Committee continues debate on statewide authority for Vermont building energy codes under H.181

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on April 16 heard testimony that Vermont does not have a single statewide authority that administers and enforces residential building energy codes, a gap the bill H.181 would continue to address.

The absence of a single “authority having jurisdiction,” or AHJ, for owner-occupied single-family homes has left energy-code interpretation, administration and compliance fragmented across municipal offices and state agencies, witnesses told the committee. That fragmentation comes as state studies show compliance with the residential code has fallen from a high point (74 percent in an earlier review) to roughly 54 percent in the most recent assessment cited during testimony.

The lack of centralized oversight matters because it makes consistent interpretation and verification difficult, witnesses said, and it complicates efforts to reach the state’s goal of net-zero‑ready new construction. “There’s nobody in charge of the energy codes in the state,” Richard Fazy, principal at Energy Futures Group, told the committee during the presentation.

Why it matters: Building energy codes that are adopted but not consistently enforced can produce widely varying results in efficiency, safety and moisture management. Witnesses framed H.181 as a continuation of two multi-stakeholder efforts — Act 47 (2023) and Act 151 (2024) — that recommended paths to strengthen administration, increase compliance, and evaluate cost-effectiveness of updates to the code.

What witnesses recommended and where opinions diverged

Energy Futures Group representatives summarized findings from the Act 47 study committee and the subsequent Act 151 working group. The panels recommended several steps: consider designating a single AHJ (including a potential transition to the Division of Fire Safety), improve permit and certificate tracking, develop workforce training and voluntary certification for builders, and create a funding plan for administration and training.

Zach Tyler, managing consultant at Energy Futures Group, described the Act 151 group as “an extension of the Act 47 effort” and said the working group is expected to continue. The working groups also recommended integrating residential energy-certificate data into the Division of Fire Safety’s record-management system so that compliance, equipment choices and heating fuels can be tracked and analyzed publicly.

Not all stakeholders supported naming the Division of Fire Safety (DFS) as the statewide AHJ. DFS, the Department of Public Safety (PSD) and the Associated General Contractors filed dissenting comments cited in testimony, raising concerns about staff capacity, budget implications, and whether DFS’s focus on life‑safety code enforcement aligns with expanded energy-code administration. Testimony stressed these as legitimate concerns that the working groups continue to address.

Federal grant and market-based approaches

Witnesses described a U.S. Department of Energy grant that Energy Futures Group and partners are using to develop an energy-code administration plan for Vermont, including a proposed funding mechanism and training. They said the project team received roughly $1 million in DOE funding to develop trainings, hire two “circuit riders” (regional field consultants to help builders), and design voluntary certifications for builders through the Office of Professional Regulation.

The working groups proposed a market-based complement to public enforcement: training and certifying private “energy professionals” (home energy raters, building-performance specialists) who could perform inspections and sign off on code certificates. That model, used in other states, would be coupled with incentives for the state’s energy efficiency utilities to claim savings from higher code compliance; if utilities can count compliance gains as program savings, they would have stronger incentives to subsidize training and technical assistance on new construction.

Costs and benefits discussed in testimony

Witnesses presented a cost‑benefit framing used in code update decisions: modest upfront incremental costs for higher-code construction can be offset by lower energy bills and, when financed through a mortgage, can produce positive annual cash flow. Energy Futures Group offered example modeling showing small annual operational savings relative to incremental mortgage costs for a representative Vermont home depending on compliance path (including an all‑electric path). Testimony emphasized that these are model results rather than guarantees for any specific project.

Next steps and committee context

Witnesses repeatedly urged continuation of the Act 151 working group and further study of the budgetary impacts of assigning an AHJ and centralizing certificate filing. No formal action or vote on H.181 occurred during the hearing; witnesses said the working group process is expected to continue while staff and stakeholders refine administrative and funding proposals.

Discussion points recorded by the committee included: the need for clearer permit tracking (including energy‑certificate fields), voluntary builder certifications through the Office of Professional Regulation, expanded training funded through energy‑efficiency utility incentives, and mechanisms to avoid large new state staffing costs if possible. Dissenting stakeholders asked for more detailed studies of the cost, benefit and staffing implications before a permanent AHJ is named.

Ending

Committee members indicated they would continue hearings and convene stakeholders, including DFS and municipal officials, to refine the administrative and funding proposals embedded in H.181. Sponsors and witnesses signaled agreement to keep the multi‑stakeholder working groups active while the legislature considers potential statutory changes.