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Yeah. Was just wondering

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: whether people were happy with that system so that you could kind of piggyback on that.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Well, that's been what we've been asking. I mean, that's and I think Mike Dara Torre has been candid. He says, We're not ready to tackle to be the agency of jurisdiction over RVs or a full blown construction code. He said they don't have the resources, and we acknowledge that. We believe that to be true, but that's been our focus. We've been saying, Yeah,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: but it could become that.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: That's what we hope to move toward, somewhere down the road.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. It's a lot of process. Yes.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Safe harbor language. You heard some good testimony yesterday. I think Alan did a great job framing it. The governor issues his executive order in September, there definitely were builders who, in good faith, said, all right. The governor said, can now file the twenty twenty arguments, and I'm good, and so some did. Then I believe in November, the attorney general issued her opinion on the executive order. The opinion wasn't structural. It didn't get into the ins and outs of energy code. It said, Governor, what you did procedurally was wrong. You can't make changes like that. Now, as Alan put, there's this legal ambiguity gray area, and builders are like, Wait a minute. Am I going to get in trouble for filing that twenty twenty RB certificate? So the fix, the idea was this kind of safe harbor saying, Anybody who filed twenty twenty RBs because the governor said go ahead is going to be held harmless until such time as either we're now going through the rules process, which is supposedly the fix for the governor's executive order. Those either get adopted, or if they don't get adopted, we could pick a point in time and say, Pick July 1, pick a point and say, After July 1, even though we haven't resolved this issue with the executive order, Everybody knows the playing field now. You builders, you have no more excuse. We weren't trying to offer this as a sneaky way to codify use of twenty twenty RVs forever in light of this gray area. I don't know if that helps explain the safe harbor idea.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So you're saying that development supports inserting a date. Sure. Yeah.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: I think that's fair. Because right now, there is no date. Until the rule, yeah, yeah, there's no date. We don't know when that's gonna be when the rules may

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: or may not get denied. Is

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: it okay to ask a question about the difference between 2020 and 2024? Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: sure. It gets into

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: a tory detail, but In terms of the air

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: In terms of what? Air hand. Air hand.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Is that Can anybody tell me the difference?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, '24 requires mechanical ventilation. Air

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: vehicle I think floor requires mechanical ventilation.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Because the home is tight.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, that's the implications.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: And 2020 values.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Correct. Right.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So that's really, really basic.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Sure. So balanced ventilation is a just so we know what that means, you're right. It means the house is tight. Right. It means the twenty twenty RVs relied on exhaust air air moving out, which meant there was enough passive air coming in that it could also go out. 2024 is saying, alright. The houses are tight enough now that you need a mechanical system that brings in fresh air and moves out the old air at the same time. What you're going for is this neutral pressure inside of the house so that cold air isn't getting sucked in through all the cracks of your house. Our concern there is there's a real cost to that.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah, I was gonna

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: say It isn't builders saying, Oh, I don't think it's gonna cost more. It does cost a lot more, and I know that in the early days of these rules being designed, there was testimony, you're gonna save tons of money over the lifetime. The builders, Jason Webster, who you've had in committee before, he owns Huntington Homes. He actually commissioned a Hervey to do an analysis on two homes. He built one in 2020, one in 2024. I think the payback was $143 a year, and it was going to cost an additional $12,000 for the house. Over forty or fifty years, you might get a payback.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: But why about air funding?

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Well, good question, yeah, but presumably better. Presumably better. There's trade offs.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's worth pointing out that part of the process of updating the energy codes is doing a cost effectiveness analysis. When that was done for the 2024 COVID, the measures that were included that were changes from 2020 were determined to be cause effective. So it's and as far as as far ventilation, far as ventilation is always an energy penalty because you're bringing in unconditioned air and displacing the air in some fashion. People have to have fresh air to breathe. So And your heat recovery ventilator. And heat recovery ventilators greatly moderate the energy penalty, but in terms of the thermal energy penalty, but then there's an electrical energy penalty because it costs it costs electricity to run this thing. And then running the ductwork around the house, you know, there there's there's a there's a cost. Right. But I'm quite. Then there's those of us that use wood. It affects the wood still. Well, actually, malpedalation would be better for any combustion appliance because you would not be depressurizing the air. Don't have details you want to get at this point. You would not be depressurizing the air in the house, volume of the air in the house, as you are when you're relying on exhaust only. That makes you.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: And I think for the average consumer who can afford to build a new house, if that's important to them, they'll ask it from their builder and they'll get it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's right.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: That's right. The intent of the executive order, which we supported, we had been communicating with the GPS and others in the administration for a long time about two things. What we saw as real technical problems on the ground implementing the new 2024. That was number one. Number two, the rollout was rough. There are three paths to which you can comply with the new twenty twenty four RVs, and one of them didn't work for a year. That's the way you can go online and enter. It simply didn't work for a year. There were problems with the prescriptive path. That's the path where if you build exactly this way, you'll pass. There were problems with that. But the rollout was rough. There were incomplete code manuals online for a long time. We looked at the executive order as the administration saying, All right, all right, all right. We just need a reader here, time out, until we can get things straight. In the meantime, we thought they were gonna rescind the twenty twenty four Part Bs. In fact, I think that what they came up with is a little more elegant, saying, Oh, you could still aspire and build to the 2024 RVs, but you can also stick with the 2020.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Thanks for that.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: I can

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: fit it all.

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Mean, those are my, if successful at using some RGTI money to help fix the website, that'd be great. That would be a big deal, I think, for all builders. If we could get some more functionality and have the contracted registry live up to its potential, that would be terrific. I will just end with, I hope you vote for this bill. Of course we would love to be ticking up the whole ball of wax, where we knew that in a couple years we are going to have residential building code in the state, and that's the answer to all our problems that we see, but we recognize that that's not gonna happen soon. I would say this, that the builders support the bill generally. I've said a couple of concerns that we have. There isn't anything in the bill that builders are gonna scream and yell about, say, no, no, no. This kills us. This is gonna harm us badly. They support the direction we're going in, so thank you, representative Scott Campbell, excuse me, for all your work, sorry, for all your work on this. I think some of you know he's been kind of a one man show for the past year anyways. I know he had a co chair.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't know if senator Blankert Is

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: he been aware of seven eighteen exists? I don't

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: know if he was a

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: co chair or not. But, anyway, thank you for your work on this. I'm happy to take more questions if you want.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Perhaps Sibilia, just double checking, you're supporting one point two? Yes. Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Hey, everyone.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Great. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Did the league surface?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Did they answer their phone?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Nope. See.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: They were invited? But not.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: They were I saw Josh Hanford earlier. I'm gonna

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: go find Josh to see if he because he said something

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

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Don't do everything I just said, Ellen. All

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right. While we see if league is about, we wanted to set aside some time to look through the bill. I mean, we did a walk through yesterday and get a sense of where the committee is on this one. So, let me have my

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I think there was one I think only one change. Maybe a couple of changes. Only one that I have in my head right now. And that was to strike the appropriation, the general fund appropriation. Is that the only change there is?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes, that's the only change I have from yesterday.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All right, so we are looking at bill seven eighteen, draft 1.2. Okay, alrighty. So, So why don't we do our go round? Scott, do you wanna kick it off?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: That's quick, though. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I'll just say that this is a topic that has undergone enormous vetting with all kinds of stakeholders over the past several years. It's certainly not what everybody would want. It's probably not what anybody would want, but it is a compromise that is intended to set the stage for some potential future further more formal regulation about energy codes and building codes And I think many of the changes that were made from the original, as introduced version of the bill, were intended to satisfy objections from various administration agencies. And I think I think people should mostly be good with it. So that's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Ref Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I apologize. Is OPR in favor of this version?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: OPR, I sent a copy of this version around to everybody who was on the Building Engine Code Working Group, which included OPR, and then I sent a copy directly to Director Jennifer Collins and Coleman, and I have not heard a response. Would be I I would

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: like to hear your thoughts. I mean, I think if the if there's a lot of stakeholders. So if we've resolved the issues for who we are and others, I would.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K?

[Andrew Brewer (Manager, Government & Public Affairs, Downs Rachlin Martin)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Very much in support.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: No. K. And it's I think we really need to start with the basic building code. It's settled on that. Well, that is part of the bill. Well, it is, but it's not till 2028, and there's Well, next year, we'll get a recommendation

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: from Division of Fire Safety about as a result of a process that they've already started, they're working through with their stakeholders about whether and how to adopt a residential building construction. And that was a compromise with the that the original bill had a date certain when we're on how to adopt it, a residential code. That part of the bill, the vision of fire safety is in support of it.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: I just don't think we're in place yet to announce this. Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Perhaps Southworth? We

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: know housing's in a shortage. I believe that any any more regulation to builders and building periods is going to slow that down. And I am not in the mindset to spend $400,000 on bridging money on this, I am voting no.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And you would be a no if it were general fund money? I know that's Okay. Just

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Alright. Yep. The RGGI money is the challenge for me. General fund money. Would

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the RGGI fund money be coming from the existing? Yeah. There's about $88,000,000 accumulated in RGG revenues that was it was not budgeted for. You know, I had $3,000,000,000 three years. So about the $400,000 is was was I guess, what I might find is about 5% of the money that's there. That's in a fund that's not being utilized currently. That's right. And and and it's been in Vermont and public service department don't don't support using that money for this. But, of course, it is the legislature that have a purview to appropriate money. And what the money would be used for otherwise would be would be just weatherization work, which should be important to do. No question about it. I'm not sure. But, actually, we can use a fridge of money for this. Oh, well, there's there's a thing called notwithstanding, which lets you lets you do that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This language is written to allow it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K? Sorry.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Oh, just on the reggie, I have this would be the first time the legislature has

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is that right?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah, so to prep it would be, yeah. Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: my thought was that there's a clear nexus to encouraging builders that don't need to be replicated later, which will pick whether they should.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dave?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I do share representative Southworth's concerns about anything affecting building a new housing, but I absolutely agree with the premise of the bill. I wish Vermont had proper building codes, and hearing that the builders are in favor of it and felt it to me made me feel better about it. So I I would note that I would that there's nothing in here that actually increases regulation on buildings. This is all about actually trying to use market mechanisms to encourage builders to get better trained and take advantage of the many training opportunities that exist now that are not being taken advantage of wholly by leveraging the residential contractor registry and its voluntary certifications as a mechanism, as a market mechanism to encourage builders to distinguish themselves from their competitors by getting trained and certified. The energy codes are required now. Does not mean to increase regulation. Or if foreign. Foreign.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Foreign enforcement. And that's that's the that's the problem here is that you still got it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It is a problem. And then they

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: idea is to educate the the builders from square one. The first time a person starts to be in interested in being a framer or or any of the the portions. I I remember when you had to have an electrode in the foundation. Contractors came and said, what what does this mean? The the foundation contractor wanting the interpretation from as and I don't remember what you hear that one, but it really is the basis of educating the not con well, the contractor, the contractor educating his workforce to Yeah. Proper means of things. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I I I think that what gets people into into education and training is the requirement that they do that. One reason, probably the main reason why there's a much higher compliance rate with the commercial building buildings is that typically commercial projects involve licensed professionals, architects, and they their license is on the line. They are found to have not followed code. One shortcut to fixing the problem of how do we get people that are trained would be the licensed contractors, but that's that's another I hear you. Another more difficult step. So if this doesn't do that, it's just it it's it's it's taking the voluntary compliance route to them. I how do we encourage contractors to comply voluntarily with what they're actually required to do. And so it does have the safe safe harbor or compliance language which will protect builders Yes. Who are using the executive order. Yes. Right. So that's that would actually facilitate buildings or at least make builders aware, more comfortable with yeah. As well in this language was proposed by public service department.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, Right. Yeah, a couple things. I suppose, Bill, I mean, I've definitely been around long enough to see how hard we've worked to try to make very incremental progress with this. So I would vote yes. I hear the concerns about using the RGGI money. That could, I mean this bill will have to go to a probes I assume because it has money in it. And so job and approach would be to consider that funding source and stack that up against general fund, you know, requests and, you know, take take testimony on the money part. So I I would be comfortable voting this out and sending it to appropes since they have the big picture on the money. I do think that general and housing wants to take a quick flyby and just take a look at it, which I think is appropriate. So I think what we need to do is hear back from OPR. That seems like an important next step.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And see if we can get

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the league. Yep? Yep. Okay. So we are and I'm just trying to write down where we are with everything. So page seven eighteen. We need a response from OPR. I think written testimony would be great. Some kind of a response. We need to hear from the lead.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thanks.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm gonna make one small change. Okay. About the appropriation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. And then Ellen has to maybe hold off until we hear back. Okay. In case they have feedback to incorporate. Oh, okay then. So we are TBD. So that is the next step there. We need to hear from OPR in the week. And then Ellen has small revision that you'll wait until we hear what we hear from OPR. So that's what we're doing on that. And then just to circle back on some of our earlier conversations today, h seven sixteen net metering, rep Morrow is working on a draft that would, knock out the adjuster freeze, keeping the behind the meter language, and I'm a little worried now that I reflect on the new language about batteries. Put it in there, and I guess we'll see if it if that sparks

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'll make sure it's joy.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Eighteen more hours of testimony. But assuming just waiting to see what's up with the battery part. We have reached out to DPS, PUC, Green Mountain Power, VPSA, WECC, and VEC, and scheduled a two hour block next Wednesday get everybody to come back in and give their thoughts on just behind the meter park. So I feel like we we I heard pretty clearly that we needed to folks were interested in that, maybe considering it, but we need more testimony on that. Okay. And then we did not land the plane on July. The question for the committee was, are we going to are we going to require the PUC to update the rule within some, you know, longer time frame to address x, y, z, or are we just gonna write a letter? So I need to hear from folks on that.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm wondering if we could fit them in one more time. I don't know if there's another thing we had to ask if you was even We can. Because there are a couple questions that we could post to them that would help with next steps. So, like, later this week or next week. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And do you wanna get their thoughts on I mean, I I know what they'll say, but I think we should have them in.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I I do. Yeah. I wanna get their thoughts more on the IRP idea as well as getting reporting gaps or just clarification about what that exists now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. We're gonna need to let them know what they're being probably what they're being How

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: about I put it all together?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That would be great. Like, what do we wanna hear from the PUC on? Yep. And, that will be the next step there. Okay. And then, step on data centers is happening at 02:15. So, why don't we go offline?