Modular builder warns Vermont energy code could rot walls without building‑code enforcement

Jason Webster, co‑owner and operator of Huntington Homes, told the Vermont House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on April 29 that Vermont’s newest residential energy code is effectively unattainable without a statewide building‑code program and enforcement. Webster said the state has an energy code but no agency or licensing structure to administer or inspect single‑family residential construction, and he urged a measured policy response that pairs higher standards with the infrastructure to achieve them.

Webster said Vermont “truly stands alone in being, without a building code for single family residential housing. Every other state has one,” and warned that the mismatch between a higher energy standard and no inspection or licensing system is producing very low compliance and new technical risks. He told legislators his company employs about 85 people in East Montpelier and has built roughly 5,000 houses since 1978, and used those on‑the‑ground experiences to explain where the rules and practice conflict.

Why it matters: The committee is considering H.181, legislation tied to the 2024 energy code. Webster argued that raising the technical floor without building‑code oversight leaves homeowners and contractors exposed — contractors could face statutory liability to bring houses up to code, while homeowners risk hidden moisture damage in walls that become harder to dry when insulation strategies change.

Webster described three linked problems. First, he said Vermont’s energy code sits “outside of any agency or any structure that’s ever been created to administer it,” so compliance is largely self‑certified. Second, he described low historical compliance: a 2015 study he cited showed roughly 52% compliance under an earlier, lower bar, and he said his own estimate is that compliance with the 2024 code is likely “under 10%.” Third, he warned that the specific technical change the 2024 code requires — continuous exterior insulation on many wall assemblies — shifts where condensation forms inside walls and reduces the wall’s ability to dry, which can cause sheathing degradation and substantial repair costs.

“How you keep water out of a building is the single most important thing,” Webster told the committee: “Water is enemy number one.” He said tighter, better‑insulated walls reduce heat flow that previously helped dry condensation and that some common ways to meet the new code can accelerate hidden moisture problems if assemblies and detailing are not built to a higher standard. He recounted seeing a 10‑year‑old house where exterior sheathing failed after a continuous‑insulation assembly had been installed incorrectly, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in repairs not covered by insurance.

Webster described practical differences between on‑lot building — a single family hires a contractor to build on the buyer’s lot — and developer construction. He said on‑lot builders are limited by client budgets and preferences, while many larger developers make product decisions in advance and absorb costs across many units; that difference affects how readily the market will adopt higher energy standards without regulation and inspection.

On contractor liability, Webster said the enabling statute for energy codes includes a damages provision that places responsibility on the contractor to bring a noncompliant house up to code at the contractor’s cost. He said that creates an “impossible position” for builders who may be following a client’s direction or budget but could later be pursued for bringing the house to the statutory standard.

Several committee members asked technical and policy questions. Representative Scott Campbell asked how detailed plans and specifications must be to secure a permit in Massachusetts; Webster described the off‑site manufacturing approval process his company follows there — he said a typical 2,000‑square‑foot modular unit might be accompanied by roughly 150 pages of stamped engineering documents when submitted for permitting in a jurisdiction that enforces a building code. Representative Brett Kleffner and others pressed on which parts of the energy code are most commonly missed in practice; Webster identified installation of mechanical ventilation (he cited a rough $8,000 cost for an HRV/ERV as a common market barrier), basement insulation, and small piping insulation requirements as frequently omitted elements in non‑inspected projects.

Webster told the committee he supports the working group process but asked that the working group be given time to review the current code text before any final adoption steps, and he urged either (1) postponing code adoption or (2) pairing code adoption with a licensed, inspected building‑code program. “Either stop or regulate us. Don’t do both,” he said.

No formal vote or committee action on H.181 occurred during Webster’s testimony; he concluded by asking the working group and the committee to examine implementation pathways and to consider regulatory infrastructure to support any higher code.

The committee followed Webster’s testimony with technical questions and short exchanges about enforcement models used in other states. Committee discussion acknowledged tradeoffs between raising energy performance and avoiding construction practices that increase moisture risk, and members asked staff and stakeholders for additional implementation information before taking further action.