Construction group warns H.348 could create conflicting heat-and-cold rules and raise costs

Ben Osha, director of workforce and training at the Associated General Contractors of Vermont, told the House General & Housing Committee on May 8 that H.348, an act to protect workers from extreme workplace temperatures, may force Vermont employers to follow “two different rulebooks.”

Osha said federal OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on heat on Aug. 30, 2024, and that a separate state law now could create overlapping or conflicting requirements. “Employers are gonna have to be dealing with 2 different rulebooks for the same, extreme temperature problem,” he said.

The concern is practical as well as legal: Osha said many small contractors lack in‑house safety officers and would need to hire subcontracted safety consultants to prepare the bill’s required site‑specific programs. He gave cost estimates used by AGC members: $50–$100 an hour for a safety consultant or about $500 for a single site visit, and said a complete site program can take 10–12 hours to develop. He also noted recurring costs such as rental job trailers (“somewhere around $300–$500 a month”) with HVAC if employers use them as shaded or climate‑controlled breakspace.

“It's gonna drive up prices for projects and, you know, overall, make it more expensive for the customer for the product,” Osha said, framing the argument in procurement and bid‑cost terms.

Osha said AGC provides training on heat and cold for its members and that AGC’s training program served roughly 2,800–3,000 people this year. He also noted that federal enforcement currently relies in part on the OSHA general duty clause and ongoing inspection activity: employers already are expected to provide water, rest and shade under existing obligations.

Committee members and witnesses discussed timing. One committee member asked whether the legislature should wait for federal regulatory action, noting staff expected federal compliance guidance around June 10; Osha said he preferred postponing state action until the federal rule is clearer. Legislative Council and other committee members observed that states may set protections that are at least as protective as federal rules, and that the federal process could take much longer in any case.

No formal action or vote occurred during the hearing; testimony and follow‑up questions comprised the record. Committee members asked for supplemental materials, and witnesses said they would provide sample handouts and cost figures to the committee staff.

The committee will consider additional testimony and possible language changes in later sessions; no statutory changes were adopted at the hearing.