2. 30 V.S.A. § 8002-8005 (RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD)
10 V.S.A. § 581 (building efficiency goals)
10 V.S.A. § 578
(greenhouse gas reduction)
And
more… YET…
3. NO REGISTRATION
NO AUTHORITY
NO VERIFICATION
NO ENFORCEMENT
58%
n=158
72%…
74%
n=97 66%
n=70
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2002 Study
(1995 RBES)
Study Released 2003
2008 Study
(2005 RBES)
Study Released 2009
2011 Study
(2005 RBES)
Study Released 2013
2015 Study
(2011 RBES)
Study Released 2019
Compliance Rate: 2002-2015
n = # of on-site
verifications
4. LEVERAGING VT TOOLS
WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN!
Comprehensiv
e Compliance
Reform
Help Achieve
Energy &
Climate Goals
Protect
Consumers
Increase
Market Fairness
Improve
Local
Economy
5. COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
• Building Science
• Energy Code
• Programs & Incentives
• Financing
• “Title validity not affected”
• Every town issues permits &
Certificate of Occupancy
• Regulate appraisers/real
estate agents/lenders
• Code Officials
• Public Safety: Fire Safety
and/or Dept. Public Service
• Staff
• Verification
• 130 “deputized” VT
Auditors
• Property Database: Multiple
Listing Service “HELIX”
• Pass S.136 (Office of
Professional Regulation) Builder
Registry
Authority
Having
Jurisdiction
Education
Enforcement
Options
6. THANK YOU!
INCREASING COMPLIANCE FROM 66% TO 100% WOULD SAVE:
OVER TEN YEARS: 2020-2030 OVER THIRTY YEARS: 2020-2050
Assumptions:
• 66% compliance with 2020 RBES (conservative assumption, since 66% is to 2011 RBES not more
stringent 2020 RBES
• 24.3 MMBtu savings/housing unit (assumes baseline home already built to 2015 RBES)
• Residential new construction fuel mix from 2016 Market Assessment Study
• Wood & pellets assumed zero CO2 emissions/year; other fuels sources from EIA and EPA eGRID
• 2080 new housing units/year (2018 EIA data)
• 45,120 metric tons of CO2
• 9,580 passenger vehicles driven over 1
year (from EPA GHG calculator)
• 1.31 million MMBTU
• $25 million in energy dollars
• 338,399 metric tons of CO2
• 71,847 passenger vehicles driven over 1
year (from EPA GHG calculator)
• 8.49 million MMBTU
• $188 million in energy dollars
Editor's Notes
I’m Jim Bradley…(a bit about yourself) and I’m pitching on “Why Code Compliance Now?”
Our energy goals and policies and resolutions and agreements and requirements are all marching along…but compliance is dropping.
Starting top left and moving clockwise: Let’s pass S. 136! Regarding AHJ: We would need at least 1 staff inhouse to oversee the database(s) (builders and properties). We could also have 1 “Circuit Rider” that travels throughout VT and does random sampling of new buildings and retrofits/renovations. Regarding verification, we would need to “deputize” these auditors in order to have them have some power or requirement to mail in documentation that the building met code…but this is just blower door testing…more thought needed here. Regarding a database to store property information in, “HELIX” is now uploading solar and other data into Vermont’s MLS, in partnership with NEREN. Regarding education – more people will increase their education if it is connected to their name and company via a building registration. Regarding enforcement options: Striking “not” from the legislative language pertaining to RBES with regards to title validity is the simplest and least costly way to require energy code is met. This doesn’t mean it is not without it’s challenges (e.g. realtor pushback). There are other options, such as requiring each and every town to issue permits & COOs, and then to have an entity check that that towns are doing this work. Or – we can regulate appraisers and real estate agents and lenders. Or we can pay for code officials.
I’m Jim Bradley…(a bit about yourself) and I’m pitching on “Why Code Compliance Now?”