[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6262637,"mediaKeyId","3113019-5a14dfd6b480d36dc751b3c61eea4ec8","parentId",3113019,"title","House Energy committee reviews H.11 to expand consumer‑protection, monitoring and reporting for broadband","audioSeconds",3630,"startMs",156000,"endMs",3786000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113019-5a14dfd6b480d36dc751b3c61eea4ec8&start=156&end=3786","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113019-5a14dfd6b480d36dc751b3c61eea4ec8/thumbnail_156000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6262637/Vermont/House-Energy-committee-reviews-H11-to-expand-consumerprotection-monitoring-and-reporting-for-broadband","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262637-beb2170f6642873efae9bc9a8d6e38e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144027&Signature=moc~MEjhdzqwCyVFlaCnX31LaonzrXvOVxpta2sxPmWwuP5YjWpKKpeAMjj60szHGoJDd2d-bunSjL3N1Aio7b1PJbhvMU-YVGAASZgcDRsTMxRIXW5Tp2VtgSqSNVajk4zQUfnt1v8zl7sKHbafW4aMo3wOpKdk1bfKjw0yTvuN0jSf0TKvfQ9ZJs8P7IUa7F168S6mqsKLjlvn-EQx7R9r9yC1TH8vbKW~JU2HyqWTH9Y9dgvAKzMMJHh5pxthcY9USP9r-GFOuPnm5~I6xhiXCWUjxEJrIwJ7PEO~YfMOuVNN4DiZ84N9PJP0dc9xuJjAY~h~6eGXT2lnRvwjVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Vermont House Energy and Digital Infrastructure","date","2025-04-24T20:18:54.643Z","article","The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Thursday reviewed H.11, the Vermont Broadband Secure Protection Competition Act, a bill that would create a new subchapter under the state’s consumer‑protection statutes to target unfair or deceptive broadband industry practices and to require market monitoring, annual reporting and provider data submissions.

Committee chair Representative Kathleen James opened the session by outlining H.11’s main pieces: findings and intent language, definitions, a set of enumerated prohibited practices, a requirement that providers file information and complaint records annually, and a monitoring and reporting regime centered on the attorney general’s office.

The measure’s proponents say the bill is designed to “promote a thriving broadband market in Vermont, free of anti‑competitive, unfair, deceptive … practices” and to give the state better visibility into outages, performance, marketing and provider conduct. The draft text would expand the current state certificate requirement (now tied to state contracts) so that any entity selling broadband service to Vermonters would be covered by the new subchapter. The bill also authorizes an assessment on providers to cover the cost of monitoring and reporting, and creates an annual public report summarizing market competition and enforcement activity.

Why it matters: broadband is treated in the bill as critical infrastructure the committee said, and the state’s capacity to monitor provider practices is tied to questions about competition in high‑cost, rural areas. Committee members repeatedly tied the bill’s goals to broader climate and economic policy questions: better data on the broadband market could guide where public dollars are targeted and whether consumer protections are working.

Key issues raised in testimony and committee discussion
- Preemption and scope: Assistant Attorney General Tom Burrows and committee discussion emphasized that existing state consumer‑protection law already covers unfair or deceptive business practices; the AG’s office said many of the enumerated items could be enforced under current law, making some of the bill’s itemization redundant. The committee also heard that the question of whether the state can subject broadband to full utility‑style rate regulation remains legally unsettled and fact‑dependent.
- Who should do the monitoring: AG staff signaled that the office has authority for consumer protection but would likely need extra resources to do the continuous market monitoring the bill envisions. Department of Public Service (DPS) staff told the committee they currently handle many telecom intakes and have operational relationships with providers, and representatives suggested DPS might be a natural home for some monitoring tasks. Committee members said they want both offices to testify in depth about capacity and statutory roles.
- Complaint tracking and visibility: H.11 would create a single state repository for consumer complaints and require providers to submit their own complaint records annually. Committee members said they do not currently have clear, consolidated visibility into the number and disposition of broadband complaints. Written testimony cited by the committee noted provider intakes categorized as industry intakes and that DPS and the AGO currently refer telecom/intake matters between offices; the transcript records about “10 related to broadband and 3 related to high‑speed Internet” among certain intakes and that some carriers had under 300 intakes in a referenced period, though committee members asked for more precise counts.
- Prohibited practices and technical details: The bill lists several prohibited practices: failing to deliver the performance characteristics sold for a location; misleading marketing; excessive termination fees or other barriers to switching; and “predatory” data caps or throttling that are unrelated to reasonable network management. Public Knowledge’s John Bergmeier urged refining requirements for customer‑premises equipment (if providers supply the equipment, it should be capable of delivering the contracted service) and suggested expanding termination‑fee language to capture non‑optional “junk fees.” DPS raised operational concerns about measuring in‑home speeds and distinguishing provider performance from customer premises equipment or in‑home wiring.
- Confidentiality and proprietary data: The draft bill requires providers to submit operational and network data; the bill text includes confidentiality provisions exempting proprietary information from public disclosure while directing the reporting entity to aggregate or anonymize information before public release. Committee members asked how much proprietary data would be needed and how it could be published safely.
- Costs and assessments: H.11 would permit the enforcement/monitoring entity to adopt an assessment on broadband providers to cover costs of the program; committee members asked whether those costs would be passed to subscribers and how that would affect prices.

Committee directions and next steps
Committee members did not take final action on H.11. Members asked staff to compile a list of follow‑up witnesses and information requests. Representative Kathleen James and others repeatedly asked for in‑depth presentations from: the Attorney General’s Office (on enforcement authority, resource needs and scope), the Department of Public Service (on current complaint intakes and monitoring capacity), and additional stakeholders including Public Knowledge and providers for technical clarifications. Representative Scott Campbell and other members specifically asked the committee to examine how existing programs and complaint tracking (the transcript referenced CAB/CATALI-like programs) overlap with the bill’s proposals so the committee can avoid unnecessary redundancy.

What the bill would (explicitly) do and would not
The draft creates an explicit consumer‑protection subchapter for broadband; requires providers to register/submit data and complaints records; authorizes a single state complaint intake and database; mandates annual reporting and potential rulemaking; allows the AG (or a designated state entity) to assess providers to recover costs; and contains confidentiality protections for proprietary submissions. The bill does not, in its current draft, convert broadband to full utility rate regulation; committee discussion noted that utility‑style regulation (rate hearings, full ratemaking) remains legally distinct and would require separate statutory authority and likely face legal challenge.

Quotes from the hearing
“First section creates a new subchapter under Vermont’s Consumer Protection Act for broadband service,” Representative Kathleen James said while walking the committee through H.11’s text.
John Bergmeier of Public Knowledge recommended refining the customer‑premises equipment language so that equipment provided by carriers is “capable of meeting the service sold to the location.”

Ending: committee staff will circulate a list of follow‑up questions and potential witnesses; members said they expect additional hearings and written submissions before advancing the measure. No formal votes or committee decisions were taken at the session.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-04-24 2:00pm","oneSentenceSummary","The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Thursday reviewed H.11, a bill that would create a new consumer‑protection subchapter for broadband in Vermont and require provider reporting, market monitoring and a state complaint repository.","taxTitle","Environment & Energy, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30749,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6262633,"Passive‑house testimony: presenter urges Vermont to adopt performance‑based energy targets for new buildings",3374,3812000,7186000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113019-5a14dfd6b480d36dc751b3c61eea4ec8&start=3812&end=7186","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113019-5a14dfd6b480d36dc751b3c61eea4ec8/thumbnail_3812000.jpg","/articles/6262633/Vermont/Passivehouse-testimony-presenter-urges-Vermont-to-adopt-performancebased-energy-targets-for-new-buildings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262633-39003cf481184b70eb8e781706dfb18d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144027&Signature=ASY0yVs2HGT9K9mgbUkzXpbgSMkbg8bS8OgmTPXwl-gN5ZkK1y7nR~gn4SB9hwYGLD61xXXG9OLFb-Nh0ITKkQzyNKQZwYhoFxau9xK4bLQ6kBD~ZgyrSXHKGRgasbURg37JZp50YNqEL2Ji8QDnfPje~vQLsEujUGSN17kvEjGDHh5661KVfrUWD0MHc4aUuOdkH59j4zT9OyP5EEPeqPCz52j8G0rZA531Hrlm6UmRTDWSrRmIaPNqdjIB5SadxXLpr9hoNdKjLvNJ-JpTXIeT2XOE3R5YfOdoUiUE2Tyg7QOxxmCnPfxZaq9K96iDFFhInjK908MgSkxRCGtr5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Enrique Bueno, testifying for a Passive House advocacy organization, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that adopting a performance‑based standard aligned with Passive House certification for new multifamily construction would reduce building energy use, lower greenhouse‑gas emissions and make statewide electrification and renewable integration more affordable.

Bueno said an Efficiency Vermont study comparing six Efficiency Vermont high‑performance multifamily projects with four Passive House certified projects found the Passive House buildings delivered notably lower and more consistent energy‑use intensity (EUI) and relied far less on fossil fuels. He told the committee that Passive House design — tight envelopes, continuous insulation, triple‑pane windows appropriate to Vermont’s cold climate and balanced energy‑recovery ventilation — reduces winter heating peaks, lowering the need for generation and storage when the state electrifies heating.

Why it matters: committee members heard that buildings represent a large share of Vermont’s greenhouse‑gas footprint and energy demand, and that lowering thermal load profiles in new construction would reduce the overall need for new electricity generation and storage as the state moves toward electrification of heating and transportation.

Key points from the presentation
- Performance versus prescriptive codes: Bueno said prescriptive standards (the typical code boxes specifying particular construction assemblies) can produce widely varying outcomes. Passive House uses an energy model and a targeted annual energy budget for the building; that performance‑based approach, the witness said, yields more predictable results and allows designers to trade components to reach the target cost‑effectively.
- Energy and grid effects: By “flattening” peak demand and reducing total heating loads, Passive House buildings require less generation capacity and storage growth to support electrification, the witness said. Bueno cited Burlington as an example: replacing gas‑supplied thermal loads with electricity would roughly triple Burlington Electric Department’s current net supply needs if thermal loads were not reduced.
- Costs and incentives: Bueno said the incremental construction cost to reach Passive House performance averaged roughly 22.7 percent in the projects he reviewed but argued lifecycle savings, smaller mechanical equipment and reduced maintenance offset that increment. He urged targeted incentives and code‑level performance requirements for multifamily construction to capture those benefits.
- Demonstrations and mandates elsewhere: Several Massachusetts municipalities have adopted Passive House or equivalent performance thresholds for larger buildings; proponents told the committee that local mandates reduce city verification burden because Passive House certification involves independent modeling and onsite verification.
- Weatherization gap: Bueno warned Vermont is far behind the weatherization pace the witness said is needed to meet state climate goals; he urged higher standards for new construction so newly built stock does not increase the long‑term retrofit burden.

Questions from the committee focused on implementation details: how energy‑recovery ventilators and heat‑recovery systems work in summer and winter, how ventilation rates are sized per occupant and how Passive House certification would integrate with existing state codes. Bueno said retrofit pathways exist and while orientation and site constraints can affect solar gains, performance targets can still be met through tradeoffs in insulation, window performance and mechanical sizing.

Quotes from the hearing
\"Simplicity is the way to go,\" Enrique Bueno said, arguing that Passive House’s focus on a tight envelope and balanced ventilation produces healthier, lower‑energy buildings.

Ending: Committee members thanked Bueno for the detailed presentation and several asked staff to consider whether a performance‑based energy target for multifamily construction — or an incentive package to encourage Passive House certification — should be included in future code updates or bills. No vote or formal policy decision was taken at the hearing.","A Passive House advocate presented an Efficiency Vermont‑based analysis comparing Passive House certified multifamily buildings to Efficiency Vermont high‑performance projects, arguing the Passive House performance approach reduces energy use, eases grid electrification and yields long‑term savings despite modest up‑front costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Energy committee reviews H.11 to expand consumer‑protection, monitoring and reporting for broadband

Passive‑house testimony: presenter urges Vermont to adopt performance‑based energy targets for new buildings