 Since we don't have a ton of time this morning, why don't we start hiding and Mark can join us in progress. So the Senate has sent us back H63 with some meaningful changes on it, some of which I think we've had a chance to chew on previously. I've invited Luke to essentially walk through the bill. Luke, from my perspective, although I've welcomed input from others, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to kind of gloss over some of the sections that we've been through before. We don't have to go through the bottle sections, but as I said, I think there are four or five sections that have been added through the glass ceiling, so it can help roll people through those. I'm going to move to the floor of the land. I'm going to move to the council under H63, the Senate Proposal of Amendment. And I'll take the chair's cue, and I'll move pretty quickly, because I think there's other folks who may want to be heard. I think I'm going to move to floor 10. So please stop me if anything I say is unclear or you need more info. What I'll try to do is highlight the changes over the last time I came in and did a walk through of the bill language that the Senate was considering. So you had a Senate natural version, and I went to Senate Finance, who had their own version, which is the one I discussed last time. Senate folks then had the bill and made some changes. There was a further amendment to the floor, which was then verbally amended, and then there was a subsequent written amendment to that amendment on the floor that had been verbally amended. So all those pieces coming together, they're not yet posted on the webpage for H63, because they haven't all been put together yet by the Senate Secretary. I'm going off what's in your calendar, which I believe is accurate. So I think things were put together. Correctly, there are some cross references and other things that are now erroneous because of all of these changes that were happening, but I don't think they're legally substantive. So I'll try to highlight those in the work bill. The first section we- Is that on the webpage yet? It's on your calendar. So I'm working off your calendar, the House calendar, on work day. On the House calendar? Yes. On H63 web pages, I said there's not a new version posted because that hasn't been done yet. But I think this is accurate. I think the Senate Secretary did a good job of coordinating all those various things. First section, efficiency Vermont, ability to use funds. He talks about it last time I was here. I don't think there's any substantive legal changes to this. Do you guys have any questions about this? I described this last time I was here. I think you've heard of the testimony. All right. Section two, POC proceeding. We also discussed last time. There was a reorganization of the factors under the page I have up now. You'll see Ciaz and Charlie, small one, small two. We're a little higher up on the page. Under the factors POC would consider it was reorganized to make it flow a little better. A substantive legal change. I don't think there's any other substantive legal changes to this section. So it's largely intact and largely asking the POC to do the same things that we walked through last time I was in your committee. But this is longer and denser than section one. Are there any questions about section two? Or what could POC have been asked in the center? And this once again was the all fuels, the expanded definition or concept of efficiency, and how to obtain for those, and also language about process and reports. The other change I would highlight is in the report section, which is E. Let's see under one, those last two lines, some of that language was added. And simply the reason it was added is that Fish and Vermont does a planning process every few years to demand resources planned proceeding, which syncs with this same POC proceeding timeframe. So this language was added just to make sure that when the POC comes back with its first report in 2020, its preliminary report, there's anything that they're considering or things that they would be recommending in their final report the next year that might impact that plan proceeding. They should discuss those things, let you know and let Fish and Vermont know. Proceeding. The renaming of the existing energy committee and its change mandate, I also went through that. So I won't repeat that. I don't think there's any substantive changes from what I walked through last time. I just would highlight under what is now 603, the duties, you'll see what's underlined. That's the same language we looked at last time. I just want to make clear that everyone understands that this renamed committee would function when the general assembly is not in session. And this would be its jurisdiction or mandate those lines that are underlined. Any questions about that? Be life. I think, in fact, I know I walked through this last time. I don't think there's any substantive changes. A lot of these that I'm paging through right now are the findings, but yes, sir. Can I see the wording again on be like, this burns, man, so section four just provides a mechanism that if be like decides to contribute money towards leatherization, that allows that money to flow into the fund. There's not a mandate there, right? Yes, and now section five is a lot of findings and then the, I'm sorry, B is what really matters. And simply said that the general assembly finds that be like investing in the dividends from Velco, which I mentioned last time, is consistent with their mission and furthers their goals. And then it's basically a request. As a result of the general assembly encourages be like to invest the dividends of the Velco stocks in the weatherization assistance fund. So it is not, you cannot mandate and it is not a mandate, it is an encouragement. Any questions about that? Section six, 350K general fund to efficiency Vermont for further weatherization programs and services in the same way that the carry forward and the other funds are set forward that efficiency Vermont will use in section one. So it's given them an additional one time appropriation for the same programs and services. Any questions about that? Section seven is new. And this is amending the axon resolved. So this was language you did not see last time. There is currently in the 2018 axon resolved session law a mechanism for the treasurer's office to, and I'm sorry, it's not all in the same page. But you'll see B is the most important section in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 for the treasurer to invest up to $5 million via a credit facility for an accelerated weatherization housing improvement program. And then in current law under one and two there is various restrictions and guideposts into how that money would be used. What you'll see as it changes is first of all, this is extended to 2021, same $5 million. And those guidelines are narrowed down. It's made much more open to how the money could be used. So if this is adopted, what it would say is under one, the fund shall be used to support weatherization efforts and housing improvement efforts for that's current law. The new law owner occupied homes and multi-family homes. And going down to what used to be three and now it'd be two, weatherization efforts are included in the improvements and housing unit funded from the credit facility. And background based on testimony in the other committees was that the treasurer has access to this $5 million pool. There haven't been many takers. I think there's one entity that applied for a multi-million dollar program but it's subsequently reduced to $500,000. So $5 million of value, $500,000 has gone out the door. This is meant to free up the ability of the treasurer to move more money out the door during the next couple of fiscal years. Yes. Go ahead. We've prepared a multi-family homes. What does that mean in terms of is it, renters are able to access these? It's not so limited in this language. It's not limited. It's not so limited in this language. So I assume- But it is allowed for renters. Let me finish. I think the mechanism would be that the either are not the profit that maybe trying to disperse funds might apply for access to these funds or maybe the owner of the structure could apply. I don't know if renters individually could apply. I assume it'd be the owner of the building, multi-family building could apply for access to this funding. But this would be a program run by the treasurers in the office and in conjunction with the credit facility, which I think is rescue, so that would work out the details. So let me put this back to you. My presumption is that how this program works is with this $5 million credit facility will work with nonprofits around the state. Actually, I don't know if they have to be a nonprofit, but organizations around the state that would lend money for weatherization efforts. So it's not the treasurer's office that is necessarily making the decisions with a prospective file. I think you're correct. I don't think they're directly lending the money to an individual bar. I think you're correct. But that's something that maybe you should do a testimony on if that's an issue report. So it's going to be because I only know a general terms. And these are loans, correct? Once again, that's my understanding. Yes? The treasurer's office. You should hear from the treasurer's office or other individuals to get more info. Any other questions about this section? Now we're into the beverage section, which I'll page through it very quickly. I don't think this committee has questions about that. Now jumping to section 11, this and the subsequent sections was language that largely was originally in the Senate natural version of this bill was taken out by following committees and then on the Florida amendment was made to add it back in. So at some point you might have read this or there might have been discussion. This first section 11 is findings. So this will go on session law because of all the moving pieces, some of those findings don't exactly mesh with other sections of the bill, but they're just findings. They have little or no legal impact. So I haven't seen this, so if we could go through it briefly. Sure. Instead of me reading, because I either try to start reading very fast and it wouldn't be clear. You wanna just read it on the screen and I can certainly answer any questions. These are very general findings about climate goals and then the state's ability to meet them. You can page it now. Once again, this goes in session law and has little or no legal impact. It's setting the stage for some of the other sections. Next section is really sort of finding what's important. Okay, I'm good with that. More important, perhaps, but doesn't really sync with some of the other sections because it's been changed so many times. So I don't think that's a legal problem. If you decide not to concur, of course that's up to you and you're doing a further proposal of the Menden or the Media Conference, we can clean that language up. Moving on to section 12, building energy labeling and benchmarking. I think the sponsor of these sections are here so perhaps you can hear from him for policy rationale, but section 61 is definitions. And I don't know if you review the Senate natural version of this bill, but this language is all in there. These definitions are all in there. And what really matters is then section 62 and section 63. So section 62 establishes two working groups, one for residential. And I won't go in and read through this language because of time constraints. And one for commercial, which is B. And they have the members of those various groups and there's actually similarity in the membership. And then their mission which, most of which is under F is to abide the commissioner on this information one, two, three, four, and five. And just so you know, these working groups, although they're the bills written as they're in, codified law, they're time limited. And so they would expire or sunset in a few years. They would cease to exist. 63, I think I walked through before, but I forget which committee I did which presentation for. And this is, no, is aggregated data. So this is for multi-unit buildings and it allows the owner or manager of those buildings to request certain data as energy usage. But there is an opt-out provision and if you are a tenant of that building or if you're renting those apartments, you can opt out of this data collection. And so this under one is the mechanism for the, let's say the owner of the building to request that this data be obtained and how to do that. And I would strongly suggest you hear from the sponsor of this as to the policies behind this and how it evisions it with the function. Do you have a question, Heidi, and Tariq? Well, there will be a legal issue with regard to allowing renters to opt out of this collection if the owner of the building wants it. I don't believe so. Maybe there's a witness who thinks so, I don't. I don't think I would testimony as to that issue with some people. So you're asking, I mean, I'll ask the policy reason why the tenant can opt out of this if the owner of the building would like to understand what their building is. I'd like to find out why we're allowing the tenant to opt out of it. And I wanted to understand why. I thought there was an option for the tenant. There is, that's what I'm saying, wondering why. Oh, you didn't miss out, yeah. I just, if the owner wants to know what their building is, I think it's their prerogative, I suspect, to do that. But I was, so I was asking Luke if there was a leak, if he thought there might be a legal reason why that shouldn't be, why that. I don't think there's a legal reason. And I'll ask the policy reason. Section 13 is continuation of existing working groups that are established, but my understanding is they have not met decently. So this is simply saying those groups continue on these new, two new working groups. Then there's reporting requirements. And some individuals had asked, perhaps these requirements lack any mandate for the residential working group to come back and give information to them. So, of course, as a standing committee, if this becomes law, you can fight working groups to come in and tell you what they're doing and give you an update, and you can answer them to give you information or recommendations that you so wish. Effective dates, one thing I want to point out is C, and this is the sunset. So, we ran through the working group language that expires on June 30th, 2021, which means those groups would cease to function, cease to exist now. It's a sunset. I know that's going to be very quick. I'll be here. I'm welcome to sit down and answer questions that are out there, witnesses, and have a chance to answer. Any questions at this point? Thank you very much. Thank you. Abby, I know that you are on a very tight schedule and maybe want to speak to this bill. I don't know if there's anything, I'm not compelling you to sit down, but I understand that you've got to be someplace else at 9.30, and since there's a lot of efficiency for a month in this bill, I'd be happy to have you say a few words if you want to. There's nothing additional that I feel like I need to say. I'm here to answer questions that you all have questions on the efficiency for a month portion, but I provided testimony last week. Nothing has changed in my views since that time. Senator Bray. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I invited Senator Bray primarily because the sections in the bill, or at least some of the sections in the bill that were added since we spoke with Luke last week about this were things that your committee had considered and you had provided an amendment on the floor, and I think that's sections 11, 12, 13, 14. And so because your committee had done some work on this, I wanted to give you a chance to speak to some of these additions. Sure. Thanks for joining us. Okay, good morning. So for the record, Senator Bray from Hadson County. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about it. I've flipped back to finding seven, the way I should point it out, and because in a way, although findings aren't legally binding in some way, it does in one place capture what we were trying to send them in the bill, which was namely a weatherization program plus an energy reading program. And so although things got, as it moved from S171 into H63 down to finance over to folks off the floor, things sort of got taken apart back together again, but in essence, the bill as you see it, I think the Flexed Communities underlying intent, which was find a way to weatherize it for low income, more low income weatherization. Make sure that we can do more moderate income weatherization that was addressing the need that probably many of us have heard it, where you hear folks saying, I'm all for weatherization. I'm over the threshold to qualify for assistance. I'm not looking for a full grant, but I wish that were more available or more readily available was money to help me do my moderate income projects. The goal was to bring up both moderate and low income weatherization. The pieces that Mr. Martland just went through on the energy reading work. The reason we thought it was important to bring it back to the bill, back to the floor was that we talk often about fiduciary responsibility, knowing that we're spending taxpayer dollars well or any dollars that we control whether they're efficiency or mon dollars and taxpayer dollars. So how do we do that? We do things like results based accountability. We're trying to measure performance. One of the things that I think a lot of energy work has been on the weatherization side has been hamstrung by is lack of a read upon widely accepted, visible, transparent energy rating system that just like the MPGs that earn a car. So I'd say you buy a car, you can look at mileage, you buy an appliance, you can look at energy use. Now you're about to make the largest investment of your life probably in a home or building. And although you can get data from a seller's proper information report once you're in the buying process, there's not, it's not necessarily consistent and it doesn't use any single accepted underlying standard so everyone could say you basically have the MPG equivalent on energy. So the market place in our estimation suffers a little when you have a lack of information and transparency. For instance, and my own case, it was made very clear when we got a very thorough energy audit and we were putting our house in the market and we were doing the walkthrough with us. We showed energy reports that, well I wouldn't bother to make any of those investments because you won't be part of the market place. And we did some because it made the house more comfortable while we were there, which is thought was a good, the right thing to do for us at that point. But it was, it epitomized for me the missing, we haven't really set up a market that has appraisers, banks, and the private market place I'd say, fully understanding and valuing energy efficiency work. And ultimately, if you can't put a figure on something, it tends not to get valued. So this is trying to bring some quantitative rigor to that market place. Efficiency of capitalism is supposed to be driven by perfect knowledge on both sides. Buyers don't spend too much, sellers don't sell too little. That level of perfect knowledge is, there's an inefficiency when one side knows more than the other and we're trying to make it more transparent and evil. That leads to the advantage of anyone on either side of a transaction. It's just better for information. Senator, in number seven, you eliminated three approaches and all are, you say you will do this. And the second two are included in this amendment. The third, the first one, the Will Establish a Statewide Voluntary Program for Rating. I understand the intent is to work toward that. Wonder if the word will is problematic in this case. Because the bill doesn't do that. Yes. Well, I suppose you could say that I don't know legally, council could tell you whether or not, given that it's in a finding, I don't know if that merit's changing something. If we were a month away from adjournment, and we're gonna do a lot of editing, and that might be a very suitable head. And I'm not raising these as objections just as concerns that other people may raise. It puts us in a position to be able to come back and look at it in the future. The other thing that goes on with it is voluntary. So Chairman Sherman asked about the disclosure piece. We even ended up trying to walk a balanced line. I didn't ask about the disclosure piece. Disclosure of energy use by tenants. Oh, by tenants, yes, I'm sorry, no. Well, not their disclosure. Whether their information is disclosed. Right, right. At the request of the owner of the unit. That's correct, yeah. Right, and so that is I think sort of another example of where there was sensitivity around. In fact, some people say, well, my energy usage is private information. I don't want my landlord to know what I did, period. And so we're trying to create a mechanism that would allow, you know, we all know people who are very privacy oriented. So we wanted to honor that. That someone who would say, I don't want my information for these period. I have nothing to hide. I'm not interested in any release. So that's why that provision is in there. But the goal of it was to create a mechanism so that a landlord who was working with tenants who were willing to do this could then get energy figures for your entire property and then assess whether or not an energy investment, energy efficiency investment was where you upgraded apartments and would that be a cost effective investment for the owner? Get that information out of this label. Mark. Senator, I guess I would ask the question. So there's a new working group, building energy working group, where there was an existing one that sounds like it has a map. Why create an old group? So it's, thank you. The idea basically is just to reconvene a working group that is lapsed. The membership is significantly the same. Frankly, we've run into headwinds in terms of bringing some of their recommendations forward and building policy and programs on that. The whole, just this question, we've just been discussing like disclosure or not disclosure. So there is, the group has worked in the past, we'd like to ask them to help us figure this out as we move forward. And part, if I look at it, if we're doing roughly 50% more work on low and moderate income sides, we're talking about the investment of $17 million or so next year. And we said, okay, it's about time that we try to help ourselves have a clearer understanding of the energy performance ramifications of doing that work. Can I just follow up on that? Senator, I just, the name of the committees are different, is that not correct? The working groups? One is commercial and one is residential? No, from the prior working group. Aren't they now labeling, residential building energy labeling working group? Was labeling not there before? Is that correct? I think that is correct. I'd have to go back and check. I'm pretty sure that's correct. Okay, so this is about labeling. So in section 13, maybe I'm just reading this wrong, section 13 of the bill A, it says the residential energy labeling working group. So those are the current names? Those are the previous names? Okay. No, those are the names under this new proposal. Right, and you're saying that the old names didn't include the word labeling? That's correct. They were the residential energy working group. I think I can do it. I was on commercial. I don't think so. I feel like it's a name of something like the new labeling and benchmarking or something like that. Building energy working groups. I'm not sure I understand this. Read another question. Could Luke tell us what the names are then? I think the witness is going to section 13, which might answer your question. Did you go down to section 13? There, yep, keep calling for this. It's still section 12. Keep going. Keep going. I'll go down to a couple and see a section right there. So this is the language that continues the existing groups and folds them into the groups. I believe those names are accurate, but I'll have to go back and recheck it. I think I'd like to confirm that. If there were a mistake in naming the groups, that could be done as a technical correction on the floor, right? Well, I believe that your body decides whether to concur, concur with the amendment, not concur, request a committee of conferencing various options. But if you're concurring, I don't think you can change. Senator, another question I've got in it that's, you know, it maybe shouldn't be related right now, but I know through Act 250 changes, there's a proposal to look at any new project having the net zero carbon emissions. Would either one of these groups be involved in drafting up guidelines around such a policy? Well, I don't think so. Well, two things. One, I'm not aware of that provision or party to that discussion. I know that all the Act 250 works really going on in the house side of this session. So I don't know, other than hearing about as little as you just said about it, that's all I've heard. So I can't even say more about that. No, this group is really oriented to looking at, trying to, well, I'll go back to the MPG sticker, you know, something like that. To have an energy rating system that uses some read upon standards so that people will be able to do apples to apples or comparisons, and we as policy makers will be able to say, you know, the vest that's empty right now is a 10th of years. We've changed units. We can do some before and after measuring and say, here's what it looks like, and here's how we'll be able to communicate it with buyers and sellers. I just want to make sure I understand your question. I didn't understand your question. And whether these groups would get involved with? It was under Act 250, it was a proposal to any new buildings that are built meet and net zero carbon emissions. So there's got to be some guidelines around what does that mean as far as energy efficiency for that building. Got it, right. Sorry, now I'm thinking a little more as you say. So there is a net zero, there's a passive house certification, lead, you know, silver plant, et cetera. So there are other certifications already. I think if someone was going as far as net zero, which is, so this doesn't say that we're going to change the energy efficiency of everybody's home. It just says, as we're doing this work, do we have a metric that we've all evaluated and agree we can rely on that will be mutual information for lawmakers, people operating programs to use? Just to follow up. Yeah, just to follow up a little bit, I guess. I guess my concern there, and you mentioned it a little bit about even I think your situation, I would be concerned about with so much else that's looked at when somebody's trying to sell their home, would this be another avenue for an individual looking at a property to have this evaluation and say, geez, that's not something I want to purchase until you do this, this, this, and this. I mean, it's already with the building inspections there's things around, you know, ground fault breakers not being in. I mean, you know, a lot of times now the folks that are looking to purchase could down this list and say, geez, you know, we've got all these things we're not purchasing this as we need. Do you even fix them? Yeah, I'm smiling because we're going through this, finally our farm did sell, so we have the home inspection and home inspection report. And frankly, we had some negotiation back and forth on what things we would take care of and what they would do for the new property owners, I mean, to me, even though that report has financial impacts on both parties in our transaction, it seemed preferable to me to have us get a clearer, more accurate picture of what's really going on in that house. And then we, you know, we did our normal back and forth. So it didn't turn out to be a problem. I know that some people worry about anything that discloses information that could lead to one party hesitating in some way. But frankly, I feel like, you know, back to that power of capitalism, you don't overpay someone who doesn't sell at too low a price and it's based on good information going back and forth between parties. Mike, in that height, that's good. Okay, so the data that these working groups are going to collect, that's going to be aggregated? So on the residential side or? Well, on the residential or the commercial side, what I'm wondering is, will the data be such that you can assign a value to a particular building if someone wants to look at that way? And or whether it will be, you know, essentially anonymous in terms of if I were going to buy or sell a house, whether that data would be able to save what the engineering of that particular property is. So it's outlined here as creating a system that you could use, what we don't have is the original standard. So it's voluntary and what we're trying to do is establish a new standard. So if you did want to do that, you know, in our case, we can hand over to the buyer the energy option, which is very thorough, but there is already, there have been information sheets developed, like a one-pager, it's kind of like, again, back in the MPG standard, it gives you sort of the energy efficiency of that unit. You might include information around average annual energy costs for deep enough place needed, et cetera. So it sounds like you're trying to develop a standard, but before the standard is actually developed, would someone be able to use the data that's being collected to say, oh, you know, I'm buying this property at 393 NHS Wayne-Shallot, and what's the energy rating on that? And they go to this data report, whatever, and find that. Well, so that's where we could end up with that. Right now there's not a standard that someone can refer to and say, hey, I'd like to know your per's rating, you know, your own energy rating system. Rating system number, you know. Oh, okay. So, Senator, first of all, I will appreciate that it is a desire to get a voluntary instead of a mandatory, because I know a lot of people would like mandatory labeling. I guess I will first ask, well, you talked about the knowledge balance, and that I understand that my concern is actually the seller, is with the seller of a property who, you know, if you have means, that's great. You're doing all sorts of weatherization to your home in most cases. If you don't have means, you're not, unless you were one of the lucky ones who get weatherization services or even want the weatherization services. And that's who I'm talking about. And even with a voluntary, when people go to this and they notice they might not be a rating, but it will, you know, it will develop into something that, my worry is that you are going to cause the homes that would have sold for $300,000 to sell for $200,000, and that person, without means, is stuck with now with the $200,000 house, and $150,000 mortgage, whatever that. And that's where my concern is, is with those homes that are owned by Vermonters who don't have the means, like a lot of us in this room do, to weatherize our homes. And we're making those properties functionally obsolete in the housing market. And I'm really concerned about that. I know there is all sorts of desire to make sure that we do what we can to ensure energy efficiency, carbon emission reduction, and I'm all for that. But to do it at the expense of Vermonters without means is in my view a problem. And so I'm concerned about this. I know it's just a working group. I will also, now that I have them, I'll also ask about the commercial. I will say this, I'd like to add something in there that says in their report there should be information collected and gathered and investigated about the possible ramifications of the sale of homes and with regard to the ramifications on Vermonters selling and buying homes and also ramifications on the market itself in the industry. And I would like to see that in this as far as the report is concerned. I'd also like to see somebody, a member of the real estate community industry on the commercial working group. Their commercial real estate agents are a necessary part of that working group. And so I would like to see those. I will probably have an amendment to do that and if possible, hopefully the Senate would agree to that. So. What side of that argument though is that, what about the consumer? Should the consumer be able to know how much the energy costs are gonna be? And they do. And if you know the real estate market realtors are they give all of this, the energy, what the costs have been, everything else. They also have an agreement with Efficiency Vermon if I'm not mistaken. They developed all this materials about so that they give to the buyers what exactly is out there for resources from the state and private entities and what have you. The information is there for all the buyers. It's just not a late, it's not a scarlet A on your house. It's not a Nazarene incident on your house. I have to say, I don't, just responding to your concerns Heidi that the energy use in buildings doesn't really have any value or very little value in the marketplace right now. And it would be amazing if by having a label, a miles per gallon rating or one of those as you know washing machines and refrigerators and energy usage rating energy label, if that required $100,000 for the value of the market that would be amazing. I just can't imagine that. I would urge you to talk to some realtors because I know a bunch of them who are concerned about this and the market. Well, it also took a long time for the MLS system to even have a box to put in your energy usage, how much does your energy cost last year? Anyway, so I guess I don't feel like that this is going to be an issue. I do agree that a realtor ought to be on the commercial group especially. I think that would be very useful and I was on the commercial group and I was still having a few of you were here when I was talking about that. And we did try to get realtors involved and there were a few who did participate in some of the meetings. I think it's very important. I also wanted to respond to your comment about whether an energy label would then require a seller to make repairs or something before they were able to sell the house. And I think the difference between items identified in the home inspection and a label is that items identified in the home inspection is sort of a discrete list of things. Fix this, false it, fix that, whatever. And whereas an energy label is much more, just this is how this building operates the way it is now. And does it make a difference in the market world? It's a factor, do people consider when they're buying a vehicle that this truck gets 18 miles a gallon and that car gets 35 miles a gallon? I mean some people, that's a deciding factor. Other people, they decide they need this functionality of a pickup truck so they really didn't pay that price. So it's a factor in the decision but I don't think it is the deciding factor for most people, it's what they need in a vehicle and I think the same would apply in a house. You're really buying, what they say in real estate, is you're not buying a house, you're buying a piece of a neighborhood. So you can always fix the house, you can't fix the neighborhood. So anyway, I think your concerns are, speaking to Heidi now, are more, I don't think they're really gonna be an issue in their reality. And I appreciate that, I would just say that people have been in the real estate industry for many, many years and have a lot of experience in home sales, home purchases, and commercial real estate. I tend to defer to them when it comes to what might make a difference in the real estate market. So. That's a French word, this is also sort of Robin. I just like to note that we have a lot of association of realtors in the room and we can make sure to give them a couple of minutes. I'm short, when we're done with questions for Senator Brey. So just trying to make people aware of the time limit. Yeah, time constraints. If it turns out that homes are worth 30% less with a bad energy rating, how does that impact property taxes, town assessments, et cetera? Cascade effect. Question for the room at large. It would. Sure would if your house is assessed at 250,000 instead of 300,000. Well, maybe over a long period of time through those equalization studies it showed that, oh, but then as a lister, I've got to start going in and looking at these energy audits and say, geez, you don't have triple glazed windows, check, you don't have. See, it won't be that level of detail that we're being basically a number. But we don't know that. The study group is going to come up with the recommendation. Right. I can tell you, the point is to come up with something simple that can be compared house-to-house building to building. Very specifically what this bill does is it has a working group, two working groups that are advising the commissioner at the department to come up with a recommendation to the legislature in 2021. So these working groups will serve in an advisory capacity to the department of public service. It's essentially what's happening here. And it's the commissioner that comes up with the recommendation to the legislature. So. I think the thing I always think when we worry about, I understand, the biggest asset most people ever have is going to be their homes. So four people are very sensitive about the value of how it's saleability, et cetera. But because we have a working group over here, as it shares recommendations to the department, I'm sure this legislature will be talking to that department and there'll be plenty of discussions about what has been learned and how to move forward in a way that's productive. But I think I always come down to the side of more transparency and more information. It's just a healthier place for everyone to operate from and it will guide decision making going forward. Sorry, having pled for brevity. I know you're asking that. I'm asking that. No way. The reports, requires a report from the commercial group. I don't see a requirement for a report from the residential working group. Is that something that we're looking to add in later on? Start scrolling around on that. I think the intent was to hear from both. Yeah, I'm not sure that it's a second comment. Section 14. Yeah, thank you. I think so, the auto assist. It's your L-card, trained eye. It's a good consistency. So yeah, thank you. Yeah, the only thing I would say is an amendment to that. Isn't B of that section that says that the commissioner shall file the report and recommendations created under subsection A, which includes both working groups that doesn't mean that a report is required certainly. But it does refer to the recommendations created under. Well, I guess subsection A is just a section. It's not section 13 or section 12. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Do you want to join us, Nancy? Thank you for being here. I'm going to put a fierce director for the Vermont Association of Realtors. And I would like to thank the chairman and also all of the committee members for allowing me to provide a very brief testimony today. And in speaking with the chair, I explained that I was going to go briefly into a little bit of context because there's some confusion about VAR's position. And I would like to make sure that I leave this room today with a very clear message as to exactly where we stand and why we stand there. So while I do not normally do this in the interest of time, I'm just going to read this. You all have electronic copies and I also will pass out a hard copy for people about one of the things that is handed out to buyers during the process. So as I said, I'm just going to try to go through this as quickly as possible and hit the most salient points. The Vermont Association of Realtors, we have worked very well with representatives in the energy conservation world, most notably at Efficiency Prom for several years. Our goal is always been to work in partnership with them and others to make Vermont a great place to work and to live and to balance the natural tensions that sometimes exist between energy efficiency goals and the reality of Vermont's aging housing stock. It's one of the reasons why we have spearheaded the first green housing symposium starting in 2015 and this fall we will be holding up third one. This symposium brings together stakeholders from all over to address this very issue and discuss also the emerging trends in the industry. It was in this vein that in March, our CEO testified in front of Senate natural resources that we would support the working groups with the caveat that a commercial realtor be added to the commercial working group at that time. We were very much trying to be partners with Efficiency Vermont and play nicely in the sandbox and so we supported the working groups at that point. This is when the bill was still S171. During Ms. Hase's verbal testimony, she stated firmly to Senator Bray when asked that VAR would never support mandated labeling as it would clearly put older homes at a disadvantage in the marketplace as has been referenced by Representative Sherman. It is true then in her written testimony because of our efforts to be good partners, Ms. Hase did ask for postponement of any considerations of mandatory labeling but in no way did we indicate any support thereof. In May, when the bill we originally testified on was swept into H63, I testified in front of Senate Finance Committee on the newer version of H63. At that time, I did not submit written testimony but I did send along the testimony from Helen Hosley that had been submitted to Senate natural. Mostly so the Senate Finance Committee could see the pamphlets that were made in concert with Efficiency Vermont that are all since in front of you now. These pamphlets are handed out by realtors at the time of the signing of the purchase and sales agreement. I also pointed out in committee that there are three occasions at the minimum in which case the prospective buyers are given factual information about the home that they are considering. First, in working with Efficiency Vermont and the New England real estate network, we did add the green fields to the MLS listing forms where sellers can put any information regarding ending energy efficiencies and upgrade, not just the windows and the normal stuff but the more advanced technologies that people coming into the market looking for that may be seeking and that way they can make sure that they pick out the right homes to show those particular potential buyers. I would like to note that we are also the first state in the country to do so. So if a buyer comes to a realtor seeking older home with upgraded efficiencies, again, they can find that home by looking in those green fields and show them those particular homes. Secondly, at the seller disclosure, they include all of the actual costs, not estimated but actual, associated with the running of the home. So prospective buyers have a true cost to consider when making their home buying decision. Third, when the purchase and sales contract is signed, the buyer is providing the pamphlet sitting in front of you which explains all of the available information on where and how they can improve the energy efficiency of their home. They also check a box affirming that they have been giving this information and understand it. This is our effort to be completely transparent. To suggest that this is not accurate and honest information, I take a slight affront act because realtors do have to pass a code of ethics and they pass that information along to their sellers. The information that sellers are providing to buyers is transparent, honest and factual. I indicated in my testimony in Senate Finance that we did not see the need for the committees since it is my understanding that, one, they do not meet on a regular basis. Two, they still seem to have more unanswered questions than suggestions which if you read the bill states they must come back with their report answering these unanswered questions they've never been able to answer before. And our partnerships with groups like Efficiency Vermont are strong with both groups taking a balanced approach to this issue. However, I did ask that if those committees were to be revitalized, that they know it only needed to meet regularly and do the work assigned to them but that a commercial realtor again be added to the commercial working group. When the committee voted, Senate Finance voted 5-1-1 to strike sections one through five which included these working groups from the bill removing the committees from the bill. VAR was firmly in support of that move. That is what brings me here today. We support expanded weatherization programs for moderate income owners and buyers since 80% of our housing stock. Committee, think about that. 80% of our housing stock is more than 40 years old and new homeowners are not in a position to put out that additional money to weatherize the home and often cannot do so for many years if at all. So I'm very happy to see that they are increasing those loans or grants for moderate income potential homeowners. We support the version of H63 that passed out of Senate Finance 5-1-1 with no working groups and an increase to the weatherization program to the remonters who meet at that time it was 80 to 140% of median income. Finally, if you insist, and I know that's a strong word so I apologize, but if you move forward with creating working committees, we ask that included in those recommendations that come out of the group, you add into the bill language requiring an in-depth analysis of the recommendations that would have on our already tight housing market and the economic and financial implications that their final recommendations would place on Vermont's current homeowners and prospective buyers. And again, as has already been said, clearly we would request if you do add the working groups and keep it in this version of the bill that obviously the residential working group needs to combat with the report as well. And I will just close by saying I really feel that we are on top of the emerging trends with our national organization, states are dealing with this all over the country. We are already working with energy efficiency groups. We are on the right track and I do not see the need to put together working groups that may or may not quite frankly meet on a regular basis and come back to you next January with recommendations. If you would allow us to continue to do our work, we have our green symposium for the third time coming up in the fall. We continue to work with Abbey and also efficiency Vermont and I think we can achieve the same, if not better, quite frankly, outcomes. Balancing both the tight housing market and the economic situation that Vermonches are in and also the need to be very mindful of energy efficiency in the future. Thank you very much. So I don't want to harsh your words, Nancy. I just want to be very clear on what you're advocating for. And I did look back and read Helen Housley. Is it Housley or Housley? It's Housley. Housley testimony. And she's very clear from her testimony you probably continue this as well and did this morning about the support for weatherization programs. She also says she supports forming the two working groups. But as you said, wanted to make sure that there was a member of the real estate community that was part of the commercial group. Yes. And then also further says that she had concerns about these working groups mandating anything. Correct. She says in her written testimony, we ask that you postpone mandating anything at this point and allow the working groups made up of experts to tackle the unresolved issues, et cetera. Yes. So again, I want to be careful about parsing your words and the advantage we have here is you can correct any mistakes from what I heard. The focus sounds to be that Vermont realtors that you're bringing to us is that you want to make sure Vermont realtors have representation on the commercial working group that is clear out in this bill. And my reading of this bill is that and going back to the finding section, which we don't want to put too much weight in, but is to establish a statewide voluntary program, which you've also been very clear that realtors have been working along that line providing information to prospective buyers of properties from something that sounds like realtors have come together around. Absolutely, along with the energy groups, yes. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely. Okay. And I would just, if I may just add one last thing, something that Representative Sherman mentioned that has been discussed amongst our realtors, and that is the fact that a mandated label up there is like a scarlet letter. Somebody is not even going to want to look at a home that is rated D, and that, in many cases, and that alone could preclude them from looking at a home that they can afford and then being given the information that will be out there to help them further weatherize it. So with 80% of our homes not being up to what energy efficiency standards most people would like to see, if the first thing they see is a C or a D, who wants that? We all want A's and B's. We're cutting that out. If we were living in a place where so much of our housing stock was brand new and lead certified and energy efficient we would not necessarily be sitting here today asking you to think about letting the parties that are already working together work together so we can avoid that very thing. That is what we're afraid of. Not that we want to discourage homeowners and potential buyers from improving their homes from an energy standard perspective but we don't want to scare them away before they even have a chance to look at the very little housing stock that's available. I'll leave you with one last example. A realtor in Washington County had a potential buyer come to her. She had three homes that she could show in that person's price range of $250,000. Three homes. So I'm leaving you with that because that is a very real situation for the majority of realtors in this state. Taking aside Chittenden County, the Northeast Kingdom and all of Southern Vermont, they're dying. Those houses are sitting for months and months and months. So we are just trying to balance the importance and recognize that with the reality of what we're dealing with in housing. People buy fixer uppers all the time. They do. I've done that. Absolutely. And have you done a piece of that? I guess I... Being the weatherization. Absolutely. The state will have home accurate information on. And I guess, and that's what we're afraid of. We're afraid that they're gonna see that grade and they won't even look at the home and find out about what's available to them. Representative, that's our concern. So we don't use grades anymore either. We can do proficiency based. Yeah. Whatever it is. Nobody wants to scour land. With distinction. With distinction. So I thank you so very much for allowing me to clarify the confusion of where we really stand. But it had a lot to do with the many moving pieces and numbers of this bill. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a great day. Thank you. So I'm gonna join our meeting again. Yeah. Well, clearly, how do you, you've, you know, place some concerns? I don't know if anyone else wants to speak, just, you know, generally to the bill. Well, and I welcome you speaking as well. Well, so Robin caught something that I think is really important. If they're gonna do this, we wanna have a report. So I guess I'm wondering if, with regard to timing, I understand all of the other stuff in this bill. And, but with regard to timing, I'm wondering if we could further, you know, concur with the Senate Proposal Amendment with the further proposal of amendment and add the report, add a commercial realtor on the, I mean, a realtor on the commercial thing. And in my hope would be to add something that says, you know, possible ramifications to the housing market and buyers and sellers for my buyers and sellers. So. To the reports. Yeah, to your larger point, I would just, from a process standpoint, make sure we're all on the same page, which is, in my opinion, this is a bill that has to pass. This in the next 20, you know, 36 hours. And the reason it has to pass is because there's funding in here for weatherization that the Senate put in in lieu of a two cent increase in home fuels tax. And that's, I think, section one of the bill. The sheets portion of the bill, which is the bottle bill, which we haven't touched down at all, is essentially funding for clean water. So those are two really important things that are kind of pulling the train that's got a number of other things in here, which I would put in the category of essentially studies and Asper proceedings. So in no way am I gonna support something that's gonna preclude the passage of this bill in the next 36 hours. You know, so short of that, I'm open to discussion. And I hear you, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is they put this on the floor of the Senate. I hear. And there are things that should be fixed and we should go to the Senate and say we're going to fix those. And I can, Mark and I can certainly go to our caucus about suspension of rules or anything else. So that's an important point as well. I understand that, but we'd like to make sure that, I understand that, we can do that. So. I said I've concerns about this piece all together. So I mean, I know this place as well as anybody and you can say all you want about it not being in mandate now. Once it gets rolling to me, it's the religious concerns and my concern. I mean, we've heard from Longville as association, they want to have this whole. But the bill is gonna pass anyway. So I would like to see if we can get a suspension of rules if we can make the important changes to it. It's good. Well, would that be taken a section out completely for now? No, it's not going to, they won't agree to that. I know they won't. It's not going to happen. So. I'm not saying I'm. I know. So what I will tell you again from a process point is I'm happy to go meet with the speaker and representative Sheldon who is the presenter of this bill on representative four guides behalf and see if there's something that we can get to on that. But at the end of the day, I have a goal which we're going to achieve, which is that this bill is going to get through in the next 36 hours. So. Well, and just to elaborate a little bit more, I mean, even if you or both of us talk to the caucus, I'm not saying that they'd be agreeable to suspension rules. No, I totally understand. We just need to talk to them. Totally understand. I'm not, I'm not sure we're on the same page. Okay. So there's different level of conversation if you want to hear. Before we leave this room, I'm not going to look for a vote on, you know, concurrence or some of the things that how you would suggest we can come back to that. But, you know, is there anything else that Seth would like to. So the thing was asking for a voluntary program that does, you know, gives a report and that voluntary program that gives a report. So does that mean it's already being met? That's what the villagers are saying. Yeah. I think what this is asking is the commissioner of the department of public service to come back to the legislature in 18 months with recommendations slash report only on residential at this point. No, only on commercial, only on commercial. Yeah. Excuse me. You know, based on advice from these working groups. So, well, could wind up with something different than what's there. Scott, did you want to add something? Well, I think that I agree with everything you said about we got to get this across the line and that these are working groups that are make a recommendation to the report to the commissioner. The commissioner is going to make a recommendation. We're going to have another chance to talk about this. And I guess in general, I think that labeling is a step forward. And I think that voluntary labeling will be actually, to the extent that it achieves currency in the marketplace and it's something that people value will be something that people want. So I don't think that it will be necessary that the mandatory is probably ever going to happen. So agreeing with the very real time constraints that we have and the need to not derail the bill, Heidi, the concerns about the report and the inclusion of the AR and commercial are real but I can also see as things that we can, that the report we can amend next year. We can amend this January to include it to require a report from the residential because they'd be working anyway. And the commissioner appoints the members of any and under G it says other members with expertise in energy efficiency, building design, energy use or the marketing and sale of real property. So it's an option. It is option. It is option. I agree. Well, it's not included, but there's an option there unlike the residential group where it is mandated. Okay, I would recommend Heidi that you and Robin and I, Robin is going to speak for the committee on the floor just in kind of laying out how this is going to move forward on the floor at a point in time when we move forward with this Representative Sheldon to her bill is going to introduce the bill but then defer to other committees that have a piece of this which is essentially our committee and appropriations and we're gonna walk through the changes in the bill that have occurred since the bill last left the house. That's procedurally how we're gonna go through the bill at a point in time when it comes up on the floor. Well, what does that mean at a point in time when it comes up on the floor? Well, that's what I'm suggesting is that you and Robin and I and actually pull Representative Sheldon to talk with the speaker about how we want to proceed here. And I think some of that, frankly, will depend on the ability to get rules to tension. So I'm guessing we are going to reconvene at some point.