Energy Action Network tells House committee funding is the biggest barrier to a statewide energy-coach network
Loading...
Summary
At an April 14 House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure hearing on S.219, Cara Robichek of Energy Action Network said funding is the primary obstacle to scaling volunteer energy-coaching across Vermont and warned volunteers must be rigorously trained and professionally supported.
Cara Robichek, deputy director and network manager for Energy Action Network, told the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on April 14 that funding is the biggest barrier to a statewide volunteer energy-coaching or energy-navigator network. The testimony was offered as committee members considered S.219, a bill related to an energy navigator program.
Robichek said EAN conducted 21 interviews with energy-efficiency utilities, electric utilities, energy coaches, weatherization program staff, contractors and nonprofits to assess whether Vermont residents would benefit from a statewide network of local energy coaches. "Our primary key finding was that funding remains the biggest challenge," she said, adding that existing programs could do more if consistent funding were available.
The EAN witness described two key roles where volunteers could add value without providing technical advice: project management and communications. Project-management tasks include helping homeowners and renters apply for rebates, calling contractors and interpreting quotes; communications work includes neighbor-to-neighbor outreach and sharing personal stories to normalize clean-energy projects. "Volunteers can be helpful, but they can do more harm than good if they give incorrect technical advice," Robichek said, urging strong training and ongoing professional support.
Committee members pressed Robichek on where a coaching network would focus. Robichek said the effort would target households not already served by low-income weatherization programs—"kind of the rest of the state"—and noted that renters present a particular challenge because landlords typically pay for capital improvements while tenants pay utility bills. On renter-specific help, she said smaller, lower-disruption measures and expanded access to electric-vehicle options and charging infrastructure may be more feasible than whole-building retrofits.
Members also asked about the pilot work in Addison County that informed the study and about program rules such as whether plastic window inserts are allowed in rental properties under weatherization rules. Robichek said she did not have definitive information on current fire-safety guidance for window inserts and offered to share EAN's webinar materials and survey results with the committee.
Robichek and committee members emphasized that a volunteer-based coaching network should not be presented as a replacement for sustained funding of existing weatherization and efficiency programs. She recommended a model in which volunteers are supported by professionals, provided ongoing training, and have access to funding and coordination across programs.
After the testimony and questions, the committee paused for a five-minute break to prepare for the next agenda item, S.0213.
