Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Weatherization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness urges expanded weatherization reporting, flags vermiculite remediation gap for renters
Summary
Thomas Weiss testified that H.907s proposed change to move the weatherization report into budget testimony would omit data needed to assess program performance and equity. He urged keeping or enhancing reporting and recommended adding specific metrics, citing vermiculite (possible asbestos) remediation as a barrier for rental-unit weatherization.
Thomas Weiss, who identified himself as "Thomas Weiss, president of Montpelier," testified to the Senate Committee on Government Operations about H.907's treatment of the Weatherization Assistance Program report. He told senators the existing report (required by Act 192, 2008) misses "a few highly significant data points and concerns" and that moving the report into budget testimony risks narrowing who reviews the program's operational barriers.
Weiss highlighted a recurring implementation problem: vermiculite insulation, some of which can contain asbestos, is treated by the program as asbestos when discovered, triggering remediation. He said, "the weatherization assistance program is authorized to fund vermiculite remediation in owner occupied housing units," but the program generally will not fund remediation in rental properties when the owner does not live in the building. When vermiculite is discovered mid-project, Weiss said the weatherization crew stops work and those efficiency measures (light bulbs, heat pumps, water conservation fixtures) do not proceed until remediation occurs, effectively denying weatherization to eligible tenants when owners cannot or do not remediate.
Weiss asked the committee to retain the report and expand it to add precise program metrics so the committees that review weatherization can identify systemic obstacles. He proposed adding the number of households weatherized, average program expenditure, average percent energy and non-energy benefits, the total number of units where weatherization was deferred and the reasons why, and specifically the number of rental units deferred because of vermiculite. He said enhanced reporting would allow both appropriations and subject-matter committees (energy, economic development/housing) to evaluate whether statutory or funding changes are needed.
Committee members asked whether remediation funds exist (mentioning settlement-derived funds and the Zonolite Trust) and whether the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) could provide clarifying data. Weiss said multiple funding sources exist across program documents but it was not always clear whether those funds are accessible to the households served by the Weatherization Assistance Program. Several senators recommended inviting OEO and any program administrators who manage remediation assistance to clarify availability and eligibility.
The committee did not make a final decision on preserving or expanding the standalone report, but senators signaled willingness to add the recommended metrics either in the budget testimony (section 14 as drafted) or by unrepealing the original report language in section 12(3). The next step is staff review and additional testimony from OEO or other agencies to determine how to amend H.907 to ensure oversight and equitable program delivery.
The hearing ended without a vote; the committee will reconvene to continue H.907 review once scheduled testimony is arranged.
