Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Energy Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building energy-code hearing surfaces disputes over training timelines, oversight and funding
Summary
Testimony on H.718 focused on when a new energy education module should take effect, whether it should be tied to licensure, which agencies should administer code enforcement, and OPR’s request for task-force funding and support to create voluntary certifications.
The Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee heard extensive stakeholder testimony on H.718, a bill addressing building energy codes and related education modules for trades and design professionals. Witnesses ranged from trade associations and architects to the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) and the Division of Fire Safety, and they pressed lawmakers for clearer deadlines, funding and consistent enforcement structures.
Matt Cota, representing the Heating Cooling Contractors of Vermont, urged the committee to clarify implementation timing for a required energy education module. "If you make this a condition of licensure on July 1, 2026, that's impossible for us to implement," he said, arguing that a Jan. 1, 2028 effective date would give regulators and training providers realistic time to design and roll out new curriculum. He recommended the module be required for rebates or incentives rather than as a strict licensure condition, to avoid disrupting the technician workforce.
Architects and builders largely expressed conditional support but urged more specificity. Tom Berscie, immediate past president of AIA Vermont, asked the bill to specify which engineers (for example, mechanical, electrical and plumbing) the training requirement targets and recommended that municipal authority to administer energy codes be channeled through the Division of Fire Safety so enforcement is consistent across jurisdictions.
The Secretary of State and Jennifer (director, Office of Professional Regulation) told the committee OPR currently administers a residential contractor registration program (registration, not licensure). They reported 565 registered individual contractors and 835 registered businesses and described enforcement limits: OPR can pursue fraud and registration-related violations but lacks statutory authority and staff capacity to adjudicate quality-of-work claims without professional qualification standards or inspectors. OPR asked the committee to fund the mandated task force and recommended $50,000 per year to support staffing, coordination and development of voluntary specialty certifications.
Michael Gro, executive director of the Division of Fire Safety, told senators the division lacks both the bandwidth and technical expertise to unilaterally take on broad energy-efficiency enforcement for single-family homes. He supported improved training and a phased approach that builds capacity before regulatory requirements are imposed. Gro also criticized the current 20-minute online "energy module" used for continuing education as too brief to be meaningful and said it should be redesigned with cross-agency input.
Builders’ representatives warned against fragmenting enforcement across municipalities and urged safe-harbor or appeal provisions to the state level to prevent inconsistent local interpretations that could make projects unaffordable. Several witnesses recommended the committee refine statutory language about timing, identify which agencies will lead curriculum development, and consider modest appropriations to help OPR run the task force and craft voluntary specialty certifications.
What’s next: Committee staff will collect written language recommendations from stakeholders and consider draft fixes to implementation dates, the role of OPR and the Division of Fire Safety, and appropriation requests before further action.
