Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Building Energy Code topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee tweaks building‑energy draft: funding moved to general funds and regular review for energy education modules

House Energy and Digital Infrastructure · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members discussed bill 718 changes that shift proposed funding to general funds and add a three‑year review cycle for energy education modules used by regulated professions and trades, with the first review starting in 2028.

Committee member Scott outlined two drafting changes to bill 718 during the March 11 meeting: moving the proposed funding source from the department‑controlled funds to general funds, and adding a periodic review requirement for energy education modules.

Funding change: the drafter explained the change to general funds was intended to avoid setting a precedent for accessing thermal‑efficiency or process‑fuel funds outside the department and PUC processes. The drafter acknowledged that general funds may not ultimately be available but said shifting the source moves the decision to the appropriations process where final budget tradeoffs belong.

Energy education modules: the draft now requires the cognizant offices (the Office of Professional Regulation and the Division of Fire Safety) to review modules every three years with stakeholders and update them as necessary, starting in 2028. The change is intended to keep the modules current and relevant to building professionals and trades rather than letting them sit unchanged.

Support and opposition: the drafter reported most stakeholders were supportive or neutral. Two survey respondents opposed the approach—one arguing the measure amounted to more regulation and another urging more comprehensive building‑code adoption—positions the drafter described as outside current political feasibility.

Next steps: the bill was scheduled to go to appropriations and the committee expected to vote on a related package the following day; the drafter said he had solicited further feedback from municipal and professional groups.