Architects, AIA Vermont and lawmakers back H.181 steps to raise residential energy-code compliance

BURLINGTON — Architects representing AIA Vermont urged the Vermont House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on April 24 to back H.181 and related steps they say are needed to raise compliance with the state’s increasingly stringent building energy code and to reduce construction mistakes that can cause safety and durability problems.

AIA Vermont’s representative, Matthew Bushey, managing principal at Truex Collins, told the committee "so yeah. So we're here to talk about H.181," and said his group supports several elements of the bill, including extending the building energy-code working group until a state entity is named to enforce the code, and directing the Public Service Department to develop a framework to attribute energy savings to code compliance. Bushey said the group also supports establishing a role for the state’s energy efficiency utilities in any enforcement or verification system.

The bill and testimony matter because state energy goals call for steep reductions in building energy use by 2030. Bushey and other witnesses told the committee that the energy code is becoming more technical — requiring attention to insulation location, air barriers and moisture management — and that low compliance undercuts the state’s climate targets.

"Where we're at right now is 8.5% of building of residential building permits also files an RB certificate," Bushey said, citing the working group’s compilation of municipal filings. He contrasted that 8.5% figure with other compliance estimates derived from small-sample studies that the group and others have placed as high as about 54%, adding that the true statewide compliance rate is unknown and likely between those figures.

Architect Bob Duncan, founding principal of Duncan Vischence Architecture, reiterated AIA Vermont’s support for a statewide residential code and for designating the Division of Fire Safety as the likely authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). "Nowhere in any of that time has there been any building code in the state of Vermont for single family homes," Duncan said, describing practical consequences including municipal inconsistency and situations where cities apply commercial-code rules to houses.

Witnesses described how Vermont currently divides responsibilities: the International Building Code and NFPA-based requirements apply for commercial buildings and multifamily housing over three stories, and the Division of Fire Safety conducts on-site inspections and enforces codes for commercial and rental properties. Owner‑occupied single‑family homes generally are not subject to a statewide residential code or DFS enforcement. Efficiency Vermont and other energy-efficiency utilities conduct site visits for projects enrolled in their programs, the witnesses said, and the working group is exploring whether that verification capacity can be integrated into a phased statewide approach.

The working group — formed under previous laws including Act 47 and Act 151 — produced an interim report and will continue through this year toward a final November report, Bushey said. The group’s draft plan envisions a phased rollout of residential building-code authority, starting with rentals and duplexes and moving later to owner‑occupied single‑family homes; one draft timeline cited a multi‑year phase-in with a possible target around 2028, though witnesses said dates could shift.

Committee members and witnesses discussed practical details the working group is studying: how RB (residential building) certificates are filed locally (usually with town clerks), that contractors currently complete self‑certifications (with third‑party corroboration noted by Representative Scott Campbell), and how municipal practices vary widely — the working group’s data showed Burlington files many certificates while most towns are under 10%.

Witnesses also stressed implementation details the working group is examining: funding and fee structures for plan review and inspections, training and certification for contractors, whether Efficiency Vermont’s field staff could perform or supplement inspections, and the value of a longer "grace period" when a new code edition is adopted so designs in progress are not forced to change immediately. Duncan corrected an earlier numeric example about DFS fees in testimony: the permit fee example should be 0.8% of construction cost ("$8 per $1,000"), not 8%.

The committee did not take formal action during the hearing. Testimony was described as part of the record and the working group will continue to refine recommendations. Committee members asked for more detail on timelines, sample sizes for compliance studies and potential funding approaches, and witnesses said the group will address those topics before issuing a final report later this year.

No vote was recorded on H.181 at the April 24 session; witnesses framed their remarks as support for the bill’s approach while noting many technical and administrative questions remain to be resolved.