Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, good morning. This is Center of Natural Resources and Energy, and we are at Tuesday, March 31, and we are starting with a couple of bill introductions today. Just so the committee knows, the theme of the week is introducing bills, and I'd like to also get a budget letter together. Be thinking about what you would want to have in that budget letter from setting aside time tomorrow, Thursday and Friday, in terms of tomorrow, we'll just get the list of what is on people's radar in terms of budget letter. Thursday, we'll actually look at a budget letter, and then Friday, hopefully we'll just do a straw poll on Sunday coming out. So we're going be hearing from a few other entities that have some budgetary asks, so that's a theme that will come up through the week, yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Have we kept track of, because I haven't. I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: have a bell list going, though I want to make sure that my list squares with your list and yes.

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: So I

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: just were gonna ask for the state budget?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. So we would be sending it to the appropriations committee.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We're just we're gonna send it away to ANR to ask the federal delegation person, what number for three acre and for the social.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We should talk more. Okay. Something else? No. Okay. So that's something that's going to come up this week. Then we have quite a few bills that I believe are coming to us. And so we're going to do a number of bill introductions this week just to make sure, well, just get some topics on the table. Okay, but right now we are going to be focusing on H-seven 18 about building energy efficiency and we have sponsored bills, Representative Campbell here with us and would love to invite you up to tell us about it. Hello

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: everyone, I'm representing this afternoon from St. John's Ferry. Thank you for picking up this both. It's very appreciated. Thanks. Thank you working on the front of your lab. Actually, I I also I wrote a a kind of a two page crib sheet, which I had to pass when I was about to read them. Yep. Sure.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is this something you could send to

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: Oh, yes. To you, Bill? I didn't really have a film this morning. That's okay. That maybe will be useful for you today. So how far back in background, does everybody know we have building energy codes? Does everybody know that they're actually anybody? Do we know that?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is a topic that we have not discussed.

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: Okay, was like, start with the beginning. So we've had residential building energy statutes since 1997, commercial since 2007. They're in statute, they aren't actually required, but we have never had any enforcement mechanism or penalty for not tolerating them and compliance is to a self certification process. So as a result, is spot on the commercial side, it seems to be pretty good because typically that involves builders and designers with more training and also licenses, their licensed practitioners. Folks that stay believes their funds is that they don't follow a law and follow code. So on the side, compliance is pretty good. On the residential side, there have been various efforts and studies. It's a little hard to do, but it seems very clear that clients so my philosophy of study that I know about was ten years ago and all the projects that were done, finished them with COVID, said it was more recent of course and implies something around fifty three percent I believe. So, and as codes get more stringent, provides subject to review to comply. So that's the problem before us, is how do we increase compliance without enforcement or penalties and it's clear that there's not appetite for that at this time. We have obviously a housing crisis that we're trying to deal with, and we don't want to add more costs to building houses, and we don't want add cost to state governments who create build an infrastructure to handle enforcement. The Division of Fire Safety is the Office of Panels building building code updates and enforcement for commercial buildings, actually for all what they call public buildings, which includes all rentals, all residential rentals, as well as commercial buildings and medical buildings. And there is a commercial code where there is no residential building code. So they don't, while they do have jurisdiction over down to single family rentals and duplexes, there's not actually an applicable model code that they base their enforcement on. So one of the things that they have been doing is sort of incentivized by the federal government and FEMA is exploring whether to adopt and adapt a residential building code for the city because that would make the state eligible for categorical grants. I think it's million dollars or $2,000,000 or something, which they applied for, BFS applied for, and actually Bush was awarded, but then it was the new administration that runs the bank. So their process of doing analysis and vetting with stakeholders about whether to adopt a residential building construction code solved last year. However, they are one, they do see the value in continuing the process. And while the original version of the bill included a deadline for DFS to adopt a code, they weren't comfortable with that, but they were willing to say that they would finish their process by a deadline and that deadline ends in the bill as January. So that's one part of the bill, so we can get that process finished. The balance of the bill is really oriented around stimulating voluntary plaintiffs. And it's what I call incentivizes by market signals by having builders who are certified in code issues and code compliance issues, having them be able to compete with other builders who don't work using the residential contractor registry that's established a few years ago. So that's another thing that is actually required of builders, residents, contractors, is being on the same line registries. The registry doesn't include any credentials or competency testing, but it still required and included with the registry or registration is the ability or the option to obtain voluntary certifications and list those certifications that relate to trading. So the registry is intended to be available to the public and it is on the DFS or the OPR's website. It's not in the VLS, OPR's website, Office of Professional Regulation. It's not that easy to find and when you do find it, it's not that easy to do anything with. I don't if anybody's tried, but what you get, you can get a map that shows you dots where registrations, registered contractors are, you can click on the dot and find the name of the contractor and whatever, but if you want know the whole list of contractors you have to download the spreadsheet and that's how you would sort or filter the list if you were looking for contractors to work with in aeronauticality or contractors that work in whatever specialty you're looking for for any roofing or gun. And those specialties actually are because they are still are a part of the of the of the database that the hopefully, maintains. So the thrust of the bill is leveraging this contractor registry and making it a lot better than this. The opioid doesn't have a lot of equities in this. They don't have the resources. They have said that they're already spending far more money than this, and they're able to recouping fees. And, of course, OPR is a fee. The idea is that fees pay for the work. They don't get an appropriated fee. So the bill sets up a task force of city offices that involved. So we have as we are a public service department and it has interested citizens, architects, builders, associates, subcontractors, six city builders and contractors if you want to manager. AGC is typically oriented more towards commercial construction, ABC, so city builders and contractors is more oriented towards this mentioned. And other just as in Vermont, the the I'm not sure if it's. But anyway, I think there's 15 members of it. I think that's it. So the task force would help vet technical issues like, let's come up with a list of trade specialties, jupanitors, example, or painting contractors. What kinds of trades should residents and contractors be registered to? Maybe those should be registered but maybe they wouldn't have certain certifications that they need to interested in getting. Certifications are voluntary. So that's really the thought of the bill. What have I forgotten here? Oh, there's another part of the bill that clarifies something that is murky in statute, is whether municipalities have the authority to regulate or adopt and enforce building energy Apparently, according to the attorney for the Department of Public Service, it's not clear that he's set a sheet. On the other hand, the municipal statute type of the Fed by '24 appears to say they do that. Sorry. And Vermont, the city and towns seem to feel that they have a study. The two municipalities that I know of that have tried to adopt their authority did so from charter. Right? So I think my favorite one in Burlington is is is the one In South Burlington is another one, I'm not sure. Anyway, so another part of the bill is clarify that yes, municipalities do have an authority. And the point of it is to dovetail with an effort that is underway at Energy Action Network right now to have a committee that works with municipalities and comes up with a uniform process so that all municipalities will, it's not the same process, they're no longer different, different processes in different parts of the state. So that's the reason why that part's in the bill and that effort is ongoing. Another part of the bill is called the Safe Harbor provision. This was requested by the administration through the public service department that would hold harmless builders and designers who were elected to take the governor's executive order from last September, which allowed people to use the 2020 version of RVs, the residential building, energy standards, and CVs, instead of 2024, which is what is in statute if they so chose. So the statute is still twenty twenty four, the old harmless clause or section of the bill would basically not penalize, prevent builders who decided to use the twenty twenty codes not to be penalized. And until there's a there's a there's a new code or a new rules adopted, and that actually is the process right now at Bell Heart. So as I say, the administration after that, so we we included that, and it only seems fair that builders are deciding to take the governor's executive order at face value should you be kind of nice. So what does seven eighteen not do? It doesn't change any legal requirements. Would instill legal required that builders and designers adhere to residential energy standards and commercial energy standards. That's what's required. It doesn't change that. And it doesn't change who updates us. That's the bill of the service department. It doesn't change who so there is still a charge for it. It doesn't change that OBR is still where residential builders are registered. There's a lot of people in the building energy co working group that Senator Bongartz was part of this past year that really wanted to do everything, this whole regulatory structure over the d limits of the fire safety, where all other building is regularly. So that's where electricians are licensed, the plumbers, heating taxes, and building permits. And it does make some sense conceptually that we have to do that. Division of Fire Safety is not ready to take that on. They they already answered. This is not doing anything about that. Not just it doesn't make any recommendation or not. But except to ask the task force to consider whether she should do something that happens in the future. Also, in residential building code, if it's adopted, would not be enforced in single family or duplexes, except to the extent that there's a data right to us. It would give DFS a framework for doing enforcement in rentals if that were required, but what it also gives actually is consumers and builders and insurance companies and the courts gets to that point, something to refer to, which they don't have now. There's no sort of independent standards that construction can be altered. So if there's a dispute on building quality, then it's really about there's no sort of record cipher, is what I'm trying to say. And actually that's not a problem as far as trying to solve here. Right now without a residential building code, builders are left to come in on their own what is appropriate construction quality. And so we're really very vital for decisions about structure, about how many studs do you need in the wall, whatever it might be. They're on the hook for those decisions. Standard don't have to refer to either. I guess the question is why now? Bringing you on the back here. Yeah, this actually came up my first chart maybe eight years ago when builder approached me and said, you realize that I follow energy bills and I'm competing against builders who don't, And and that's not fair. It's it's an uneven playing field. And I said, yes. Well, I I agree with you. So we explored many different strategies over the years to try to find ways to increase the quantity of energy goes to the level of energy. And this is sort of the latest effort to do that, again without imposing more restrictions than they already exist, but just to make incentivize donors to follow the codes that exist. Another issue that they're trying to deal with that became apparent in the course of workers' meetings was some contractors that want to follow the codes and are doing bidding projects based on follow the codes are in a position of arguing with their clients about we need to follow these concepts that are actually required. And the guy might say, well, Joe over here says I don't have to, and and they're gonna give me, you know, marble countertops instead of of spending money on heat recovery ventilation systems. So they're putting them in the position of being the code enforcers when they shouldn't be in that position. Let's see. What else did I highlight here?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'll give you This is happening in the. I think

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: it actually is something we were redundant. Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So what what incentives are there for contractors to buy in? Are there any?

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: Well, there are some incentives to efficiency. Most of the efficiency incentives are for above code work, but actually they originally had included some funding to provide training incentives that are served out by appropriations, I should guess. So what we're trying to do is set up a system that encourages more compliance based on market competition. So if the builder registry residential contractor registry is more easier to use, it's more available to consumers, there's a more awareness about its existence and consumers were thinking about hiring a contractor both there to see if the voter that they're considering is not licensed or registered, they consider the form of OPR considered as a form of licensure, but it's really just registration and insurance and written contracts and things like that, but it's not. There's no credential which are common to see the best. Then voters will be incentivized by the fact that this registry is out there and people are looking at it to obtain voluntary certifications. So that's another actually both duty of the task force is to come up with voluntary certifications that would be of interest to builders and identify the credentialing entities that do that. That means recommendations to OPR. They're not the task force isn't doing stuff. It's you know, on on its own.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: It's it's a it's a an advisory capacity to put what we are. I can see some I can see a need for this, I've built a few houses. Most peep most of the contractors rely on building supply Mhmm. Industry to to give them a way of standards for the on the for any of on the task force. They really listen to those guys.

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: So to to the To to the and tellers? We didn't have we didn't have didn't have a lot of task force. I'm trying to remember who had this was a three year long process. We had the the building energy code working group was two years, and before that, there

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: was a study committee. I remember this when it first came on. I was in in the legislature. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. There was a lot of pushback locally from contractors that didn't want to stay and tell them what they had to do.

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: Yes. Right? Well, it's it already did. Yeah. It's just they didn't know what that. It's amazing. I mean, most consumers aren't aware that we have mandatory and insurance, but even a lot of biller churn. So, yeah, we're just the point is that I think raise the visibility of of the fact that we have these standards. And from my point of view so I've worked in weatherization. I was a contractor years ago. I looked at weatherization. I worked in something called Street and East, which is sort of a similar to weatherization, but for apartment housing state line. And oh, actually, She's gonna write it on me here. Anyway, so I have that that's my background. Oh, and what's really important to me is educating builders about the dynamics of what they're doing. So we're building better insulated houses, more airtight houses, even sort of standard construction is people who aren't following the energy codes are building tighter and more better than sitting houses. Well, that has implications for how the building as an energy and control system, how moisture is managed, what the moisture damage are in my system. So there were a lot of examples that people brought in, working group at the energy committee, of buildings that where failure failures have happened. Mortgages trapped in the wall. Also, exterior was tampered, rotted out, and had to be replaced. Even even Frank, he was being constructed, members had to be replaced after a period of five or ten years. So you can do it wrong and that's about really bad. Of course it becomes a consumer protection issue of that flood. Typically, builders are, you know, long gone. Not going to be in some instances. So my point is how do we how do we get builders to take advantage of the manufacturing companies that are out there? It's just the amount has them associated general contractors, ABC, the modern New Hampshire, Boulder County facility in Lewinsky, There are training opportunities and in many cases we did hear this from trainers at Efficiency Vermont and other places. They put on these trainings and only a few people show up and make much greater capacity. And the people who show up are often repeat attendees that people come back. This is the model says, Better Buildings by Design Conference every year. It's the May this year, two days the May. The same people have heard of these things all the time. And what we're trying to do is inside of our builders to learn more about understanding the dynamics whether building better inside of in more airfield houses and not making a problem for city bus down the road.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super. Any other questions, this one? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. We are out of time, so Mr. Kelsey, we'll have you at another time to walk through the bill. I think

[Rep. Scott Campbell]: that is it for today.