Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Energy Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Scott presents H.718 to boost compliance with building energy standards through voluntary tools
Summary
Representative Scott told the Natural Resources & Energy committee that H.718 would use a revamped contractor registry, a stakeholder task force and a safe-harbor tied to a prior executive order to increase compliance with existing residential and commercial energy codes without adding new enforcement penalties.
Representative Scott, the sponsor of H.718, told the Natural Resources & Energy committee on March 31 that the bill aims to raise compliance with Vermont’s existing building energy standards by relying on market incentives, a strengthened contractor registry and an advisory task force rather than new penalties.
Scott said the state has residential energy standards dating to 1997 and commercial standards from 2007, but residential compliance is “spot on” and uneven because the current system relies on self-certified compliance. “On the commercial side, compliance is pretty good,” Scott said; “on the residential side ... compliance is spotty.” He told the committee the bill is meant to increase visibility of the standards and encourage builders to compete on verified compliance.
The bill would direct a task force composed of state offices and industry stakeholders — including the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR), the Division of Fire Safety (DFS), builders, architects and trade associations — to recommend technical registration categories, voluntary certifications and improvements to the contractor registry so consumers can more easily find credentialed contractors. Scott described those certifications as voluntary and the task force as advisory: “The task force isn’t doing stuff on its own; it’s an advisory capacity,” he said.
Scott also described a safe-harbor provision requested by the administration that would protect builders who follow a governor’s executive order allowing use of the 2020 residential code rather than the 2024 code that currently appears in statute. “That would basically not penalize builders who decide to use the 2020 codes,” he said, adding the provision is intended to avoid penalizing builders who followed the executive order while a formal code-adoption process finishes.
The sponsor emphasized what H.718 does not do: it does not create new statutory requirements, it does not shift licensing of trades to DFS, and it does not impose enforcement mandates. Scott said the bill “doesn’t change any legal requirements” and that the task force may recommend future changes but would not itself change licensing or enforcement.
Committee members asked about incentives for contractors to participate. Scott pointed to market incentives — greater consumer visibility in an improved registry and voluntary above-code efficiency incentives — and said some training and funding options were considered but would require appropriations. “What we’re trying to do is set up a system that encourages more compliance based on market competition,” he said.
Scott also noted adoption of a residential model code could open eligibility for categorical FEMA grants and other federal funding, and he recounted that a previous grant application was awarded and later pulled back by a new administration. He said the bill includes a provision to clarify municipal authority to adopt and enforce building energy standards and that Energy Action Network is working on a uniform municipal process.
The committee did not take a vote on H.718 during the session. Senn closed the meeting for time and indicated the sponsor would return for further discussion at a later date.
