Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. All right. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It's Thursday, February 26. And we are here to, not with Ledge Council, but basically with the bill's sponsor to have a walk through of the latest language on H17, an act relating to building energy efficiency. And just so folks know where that bill stands as we head toward town meeting right to cross over. Representative Campbell has been working diligently with all the various stakeholders to update the language and get it to a place where folks are in agreement or close. And House General and housing is going to take a flyby. And we haven't had that happen in one of our bills in our committee, so just to explain how that works. So we have language that we consider to be pretty much done. A few things could change, but it needs to be fairly locked and or not in rapid evolution. And then we kind of stop working on it. Scott will go over and introduce our colleagues to the bill, which I think he's doing later today.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Depends on when Mark has time. Okay. I'm scheduled for 02:45. Said, told me that it might slip.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that's happening today. And then basically, we give them a couple days to look at

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: bill. They might take testimony. They'll discuss it. And we're sort of waiting to hear back. Then they might get back to us in any number of ways. Looks good. We've we're concerned about this. Will you consider changing this? So there will be, like, a handoff of the bill back. And then we'll have how much time we have to revise our bill based on their feedback or not. I mean, it's up to us, basically. Then we vote it out, and because it has money in it, it goes to approves. So we just have to we have to get our part done by by March 13. And then approves has until the twentieth to to deal with all the bills that are winging their way.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So does

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that anybody have any questions about that? I can double check-in just to make sure I understand.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Bram, as it's just Okay. I'll take one. Yeah. I just want to see you then. Thank you. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Here you go. Alright. So,

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Scott.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Oh, you wanna

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: go by ambulance one to the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Thump, Rochester Division thirteen, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, window two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And

[Dana Lee Perry (The Crassing Group)]: Dana Lee Perry from the Crassing Group.

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

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Jeremy Little, Vermont Chamber of Commerce.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Great. Matt Cotto on Bennington on behalf of the Heating and Cooling Contractors.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Awesome. Alright. Thanks, everybody, for being here. Scott, take it away.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dope. Alright. So this is draft 2.2 dated yesterday, February 25. It is posted on our website under the bill number seven eighteen. And the only difference between this and, I guess it was draft 1.1, there are two sets. One is it removes the appropriation from the general fund because there's an appropriation from RGGI, from the fuel efficiency fund, it's called, of $100,000 to OPR and $200,000 to Department of Public Service.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's on page seven, line 12. I think that's where that went away.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. It's from 1.1?

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm not taking that as a regret. It's okay. I don't have 1.5. So, yeah, that was one change to removing the general fund appropriation. And the other change is on the last page, page 17, in the language about the appropriation to OPR, and it's highlighted in yellow. I had circulated this draft to everyone in the working group, especially OPR, Department of Public Service, and well, everyone. And OPR was concerned about the language appearing to make them responsible for for launching a website. As they've said repeatedly, that's what they want to do. They have taken the position that their website is not intended to be consumer oriented, which is another matter we could take up with in another context. But but they don't wanna be on the hook for doing that. And that actually was not the intent of the language I had in there. So Jennifer Cohen, the director of OPR, came back with some suggested language that she thought clarified that the task force will be responsible for identifying how to get the website up and money is to fund developing the website. So subsection, I guess it is, in section 13 on page 17, now says, In fiscal year twenty twenty seven, the sum of $200,000 is appropriated from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative revenues in the Fuel Efficiency Fund to the Office of Professional Regulation to support the Residential Contractor Registry Task Force established in Section three with the goal of identifying a consumer oriented agency or organization to host a website to raise public awareness of the residential contractor registry, providing funding to that agency or organization to manage the website on or before 12/31/2027, and supporting the Office of Professional Regulation in the development of voluntary certifications. The only edit I can see here is it looks like to me there might be a semicolon after 2027, but Anyway, that is the only wording change in this draft compared to the draft 1.1 that we've already read through last week. I guess it was last week, I believe. I am about to circulate to the entire Building Energy Code Working Group this draft, which we just got yesterday, to let them know the status just in in the spirit of keeping our money sound and and ask for support, don't support, neither support nor those reading from everyone under under. And that's where it is. Great. So we've got time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I would like to really make sure that we're going through the bill carefully. That we're talking about any yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. You didn't want to go through the whole thing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I do. I mean Sure. So just to just to kinda set the table here, when the bill comes back, we will be having very limited time to deal at that point. So, right now, this committee discussion is the time for all of us to really make sure we understand what's in the bill, raise any questions or concerns, like this is the time to flag stuff. Okay? And we'll have a chance we'll have a chance then to talk about whatever whatever general and housing recommends, but let's make sure that we as a committee have worked through this language now. So I've got, you know, I've got questions, but we've got time. We I think Ellen can't even be here till 10:10. I just saw she'd emailed me. So we have plenty of time to talk through this, and and now's now's the moment.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Great. Actually, I was incorrect. Previous draft was 1.2, not 1.1, dated February 12.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So everybody's looking at 2.2 dated 02/25 at 10:29?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's right.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Well, do should we maybe go through the whole thing? Or I I guess it might be worth highlighting the changes that we made in two in

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: 01/2002 since I was So a while

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: one thing that we did in 01/2002 is we added the first bullet point, first item under findings that says public policy for several years has implemented strategies to stimulate construction to relieve Vermont's severe housing shortage. These actions are gaining momentum without appropriate construction standards for one and two family dwellings and with uneven application of energy efficiency standards. So that is just a statement for fact because we do have energy efficiency standards that apply to those one or two family or one or two unit dwellings, but we have no enforcement or penalty. As a result, compliance with those standards, which are mandatory, is is spotty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And can you remind me, I know we've taken testimony on this, about the size of building or the size of construction that the so we don't we don't have a building code at all. Can you just we we don't need to spend forever on it. Just remind me of, like, what we have and what applies and doesn't apply to what size of building.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Sure. So Vermont does have a a commercial construction building code that applies to well, that is the basis of the Division of Fire and Safety, Division of Fire Safety's Fire and Building Safety Code, that they apply to commercial buildings, of course, residential buildings, three units and other.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So that's a commercial construction building code and a fire and safety code. Yes.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it applies to It applies

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: to two residential buildings three years and up. The Division of Fire and Safety And commercial office. And control. The Division of Fire and Safety has the jurisdictions over what they call public buildings, which includes all rentals, which includes even single family rents, one and two factor rentals. So so they have jurisdiction over those those that have and they I I expect to apply at least parts of the fire and safety codes to those buildings. Okay. But they don't they don't have a there are two model codes out there. One is the international building code targeted at at commercial construction, and the other is international residential code targeted at, I think, up to three. There's a there's a a different cutoffs and different sort of venues.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So so just at a at a higher level, that's why we're specifically mentioning one and two unit. Well Sounds right. Okay. And that And I know that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: was at the request of or making that distinction was also at the request of the division of fire safety because they want it they they don't want the impression to be that and as a matter, it's a statement of fact that DFS does not administer Coves in treatments and antibiotics.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And then as we know, we do have energy efficiency standards that are not being enforced.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Sorry. I just need to reset on that very basic question. Rick Southworth?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: How will this help stimulate more housing? It seems to me it will just do the opposite, creating more regulation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's not creating any regulation because the regulation already exists. The the the goal of the bill really, really, the intent of the bill is to stimulate more education and understanding among builders about not only energy codes, but more importantly, the implications of applying energy codes, how it affects the energy dynamics of the building, the moisture dynamics in particular. The way that it does that, the strategy that's that this this this bill is is taking to do that is to leverage the residential contractor registry by raising a profile, making its website a lot more accessible and all of that, making it more consumer oriented, and thereby, hopefully, inspiring builders through the incentive of differentiating one's company in the marketplace to obtain certifications which are voluntary that would be listed in a residential contractor registry. So it's really seeking to leverage market mechanisms to create a sort of inertia or momentum for builders to to take advantage of the many training opportunities that already exist that are not well utilized. Right.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But you mentioned enforcement, and enforcement to mean to me means regulation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. No. Well, that first finding that I that I read says mentions in general enforcement. This bill this bill does not provide any for any enforcement. Right. But

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it says

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it on the floor. Well, it it it doesn't really have anything to do with enforcement except that a a prerequisite to for any enforcement is is is is education and training, That's the but this bill doesn't do anything

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: to advance that. But it's a step forward then. Correct. Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I I can't I wouldn't

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: say this if if you're starting to enforce codes or advance codes, say say enforced, but advanced codes Uh-huh. Then once you get to a certain level, then it's going to be enforcement of those codes. Correct?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, certainly the working group, many members of that group advocated for enforceable codes and advocated for folding energy codes into the existing building code structure. First of all, adopting a resident of building code and then including in building codes energy codes, because energy codes actually are a subset of those codes. There were members of the working group that advocated for that. I think even Division of Fire Safety recognizes that, ultimately, we need to have standards that are five alt buildings, and that would be, yes, enforceable codes. That could be ten years away. It could be twenty years away. It's we we don't know. This bill doesn't do anything to advance along that road, except that it's intended to raise awareness that there are that there are energy codes and that here are things that you should be concerned about if you're trying to follow energy codes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's let's keep going through and remind everybody. I I know I could use a reminder about what the bill actually does. K. So Should

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we skip through the findings then?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So are you saying hold questions?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I just meant I I think the conversation we're having here, which is really important, is about what the bill actually does or doesn't do. So for me, would be helpful to start going through it section by section and remind myself about here's what it does. So, no, we don't need to hold questions. I just wanted to make sure we all understand that we're walking through and seeing you know, here's what the bill proposes would be the next steps.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I summarize the findings instead of reading them? Then go to the other section. The second finding does mention what I just said to Representative Southworth, that members of this working group and previous study committees recognize energy codes are a subset of building construction codes and should eventually be administered by the Division of Fire Safety. The third finding on page two Not

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: a big single family, not. The purpose for the division of fire safety was Yeah. The enforcement. Started from single family. All all. This is

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: just findings. This is just a statement of fact that the recommendations of the working group have included that. Doesn't the bill doesn't do doesn't do that. This is just setting the stage. Finding three on page two mentions that the Matsuno had adopted a residential building construction code, ablative number one and two unit buildings. Finding four in the middle of the page, line nine, likelihood of effective implementation and enforcement, particular of resident articles, in particular, has resulted in low compliance rates. Finding five mentions that recommendations from working groups have included leveraging the residential contractor registry, which so far has not proved very effective. Finding six on line 17, OPERA doesn't have the resources to really make substantial improvements. Finding seven on line 20, while the R. B. S, Residential Building and Energy Standards, do apply to single family residences, the Department of Public Service has it as follows generally that existing statute does not provide clear authority for municipalities to administer the course of the civil rights. But some municipalities wish to do that, and actually the LCT has indicated that they think that that authority does exist in statute. So one of the elements of the bill is to clarify that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Section two. Oh, Sorry. Brett Plattner has a question.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: How wide is better spreader problem is it that stuff gets built that is either shoddy or dangerous?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, we certainly have heard First of we don't have data because there is no repository for that data. There have been complaints to the attorney general's office consumer protection. I don't know if you got the exact name of the consumer protection beginning about that. There are also there's also evidence of lawsuits from the homeowners and and builders that are resolved with sales public information about it.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. And

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: some of the filmmakers in the worship group provided provided photos and and stories of buildings that they go to after conflating with people and others that show evidence, especially of moisture damage, where moisture was not managed correctly and resulted in mold, mildew, rod, and even structural failure. So we don't have we don't have data, but we do have anecdotal evidence that it happens. And if it is true, the physics the physics of the situation indicates that it is true that better in some of these buildings, more airtight buildings, not done, which is what we're building now, if not done correctly, can and often do, often does result in moisture problems. Well,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: your anecdotal evidence is consistent with what I hear as well. Most projects are great. Of them, there's clearly lack of skill or knowledge or desire to do it properly, and it doesn't get done right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I don't and I don't think it's lack of desire. I think it's lack of knowledge. And and I and I mentioned there are lots of training applicants, And we heard one of the members of the working group was Steve Spats from Efficiency Provide, who was a trainer, conducts trainings all the time. And there just isn't enough update for the trainings. And one of the reasons is, well, I mean, builders are busy, they have other things to do, and they'd rather spend time on billable hours than donating their time as they might think of it to a grandiering conference. There's an annual Better Buildings by Design conference that Christine Bluff puts on That's usually two days of really excellent excellent sessions about all aspects of. And then there are individual trainings, which are actually one in Saint John's Barry That's is doing. I think it's the Wednesday we get back. Obviously, I won't be there, but it's and there's a group in Brattleboro called SEAN, sustainable energy something Mhmm. That does advanced trainings on building science. There are plenty of opportunities. There just aren't enough to be taken advantage of. Thank you.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah, perfect. So I've never had any experience with codes enforcement in The States I've lived in. But I imagine that what happens is you have this inspection that happens, so if you've done something wrong, you learn about it and you fix it before it's a problem. So in the absence of the enforcement, in the absence of the learning that enforcement brings, we've got to up our game on training because it's Right. How we It's the only way to prevent mistakes that are costly, making them drop people's health. Yeah. And also, doesn't everybody wanna up their name and do the best they can be in their business?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I I don't think so. I mean, I was a builder for many years, and and I think all builders wanna do a good job. Everybody take pride in their work. They wanna do a good job. It's just a matter of not not understanding the dynamics that that they're involved in.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: section two Section two. On page three.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So this is about adoption of a red and white bill billing code. The original version of the bill set a date certain for Division of Fire Safety to adopt a residential building code. Okay. They have been in the process of assessing what they would need to do in order to do that because it's not just a matter of saying, oh, we'll sign up to this code. They have to make it mesh with the other codes that they have. They have the fire safety code. They have their sort of amalgam fire and building safety codes. They have electric codes and plumbing codes. They, there's, there's a matter of meshing any new codes that they would adopt with the existing codes. They started that process. They were not willing to agree to that they'd certainly adopt the risk of the drug extraction process, but they suggested that they would be willing to set a deadline for completing the project that they're already in of assessing what would need to be done. So this change in this section saying that on or before 07/15/2027 next year, DFS shall complete their assessment and make a recommendation to the legislature about what the next step is. They were happy with that. They suggested that and so that's the line we've put out here now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, remember that testimony, I think it's Director Dara Torre, right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Saying they had already started. Yes. So this is okay with them?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's okay with them. Actually, it was originally suggested by public service and and division fire safety to.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So the FS and public service are are happy with Section two. Alright. Section three sets up a task force to assist OPR in making improvements to the residential contractor registry. It's an advisory task force, meaning it doesn't have any authority but to advise OPR. The membership, which has changed a bit, not in this draft, in the previous draft, now includes 15 members. One member appointed by secretary of state, one should probably be the director of OPR. One member appointed by commissioner public safety, which would be which is where division of fire safety lives, so would probably the DFS Director or Assistant Director, and then members of stakeholders. So, Remodelers and Remodelers Association, American Institute of Architects. Farther down, I think it's number 12, a member of the Associated Builders and Contractors of the Toast, New Hampshire and North Carolina, which is similar to number 13, Associated General Contractors of Vermont, but whereas the AGC is primarily commercial construction, the ABC is primarily residential. So, there's other stakeholders.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And they're different from the Vermont builders and remodelers. Okay. It's a good recruit. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And the ABC had opened, I think it was last year, by training sector that I still haven't mentioned when I let Mark go. And and they're really they're really to be doing things.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we have the trade associations represented and then and then just a a builder who's not necessarily representing the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, fact, the the number 14 is a residential contractor who is not affiliated

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: with Not affiliated. Oh.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So sort of an independent.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Actually, it doesn't say the VRBA. Maybe it should say that as well. I think I heard about that. Okay. Yeah. The point was to try to find somebody who's not in a in a building building group or builders group.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And then the member of the public, I remember talking about that during our testimony, I was like, how does that work? And OPR said we do it all the time, which surprised me. It was great.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm looking at them. Know. I was like, I know. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They take out look didn't she say they take applications? And Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's that's number 15. Remember? And that was at both of these actually, number fourteen and fifteen sort of had the suggestion of of OPR. Alright. Back up the list here. Number five was member of the that I set for their education. The point being there to pull in the CTEs. Oh, yeah. Wonder. And I have to find out who to advise I never looked at them. But their own is that they've just volunteered. Right. Number six is Vermont State College System that obviously is the Lamont State University folks is primarily really the what was formerly for my tech in in Randolph, but also any other CTE efforts at the state university level. Member from OEO's weatherization group. Weatherization also has a training center in Ferry that they've just. Number eight is a member from the LGT because, obviously, they would be interested in how all this affects municipal enforcement of energy codes. Remember according to the CBT, somebody from the the Department of Public Service, the attorney general's office, and I already mentioned the directives twelve, sixteen, fourteen, and fifty. Yep. So that's the overall members of the working.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So far, we have

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's no legislator on the working group. Is not intended to be a report writing working group or a task force. This is intended to be a how do we do this task force? It's time to be, not to be thinking about advising blood stretchers so much as figuring out how to get this done.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, so far we're asking fire and safety to do an assessment, and we're setting up a task force.

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

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And the task force power and duties now on page five, section c, would be, one, to address shortcomings in the existing residential contractor registry. And some suggested points here are by, one, improving the website. Two, or b, identifying conservation outreach strategies to the public and residential contractors, c, identifying and creating lists of trade specialties. One of the issues that we didn't recognize when we were setting up the residential contractor registry was that we really need to identify specifically by trade who would apply it to. There is a list in the conduct of the various green statutes about types of crates, there aren't specific traits like this. Framing, foundations, roofing, sheetrock, painting. I mean, who who's who's really included? So we need to come up with a with a discreet list and for for two purposes. One one one is so that contractors can can sort of sign up and claim, well, I do these things. And then to the public also, so the public can if they're looking for a specific type of work, now they can they can filter this list by who does that work. D, clarifying the relationship between business based registrations and individual based certifications. Again, the certifications are voluntary, but the business based registrations are required. And then second group of things that the task force will be working on is on slide 11, expediting the creation of voluntary certifications, that is figuring out what those should be, who are the credentialing entities that would be authorized with with not only in writing training, plus writing a a a credential that that person has successfully completed that PIN, and and then listed on fourteen fifth plans fourteen, fifteen, and 16, the initial, subject areas with the construction site supervisor, basic energy code, residential and commercial, and high performance building. And then there would be additional certifications upon discussion and recommendation of the task force.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the idea being I I remember this from when we set up the contractor registry. Is it ultimately when when and if we get to a place where the registry is more user friendly and it's more like public facing, You could go on and look up a builder and see listed there any of these voluntary certifications that they pursued. Right. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. And if when the website is up to date, and you can even shop with builders, like, can shop tires, you can you can filter it by the attributes that are are relevant to what you're looking for. Okay. So location, trade specialty, that sort of thing, certifications. All right. Third power of duty on line 17, page five. Assess how to improve the energy education modules that are required now, have been required for decades. And this is is referring specifically to those modules that are currently the responsibility of the Office of Infection Regulation. And OBR indicated that they are in their in testimony that they don't feel like they should be charging them, because they don't have the expertise to, design an energy energy education module for architects, engineers, property inspectors, those sorts of people. So they suggested that those education modules should be good response to the Department of Public Service, which currently handles the

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: energy codes. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That third power here refers to is that particular set of energy education modules, which are required not only of architects, engineers, those folks, professions under Rutland's jurisdiction, but also trades that are under the jurisdiction of the condition of fire safety. Trades being plumbers, electricians, heating technicians, those sorts of folks. Alright. Paragraph. Number four on line 20. Madam chair. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Can I I'm just, you know, look at this? I just need some clarification. So you're the director of fire safety is going to look at I'm sorry. I'm going backwards. It's a bit like the superintendent is adopting a baseline. That would be not the residential building energy code. That would be this international type thing maybe.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Whatever Tell me where you are again. Right here where it

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: says Page three? Page three, backing adopting the residential buildings. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So So who would that apply to is what you're wondering?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Well, what I've do we have two levels here? This this if they adopt the, whatever, that international thing in, which is a baseline.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, there are two international codes. There are two model codes. One is commercial and the other is residential.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Well, the residential one. Yes. Yeah. That's I was talking about. Yes. Okay. Then Arby's is even a step higher than that. They well, I mean You have to do base and go to Arby's. Correct?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. Arby's is Vermont's and and then you code. Actually, I I know that that that you can this this you're pulling on a string here. This could get complicated.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Well, no. I I understand that. I'm just trying to what what I'm trying to figure out is this residential international code is a baseline.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. No. There there is an energy code in IRC, in the international residential code, that is part of what would be taken out because Vermont has its own that is also based on international energy code, but it's just Vermont it it it's specific to Vermont because it reflects Vermont's energy goals.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Okay. I said that. I'm what I'm trying to get at is what's the cost increase to go from a baseline, what whatever they're building now to Harvey to to put your Harvey's in in enforcement. Well, so state.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So what in the process of updating energy codes, the Department of Public Service goes through an extensive cost effectiveness analysis and and from the customer's point of view, from the the homeowner's point of view. And they do not adopt any codes where the cost effectiveness is negative, where the cost exceeds the benefits in customer economics over a specified period of time, depending on the member. So what's the cost increase? There may be some initial cost increase. We have heard this is the sort of outside of Right. People in

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: the We're trying to look at affordability to get people into houses. Yes. We're adding another 50 to $100 to a house. Oh, no. No. Oh, No. No. It's it's Making it prohibitive.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. No. No. It's not it was nothing on that on that kind of scale. We I I think I heard from from a builder that the difference between the twenty twenty arcs, remember when the executive order came out in September, the governor's executive order dialed back, said that builders no longer had to adhere to the twenty twenty four energy codes. They could use the twenty twenty instead. The difference between 2020 and 2024, according to one builder who operates the Huntington Homes pre Correct. Pre that said that the difference was around $12,000. Okay. So there is there is an upfront cost to it, but that upfront cost is is is outweighed by the cost reductions over the over the the not the life of the building, but some nominal lifespan of of the measures. And that analysis is done in the course of adopting updates to the energy code. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Alright. Where were we here?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Page six, we have Ellen will be here at 10:10, and then we we can return to this also. Alright. Well. No. It's just I think this is really important.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm not not trying rush. I think the last thing was was power duty number four on page bottom of page five, line 20. It was again, the task force is the task force power of duties. Item four is assessing whether the type of regulation for residential contractors should be changed from registration to certification for licensure. And those are meaningful words in the context of office professional. Registration and what contractors are required to do now. Registration involves credentials, no testing, and that's the minimum that's the minimum level of of of regulation. What? I apologize. Okay. I've offered something to me, which

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: was actually addressed to Chris.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So he's pointed out again. The other ball had a guy Yes. I know.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Give him to the ball again.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So registration is the latest form of regulation. Certification may require a certification, but it is not exclusive. So a person could practice Let's see. How does that work? I think a person could practice whether they were certified or not. I may have that wrong. Licensure is the strictest form of regulation. It would require anybody who's practicing whatever the profession is to be licensed, and anybody who tried to practice without a license would in violation. So, for example, architects are licensed like that, engineers, doctors, nurses, people like that are licensed to put on their work. And as director devoted to plumbers and electricians Plumbers and electricians are licensed. That's right. Right. True. Separate. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: just to reorient myself, everything we're talking about is something that the task force would simply advise on.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. All of this.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: All of this. Number five and number six that the task force is advising on is, top of page six.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Assess whether and how the regulating entity for residential zoning contractors should be transferred from OPR to DFS. Right now, the builder registry, which is the regulation over residential building contractors is under OPR. That's where the French do have his house. There were many in the working group who felt that it really should be under Virginia Fire and Safety where all other building related licenses are housed. Another requirement of the task force, which again involves people in the appropriate offices and state government and stakeholders in the industry, is to come to consensus about that and make a recommendation to APR, and ultimately to the next thing. But that's interesting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Go ahead. Southworth.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yes, sir. Didn't the division of fire safety said that they're not set up to do this? They did say don't have the bandwidth to do that?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They did say that. And they are on the task force, so they will advocate for that as well. So and well, should spend a lot of time on this and and everything else in the area we wanted to, but should push on. And the last item in their powers and duties is just to consider any other strategies, just to improve and streamline the regulation of residential contractor industry. So my intent, as as I think everybody else's intent, is how do we make this better, not more costly and more difficult for contractors, but how do we make it better?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yes, So back to the education piece. Yes, ma'am. How long from your time it's determined what's needed before that stood up, and how much time do they have to stand it up before it actually goes into effect?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Are you talking about certifications? Are you talking about

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The the education modules and the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, the education module. Well, they are stood up now. They have

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: been for a decade. I understand that they were saying that they needed to revamp them. They needed to redo.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. There's no time frame in here. I think everyone recognizes that the education modules as they stand and as was stipulated in statute are useless. They're outdated. Well, not only outdated, they never were useful because what they were was basically a review of statute, which is meaningless to most people, Right? So they were set up by office that was required to set them up in order to meet their core requirements, but they weren't really. They were never good useful. Later on in the bill, there is some change in language that is intended to make them useful and relevant to the profession they're trading that is used. So there's no timeframes? No timeframes, no. Okay, thank you. All right, so page six, line six, assistance. Just says who's going to be helping the task force, the administrative, technical, and legal assistance of OPR, the informational and technical expertise of DFS and public service, line 12 reports. Beginning in 2026, the task force shall submit annual reports, honorable four number one, the legislature, or to OPR and legislature, sort of advising us on how they're doing. That's just the purpose of the reports. Line 18 meetings. Third meeting would be audit before August year, and meetings will be held monthly for the first year, and thereafter at least every other month. On top of page seven. And then other detail about the standard board update about sending for task force. Task force on line six will cease to exist on 06/30/2020. Love

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the sunset. We always forget to do that.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Then, actually here's one other change, but it just, because there's no general fund appropriation for this, on line 12, item two about compensation and reimbursement for per diems, It refers to the last item in bill that we already talked about, about the money that comes from grantees in order to support the working task force.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a quick question about that. Well, didn't get to the regimen yet. I really want to talk about that. But, I'm not seeing many members on the task force list who would not be otherwise compensated, like the member of the public, maybe the independent contractor. Okay.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: All right? The formula that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: lunch counsellor used for assessing how much to appropriate for per day and they're up with with $5,000. 5,000? Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right. But that number is no longer in the end. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: All right. So now follows information about the education modules that we talked about, the MD education modules. Starting at the bottom of page seven is the perfections regulated by OPR. In the middle of page eight, line seven, the new language says that the energy module will explain how the work of the profession or trade intersects with the energy codes and affects the energy airflow and moisture management dynamics of the building as a underground system. That language is repeated in the other sections of statute affecting other trades.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So to be clear I understand, you said this earlier, I want to make sure I understand it. Starting at the bottom of page seven, that is existing statute. These modules already exist. We're not requiring new education. Changing how the current required education is delivered.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And what and what what it covers. The language in line seven to nine is in lieu of the language in line 11 to 15, which is struck out. The former language stipulated that there is general information about state energy goals and updates on energy goals and incentives.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Change in the crew, hence?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So it's it's being more specific about what the content should include. Yeah. And it's and it's it's not it's it's not very relevant for a a an electrician to hear or an architect to hear about what state centers and what those are. It's relevant for them to hear about how that what impact that has on their worker. So that's what we're trying to get out here. So the next several sections cover other trades, all under the Division of Fire Safety. Bottom of page eight is the section involving heating equipment technicians. And these section titles, descriptive section titles were added earlier.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And again, this is

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Same change in language.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Say it's existing, these are things already required to do. Yes. And we're changing the content. Okay. So it's the same thing now for the HVAC and boiler.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the boiler inspectors. Oh, right. Okay. Director Dara Torre was very clear

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That that that was inappropriate. It was included in the statute of vigilance, and he was very clear that they had nothing to do with insulation. They are only inspected. So at his request, we have made that section statute, we'll appeal that section statute. That's on page 10. And beginning on page 10 is electricians. Again, separate language changes. On page 11, it's the latest to plumbers. Again, same language changes. Page 12.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Alrighty.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And then it's such a nice drawing in the last line of page 12, Energy Professionals Regulation Report. This is asking the OPR to conduct their standard process, which is called the Sunrise Process.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm sorry. Rex Southworth?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Sorry. Could you just explain to me so I understand how electricians fit into that verbiage, explain how the proficiency, airflow, moisture management dynamics, how do electricians get out of that assumption? Well, for example, an electrician might be installing a arrangement over a stove or a downdraft

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: stove that might be hooking up electric for a downdraft stove. A downdraft stove can draw three fifty, 400 cubic feet per minute enough air to depressurize how this relatively air pipe. There's a story years ago that we heard about about one of those downdrafts fans blowing not only smoke but fire from a fireplace across the rug so it affects the dynamics of the house So that's, you know, may be a narrow nexus to other issues or some trays like electricians, but there's some nexus. They might also want to be told that, geez, if you're drilling drilling holes through plates through framing members to run wires from one floor to the next, you should make sure those those holes are sealed because you don't want air passing through those holes much further the next or into the attic. They might also want to know about installing recessed lights. Resessed lights are are notorious for driving air and moisture into into an unheated or an an unheated space, which then becomes a moisture problem. So, things like that. There are connections. Okay. Just didn't make that connection. Right. So, sunrise One

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: sec. Ellen, hey. Are you in a hurry to move? We're walking through. We're doing our own self guided walk through. Are you in a hurry to move on to some other place? Should we I'm here until eleven. So I think we're good. Yeah. Okay. Great. Do you mind if we keep going then? Because we're on a roll with the seven, eight, 8. Okay?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great, thank you.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Our roll.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're on

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: a roll.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We're page 13 of 17. Powering through it. Yeah. So this is the Sunrise. Again, this is Section Nine, the Sunrise report from OPR to assess whether home energy rating systems raters, HCERS raters, and energy professionals should be regulated professions. Right now, Bruce Raiders are regulated through Public Service Department. There's only a handful of them in the state. And they were originally put with Department of Public Service because there was only one. There was reminded me of Energy Investment Corporation, energy rated homes or energy rated homes or bond I. This Sunrise report would would be to assess whether HERS radars should be regulated professions, whether energy professionals should be regulated professions, and make its recommendations to the legislature. Section 10 is about energy code enforcement and the ability of municipalities to do that. This is in Title 30, which is the public service title. And there's a companion section in Title 24, which is a municipal title, that we'll get to in a second. This is a two liner on lines thirteen and fourteen on page 13, saying specifically explicitly that it means that municipality may enforce RVs within the the municipality in compliance with this section.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: My question. So we have RVs that are already mandatory, but with low compliance. And you said the findings that some municipalities want to enforce them. That would be up to the municipality. And did did did they need enabling legislation? Is that is it unclear?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's the answer. That's the lack of clarity. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So right now, it's unclear whether municipalities that want to enforce the Yep. RVs can. And so we're saying you can if you want to.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's right. Okay. Two municipalities have that authority that I know of, Burlington and Montpelier, and they've fired that authority to a charter change. So

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: this does include an enforcement

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: asked about it. Well, four municipalities that choose to do it.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But they have an alternate way of putting that authority on it. You just said they did

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it through the charter change. Yes. Well, that's right. They've which is, as you know, a cumbersome process. It has to be approved by the the councilor, you know, there's a select board by the voters True. By the legislature. Yeah. And the the part of it is that municipalities believe some municipalities, DLCT, believes that municipalities have that authority now, and the statute is unclear about it, and we'll actually get to that in a second. All right. So that's the first part of this. On line 15, transitional safe harbor compliance. This is language requested by public service that clarifies that builders who, based on the governor's executive order of September 17, decided to to certify that they had complied with ARVs twenty twenty instead of ARVs twenty twenty four, that they did so in good faith and and and would not be would be held harmless from from any liability for doing that. That language continues on to the top of page 14, down and to the end of the section. That section 11 is analogous language to that section 10, but it applies to commercial building standards. So, I mean, it's probably made for CBs within its municipality in compliance with this section. The transitional city harvest compliance applies with CBs. Language is slightly different, but it's the same to the same effect. So that's section 11. Section 12, then, is regarding the title 24, the Municipal's title, and at the bottom of this page, it added language to Title 24. As you can see in here, the existing language says is that the mayor, board of aldermits, like board, or whatever of the town, may establish codes and regulations for construction, maintenance, repair, and alteration of buildings or other structures within the municipality. Such codes and regulations may include provisions relating to building materials, structural design, etc, etc, etc. All of that is existing language and statute.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm curious about why, so if that's existing language and and I'm sure this is a long answer, and it doesn't have to be a long answer. I'm curious about why that's unclear. Like, why Well So mean sounds like municipalities are not clear whether they have the authority to enforce the R. B. Yes. So this language has been

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They think they do based on this

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry. You said they think they do.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Right. I'm sorry.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, so we have a we have a lawyer in the room.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Ah, that looks like that's

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: got the legislative council. I do not think they do. Ah. Ah, thank you. Those are citations to other statutes, not energy codes.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Those are very specific to

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the codes that the Department of Fire Safety oversees. So, I don't think that gives them authority. While some of the language is similar, it is not about the energy efficiency codes that we have in Title 30.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that's Furthermore,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't know where this appears in statute, but the Division of Fire Safety is the authority over commercial building codes, over all, actually, all public buildings. And the only way that municipalities can enforce those codes is through an explicit agreement with the Division of Fire Safety. Yes. So that's why it's all very helpful here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So this is new language that the goal

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of making it clear. The adopted codes and regulations the adopted codes and regulations may incorporate by reference incorporate by reference, is the operable phrase here, the residential building energy standards and commercial and CDs established pursuant to Title 30. Incorporate by reference means they can't change them. They can only adopt them. Fact, we're getting nods from lawyers. Think I said that right. Now we're to page 16 of 17. We're closing in on our thoughts.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This is most helpful for me, anyway.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: This is a new section G, again, still in title 24 regarding building regulation, and it says incorporation of the resident of the RBs and the CBs pursuant to subsection A shall allow the municipalities to enforce those standards. Again, making explicit what is unclear right now. Section 13, these are the appropriations. Dollars 200,000 is appropriated from the RGGI revenues to public service for the purpose of consultation and technical support to municipalities that elect to adopt and enforce RBs and CDs. Second, if appropriation is $200,000 so that's where we started off compensation, to do OPR, assist the task force, support the task force, with and the goals of identifying tumor oriented agency organizations to open websites and to raise public awareness advisory contract registry also to provide funding to that agency organization to launch and manage the website by the 2027. And lastly, to support the OPR and those involuntary certifications. And there's one typo here, Ellen, which is, it seems like it already is semi colon activist 2027. You don't have the thing in front of you, but it's that's that's that's the only category.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Line eight. Line eight. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. Done that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So let's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So pick it up. Let's do that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Take a photographic memory picture of it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Let's talk about the regi money. Repsibilia.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So first, I wanna say how much work is very clear. You have done a piece. Yes. And how much you care about this. So thank you for caring so much. Think you spent so much time doing all of this work. So do you think that OPR is now on board with us?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have asked that explicitly. I haven't got a I haven't got a full a okay. Mhmm. I am think I mentioned earlier, I'm about to send out to everyone in the working group and everyone who's on the on the task force list Questionnaires, support, oppose, need to support, and all of those. Okay. Can

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you give them a deadline, Scott? I I want Yeah. Want a sense of urgency around this response.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because I feel like OPR is not getting back

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: to you. They are not good about that. So Okay. I finally called Jen and got her off. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I do think that clarification can be very helpful. Oh,

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: good and clear regulation, which is heading towards, is much more, it's much better than

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: With I have a question about concern about I'm just seeing this language now. The appropriation supporting the office of OPR and the development of voluntary certifications. So, I'll just say that my concern is that that feels like something that could be leveraged in an ongoing way. Right? So, like, starting up an ongoing kind of draw out of Reggie. And then I'm sorry to say, like, I just cannot support the Reggie money. So if it's reggie money, I can't support

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it. Mhmm. The nexus to the reggie money is this. That that money and and, as you know, forward pricing market are the revenue sources for the Thermal Energy and Processed Fuels Fund, also known as the Fuel Efficiency Fund. That money is being used for primarily it has been used in the past and is still being used primarily for thermal efficiency improvements, weatherization primarily. So it supports three d thermal, which is a low income or a income qualified apartment building retrofit program. It also supports, I don't know whether it's market rate or middle income weatherization efforts through efficiency of the lot, and and also sports work by from my guests and and BED. In efficiency, energy efficiency measures primarily weatherization, but we like, PET is also using it for some transportation to sports. So the nexus to this is that this is, in effect, weatherization before retrofit.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So this is new weatherization of new revenue structure.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I appreciate that, and I appreciate the attempt to link and, I think, successfully link an access to the RGGI money. But I I personally have a challenge picking out of funds, and I'm having a challenge right now with the pilot money that comes in from the local option tax. And but just picking something that has an access out of there. It's not what it's intended for. When we are doing those types of things, wanna see more of a comprehensive overlook of, like, reggie money if we're gonna take money out of it in something that and this does look like it might have an ongoing. So is a one topic. Well, I think that the certification with OPR, I think, really begs the question of how does that get paid? Why would that stop afterwards? And how does it get paid

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: for it going forward? Well, the task force has a has a. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And and everybody is supporting the task force. Reggie's gonna be Reggie is just a hard hit for me. I'm sorry. And that is my that is my chief that is my sticking point for this. Mhmm.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: K.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I am I I and you know, because I I've already talked to you about this. I have similar concerns. I'm I'm also worried about the precedent we might be setting with tapping into reggie money Absolutely. No matter how clear the nexus. So, what I when I think about this bill, I I fully support this bill all the way up to the funding question. So so I'm a yes, just to get that out there. And I feel like we could grapple with this now or let a probes fight over it. But either way, I I'm not sure we should kick the can down the road because I feel like the regiment is gonna a problem for probes. So we could talk about it, you know. I think when it gets to probes, they're gonna have the same concerns. So I we need to talk about it now as a committee for sure so that we're not just being like, oh, we didn't discuss that. Can I just say that if you change the color of

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: that to general fund money, I would go for it?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, yeah. I think I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I feel like

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: However, nothing happens with general fund.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, but I I wonder if we don't know what happens with regi money.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. Mhmm.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You know what I mean? I I see similar I see a similar difficult conversation over funding for this effort and so many other efforts across the It's not just this. Mhmm. Whether we take it out of GF or Reggie, I I don't see that either one is easier than the other, and I wonder whether Reggie might even be harder.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. That's useful feedback. Thank you.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So reging money, states have broad discretion to replace it. They do. I'm wondering if this joint committee that's gonna get revitalized could have an oversight role in the region. Just because, you know, the president will Interesting. Invite more asks, and that seems like something that a joint committee would wanna be considering.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It will invite more asks. I think that I did reach I've at the request of and, again, Scott knows this. At the request of chair Shia, I did reach out to JFO and just say, like, what do you think? And I haven't heard back yet. Shoot. I had a more relevant thought based on what Task force. Secretary said. Task force We're saying. Oversight. Oversight, looking at the whole thing.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Because others will want to use money as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. It came back to me. And we did already hear from Efficiency Vermont and the department, I think, that they believe the red that t e p f money is spoken for. Right? Didn't they? I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But they're negotiating they're negotiating with it right now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. It's already talking about it in the DRP. DRP, IRP. I get those.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: DRP, which is a three year plan. And also, probably bears mentioning that there's something in excess of $8,000,000 in excess revenue, reggie revenues. That is revenues that weren't budgeted for in the last three year GRP. So a $400,000 total is 5% of that. So it is something. It's not nothing, but it's also not what.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Agree with all and of that and my concern is about the is about the precedent that we might set. And I say this as someone who is voting yes, thinks this is important work. We've I feel as we need to keep moving this ball down the field. And, you know, what we have so far is, you know, an assessment, the creation of an advisory only task force, updating and improving education modules that are already required, Giving municipalities that want to enforce the clear authority to enforce in a way that is lacking in statute, you know, previous municipalities have already pursued through charge changes. So I I I just all of this feels like a very logical next step for me. And so I'm just thinking about where do we get the money it needs? What's our better path? What's the more likely path in a year when all paths are feel unlikely?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Like, where are we putting up more barriers? And where are we putting up less barriers? Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. I I don't like the bill for a lot of reasons. The RGGI money is a big concern for me. We have all this weatherization that needs to be done in the state, and We're not hitting everybody. We should be hitting everybody. We start all thing up taking that money for other things. And I know that the nexus I I understand the nexus, but we also have to look at we have a lot more buildings out there that are currently built that need weatherization. We're

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: gonna have years.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And and that money needs to go directly to that in my opinion. And I just that's offensive. They can help.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But even if the money were general fund money, don't I don't think that would satisfy your concern.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I would not support the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: bill even though they're not with it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that's so maybe that's an important temp check to take right now. So I think I think we've got

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I mean, yes with general fund and I know we've got J.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes with GF. I'm a yes either way, but I've registered my concerns. I I think it's gonna make it harder in a prose.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: The specific question of the bill and gentleman?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just we're definitely at the point now where we need to know what changes need to happen to this bill, if any, for people to support it. So that's that's where we're at. So rep Southworth is unclear. He's no no matter what. Yeah. So because you don't wanna spend in the final days as we get to the finish line a bunch of time altering language when folks are they're not gonna go for it anyway. So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I would just say two quick things. One is yeah. If I were to say it that way, it would be great. So I will say I dislike designated funds in general, and I think they lend themselves to all sorts of accounting tricks and shenanigans like Social Security Trust Fund, which is delusional. So therefore, it doesn't matter to me where the money comes from. The state has a certain amount of money, and that's what you got to budget with. I don't care if it's in the Ed Fund or the Transportation Fund or the General Fund or Reggie Fund or a million other funds.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Get rid that. Ed Fund's waiting where it's there.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. No. We should get rid of them all in in my view. Money you know, that's the money the state has, and these are the priorities it has, and we sort it out. However, so I don't care where the money comes from, and other than that question aside, I think this is an important bill. I I will note that there have been residential building codes for several thousand years, and that has that is true because it is important to keep people safe and to build buildings that last and our energy efficient and all that. So I'm a yes.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara, I'm also a yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Reggie or GF is not a deal breaker for you?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Oh, I wanna see what happens in the probe. So Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because our choice would be to change it here. But Okay. I mean, I

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I probably would favor GF. Okay, then the larger need to coordinate the oversight question about.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, and to be clear, we don't need to decide that particular thing right this very minute, but it will be helpful to know how much time or effort we put into it. Brad Howland?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm a no. Reason

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm a no is I don't think that we should be legislating at the subsection of a building code. I want the building code to be adopted first and then come back into the subsection of the energy code. But the absence of the building code doesn't make any sense to try and put eight inches of insulation into a six inch rack.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Lot of the gold.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I will say that that is the view of many who are on the energy working group, in particular a builder who said, this is ridiculous to have energy codes. We don't even have a building code. And so that's the reason why the building code is deadline for for Yes. And I also for doing that is if part of this was ostensibly

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That there's a 01/15/2027 date in there for consideration. For for that for recommendation. Right. And and I think that if this doesn't pass till June 30 or May, I think that's too short a time for this committee to Well, they already started.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: This this is just a deadline for doctor.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: K?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Anything to ask?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay. Was gonna say, I just saw Just making a church.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: You need lunch. Yeah. Yeah. You may have held your hand up. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rob Morrow?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I I understand some of the concerns. Clearly, we need a building code. The the the reggie money is a concern for me. I'll

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Weigh in on that. Let me get to that. But I think we do need given where we are with building, we do need to move forward with this. I think this has been watered down from its original introduction in all sorts of ways to inform to certain parties.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. Perfect.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And that the that the building

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: group is in favor of it made me feel better about it. So I I would be a yes. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's put you on the spot. So I I was asking everybody. It's like a temp check, basically, so we know what to do with the bill. We had a robust discussion about how people feel about the using general time money versus reging money. And then I was putting everybody on the spot to saying like where are you at with this bill? So we've got four people, Scott, Kath, Bram, and Dara who are a yes, kind of sort of for me no matter what, I'm worried about the Reggie money. We have Sibilia who's a hard no if it's Reggie money, but yes if it's general fun. I put Chris in that middle category, although I feel like Chris is really worried about the Reggie money too. Then we have a no thanks hard pass from reps Southworth and Howland. I

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: didn't say it that bluntly, But if you

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well do I run? And

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: then So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: when we get to the pedal, it's the metal time. It's clear clarity is always good. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: You know?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Hard no. Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So I don't think we need to decide about the Reggie versus general fund money right this very minute.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Yep. Sorry. I just wanted one more item that we may wanna clarify if it's moving, is in terms of the effective dates and just looking at the education modules and others, do we have all of those dates locked down for clarity? So I just

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's no timeline about the energy modules, energy education module. It's it's been it's been in statute for, think, twenty years or something, a time. It's just there was no specificity about when they needed to be updated, that they were included here. And that was stood there. So

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: then why would they be? Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think everybody recognizes that they're useless as is. Mean, like, director said so. So

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: it's just permissive, if you feel like it when you get around to it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Maybe we should I'm trying not to create more mandates here, maybe there should be a timeline.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: One other thing that just came up too is OPR, we don't know if they're on board.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Think they I think they will be.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, right. But with the there was an ambiguity when they were in here. Yeah. And also with division of fire safety, he was very clear that, you know, they don't have the staff to stand things up to take things over. So I wanna be cognizant of that too because if something stand stood up and that falls on them, then it will send them more money if they need more personnel to take care of doing things. I just wanna put that out there as well. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Well, good talk. Good talk. So this now makes its merry way across the hall and makes its way to all the members of the working group with Scott saying, we need your response. And we will I I don't know how quickly we'll get it back from general, but they know what we're trying yeah. I mean, they know we have a timeline. And

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And they they won't have possession. It's just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. They're not gonna have possession. Right? So they're not gonna, like I think that they will look at it, maybe take a straw poll or come back to us with recommendations. They they can do what they wanna do, basically. But we will be hearing back from them. And their changes could be, you know, like I said earlier, could be anything from this looks great to would you consider this or that? And we we would then be able to do that do what we want. Taking their reflections into account. Okay. Was good. That was helpful for me. Thanks, everybody, for taking so much time. Ellen, thank you for being patient. We really were on a roll.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But we needed to continue along. All right, we're shifting now to committee bill 26,781.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. There's a bug on my back. You can share. Ellen J. Scott Campbell, City Council.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I am here on draft 2.1 of your miscellaneous committee bill.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: is 26 dash seven eighty one, draft 2.1. So can we get a hard copy of this?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't think we have hard copies. It is used to Okay. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's a great question.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. This incorporates everything out of them in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. I confirmed that with them on last night. So everything that we talked about yesterday is is in there now. And if it if it looks a little different, right, because you just take the relevant sections. Right?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So the changes to this bill are only in the portion related to enhanced energy planning. There is one tiny typo on page one that's highlighted in yellow, but it's not really a change. Dara pointed out that section one previously was called energy efficiency charge funds. It now reads thermal energy process fuel funds, but the rest of section one has not changed.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Is, Owen, before you go on, so, this is the section, you know, basically authorizing Burlington Electric to continue with this program. And rep Southworth raised a concern about that last night. So I sent his concern along to his question request to Burlington Electric and to yes because and to Vermont Gas because they were the three entities that we had basically come together and come up with, you know, language that worked for all of them. And so let's see here. So I am hearing back, but I've asked all of them to submit written testimony. And Dara had some pretty deep concerns. He's gonna send us written testimony. Neil said they defer to Burlington Electric and trust their expertise on the correct percentage. And Alec from DPS also said that he believes their previous testimony applies, but he's happy to offer thoughts on those changes. So, we will be hearing back from everybody by tomorrow. So the next steps are I I did not request a revision of the bill just to be clear because this was one one member's idea. I did request hurts.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Pardon? I said, well, that hurts.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, but that is what it was. So

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Right. I'm also concerned about setting

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a precedent with,

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Reggie, with the thermal response.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: This is not a problem.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. The Yeah. Oh.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Thermal, the TEPF response. In this department? The electric charge for the thermal. Correct?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. The this is The Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The way they use it, I just worry about sending precedent on how those funds can be used going forward by all the efficiency utilities. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So okay. We'll get testimony from that on that. But with this particular program, I I mean, I know you know this, but BGS is no longer it was a pilot.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Efficiency Vermont is no longer continuing the pilot, and Vermont Gas is no longer continuing the pilot. So this is not changing. It's simply allowing Burlington Electric to continue on with the existing pilot for three more years.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Would it change from the original use criteria?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. It is not an extension of the pilot, so I've I wanna be careful as I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: have to. Yeah. So could you clarify for us?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So under what had been called the EMA pilot, Energy Efficiency Modernization Act, there were specific criteria of what the project what the funds could be used for under that change as part of EMA, broadening the scope of what those funds could be used for. There was also reporting requirements and checking in with the Public Utility Commission. This is significantly narrower. The permission with the Public Utility Commission is still part of it, but again, the description of what the funds are being able to be used for has changed again. And so, this is a significantly narrower program just for Burlington Electric to use the funds in a very specific way. Okay. Hear Just for this cycle. Just for this budgeting cycle, '27 to '29.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, it is a more narrow use of the funds for one more three year cycle. Okay. So, we will hear back on that section and then we'll decide as a committee what to do. Whether we are going to revise the language or not revise the language. Okay. Alright. Next. Alright. So, sections two, three,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: and four are new, and they are based on the they are the language that was provided by the Department of Public Service on how to adapt the enhanced energy planning to fit with the new Regional Planning Commission approval process. Okay? So, the language in two, three, and four is all new. I didn't highlight every single word, just the section headings because otherwise the rest of the language would just be yellow. So, starting on page three, first that's being amended is 24 BSA forty three forty eight, which is the process that the Regional Planning Commission go through to adopt and amend the regional plans. So, first on page three, sixty days prior to holding the first public hearing on the refill plan, an RPC shall submit a draft to the Land Use Review Board for review and comments related to conformance of the draft with sections forty three point zero two and forty three point four eight A, and if it is seeking an optional determination of energy compliance to the Department of Public Service for review and comment Comments related to conformance of the draft plan with 4,352, which is the energy compliance statute. On page four. The process of the plan review continues. Down at the bottom of page four, at least thirty days prior to the first hearing on the plan, the RPC shall provide each of its member municipalities with a written description of map changes within the municipality and a municipality wide map showing old versus new areas with labels and information about the new tier structure under Act 50, and how to obtain the statuses and the process for updating designated area boundaries. The Regional Planning Commission shall, if it is seeking an optional determination of energy compliance, solicit feedback on its enhanced energy plan, onto page five, consistency with section forty three fifty two of this chapter and the enhanced energy planning standards. I like. On page five, subsection h. Within fifteen days following the adoption of the plan, the RPC shall submit its regionally adopted regional plans to the board for determination of regional plan compliance with a report documented conformance with the goals established in '40 3.2 and the plan elements established in 43.48 a and a description of any changes to the regional plan future land use map. The RPC shall also at this time, if it is seeking an optional determination of energy compliance, submit the plan to the Department of Public Service for review with a description of conformance with the enhanced energy planning standards and summary of any comments received during the public hearings. Section three is new. This is 04/1950, so review and consultation regarding municipal planning efforts. That prior section, section two, was about the process the regional planning commission goes through with the Land Use Review Board who reviews their plan. On the municipal side, the RPCs review the municipal plan. This is the layer of review that the RPC does over the town's plan. As part of the consultation process, the commission shall consider whether a municipality has adopted a plan. In order to obtain or retain confirmation of the planning process, a municipality must have an approved plan. On page six, jumping down to line seven, the commission shall approve a plan if it finds the plan is consistent

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: with

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the goals of forty three-forty two, compatible with the regional plan, compatible with other approved plans for municipalities, contains all the required elements, and adding, if the municipality is seeking an optional determination of energy compliance, is consistent with forty three fifty two of this title and the enhanced energy planning standards.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Wait. Where I'm sorry. I just got lost. Are we at the

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: bottom of page six? Thank you. So this is adding language, that Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So on a brief Yeah. No, know.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: And I skipped over some language because there's a lot that goes into that review. You're just adding once again. Your RPC will also review the municipality's compliance if they're seeking the determination at that time, the municipality's compliance. Then section four on page seven is the amendment to the actual energy compliance stat, enhanced energy planning statute. That is amending that. On page seven, section four, the enhanced energy planning requirements to obtain an affirmative determination of energy compliance under this section, a plan must, in the case of a regional plan, include an energy element. In the case of a municipal plan, include an energy element as the same components as in the statute, be consistent with the following. Vermont's greenhouse gas emission requirements. This is an old typo that needs to be fixed. Vermont's renewable energy standard under 30 BSA 8,004.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Have question 8,005.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So I was just gonna say this is being moved up because the r the RES has been on this list and is being moved up to replace what was previously the 25 by '25 goal. So,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 10 VSA five seventy eight a, that's GWSA, so that's goals to requirements. And then under b, is that whatever preceded the res? Yes. The 25 by 25 goal? Yes. The twenty fifteen res or the I'm the floor reporter, so I'm

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna I don't know if I can. I can get back to you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Can you? I just wanna know what what we're replacing.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The building on energy efficiency goals and the state energy policy. Okay. On to page eight. And, yes, and I have the same question about that. So, is subdivision E on page eight that's being struck is the RES. It's just being moved up further on the list and framed in a shorter sentence. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's specifically here in Subdivision E calling out distributed generation, tier two, and energy transformation, tier three, as part of the RES. I'm just moving it up in on the prior page and just saying the RES in general.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I'll come back to you.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. Sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I can't find my

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: thing. Alrighty.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So, on page eight, line seven, energy state energy plans, recommendations, standards. So, is just reframing this section slightly, would say. The Commissioner of Public Service shall issue recommendations for regional and municipal energy planning and the standards for issuing a determination of energy compliance described in Subsection C within one year after adopting or readopting the state comprehensive energy plan adopted under 02/2002. Recommendations and standards shall be consistent with the state energy and state comprehensive energy plan. Subsection E, process for issuing determination of energy compliance. Review of whether to issue a determination of energy compliance under this section shall include, it's striking some of the notice and hearing process. On to page nine. Consideration of comments received by the Regional Planning Commission or municipality during the plan adoption process on consistency with this section and with the enhanced energy planning standards. Think this is because it is sort of being added to the notification and public hearing process as part of the general plan review. Further down on page nine, it's striking old language in subsection G that was prior to 07/01/2018. On to page 10, It's adding some additional language. Determination time period. An affirmative determination of energy compliance issued pursuant to this section shall remain in effect until the end of the period for expiration or readoption of the plan to which it applies with the following exceptions. The Regional Planning Commission or municipal legislative body has adopted a plan with an updated energy element and notifies the appropriate body of its intent to request a termination of energy compliance at least thirty days prior to the first public hearing on the plan. In that case, in this case, the Commissioner of Public Service or Regional Planning Commission may choose to offer the requesting body a provisional affirmative determinant determination of energy compliance, which shall remain in effect for two months following the adoption of the new plan. In the event of a regional or municipal plan being readopted without updates the energy element or chapter that impact the plan's existing affirmative determination. The affirmative determination shall be extended to the expiration date of the readopted plan for two years after the issuance of new standards onto page 11. For issuing a determination of energy compliance, whichever comes first. The RPC or the municipality shall seek an opinion from the department or RPC that a new determination of energy compliance is not required and shall seek a new determination of energy compliance if determined necessary by the Department or Regional Planning Commission.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is all of this language the language that was suggested by Public Service? Yes. Okay. You didn't make any changes to it.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I did not. Notwithstanding the opinion, a new determination of energy compliance shall be required if the standards for issuing a determination of energy compliance have been revised since the last affirmative determination of energy compliance was issued. And then the last change is in subdivision H on page 11. In the discharge of the duties assigned under the section the commissioner of public service may consult with and solicit the recommendations of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Community Development, Natural Resources, and Transportation.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: do folks have questions? Yeah. So, just one that's occurring

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: to me right now around the telecommunications plan. I know it's not yours, but it's a timeline question more. So, the next iteration of telecommunications plan was due next year. This bill was effective upon passage. Is it clear? I I know they've taken the money out of budget, but is it clear that it's not due next year? Because we've had actually concerns around two dates for the telecommunications plan in the past.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Think you should ask, Maria, but making something effective on passage

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: is means it will take effect immediately. So that this year's would not be due. It wouldn't be that the next one would be five years after this year. That's my question.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I think you should hear from Maria.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Sorry, it just occurred to me.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's okay. You articulate your question to Maria and copy me? Okay. Alright, Sorry. Maria's sections are five and six.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: They have not changed in this draft and on page 12, I can't remember if we specifically talked about it in this committee, but section seven is the effect of date and does take effect on passage, I can't remember honestly if we talked about it in frailty, but as just was alluded to, it's on passage. Okay.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I do have one. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That section we just reviewed that if modifications to the local plan are required, should the date be in there that they have to, that they keep their ability to be represented for a time until they can give them time to revise their plans as it's being presented to them, that the local plan needs revision. I think the term is substantial difference. Again, other other hearing that I If they don't if a municipality doesn't have a plan in place, they don't have substantial difference. So if they have a plan in place, they have substantial difference. Now because the region has or above has revised their plan, their plan no longer meets the standard. Do they lose their substantial difference for that period of time it takes for them to revise their plan, their municipal plan.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I can I was looking for my notes from yesterday, but I mean, Ellen may know the answer off the top of her head, but the language that is that was suggested from DPS closes that gap? So that's what we heard yesterday.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: The gap is closed.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Fine. The gap is closed. Yeah. Because it's I think it's a big concern, and and it's a really important concern. And if I could find my notes.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: She said she said local antigen. So immunogenicity

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. What page are you gonna report?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm looking back on the GPS because I do announce. It's the last page.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, it is the last page.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: My misunderstanding. Thank you. K.

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then I also because we had only heard from one RPC and the Chittenden RPC wasn't able to join us, I did ask for written testimony from them, and that should be arriving today. So so my hope, but we shall see, is that we would I'm the floor reporter on this one, and my hope is that we would vote this one out, before we kick off tomorrow. And then, it does not have to go to any other committee, it would be on notice Tuesday and on the floor next Wednesday, Thursday.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: A week a week. Correct. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Next in the relative sense. Yeah. When we get back. On notice, Tuesday, the tenth and on the floor on Wednesday and Thursday.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: You may wanna check with JFO if section one necessitates going to appropriation. It's not an appropriation. It is

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I don't sorry. I I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: you may wanna just check if they're gonna think that because it's affecting the monies of the state. You're not appropriating or taking

[Jeremy Little (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: it away, but you are changing how it's being spent.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I I mean, I can reach out.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But That'd be great. Okay. That'd be great. It wouldn't affect our our timeline. No. But But it would mean it would not be on on the floor as quickly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. If you don't mind. Just copy my notes so you

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: can see the answer. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. Great. Well, we have I think that was a productive morning. Alright. I need to take a five minute break before we come back for our 11:00 testimony. So if we could go offline, and we will be RVing.