‘Home energy ordinance’ generates debate | Local News | timesargus.com – Barre Montpelier Times Argus

However, several who spoke during a public hearing that spanned nearly two and a half hours, told city councilors they were skeptical the proposed ordinance would measurably assist Montpelier in achieving its goal of being completely free of fossil fuels by 2050.

There were several variations on that theme.

Some, like Cliff Street resident Benjamin Huffman, questioned the accuracy and efficacy of the proprietary online algorithm used to estimate annual energy costs for homes that would have to be shared by sellers.

In an effort to produce a “single, global number” suitable for the kind of “apples to apples” comparison described during a brief overview of the ordinance, Huffman said valuable information is neglected and the result — the “Vermont Home Energy Profile” — wasn’t particularly useful.

Montpelier, Huffman said, could do better and, in his view, should if it really wants to be a model for the state.

“What I would like to see all of us do is to focus less on the aim of victory through an immediate adoption of this ordinance and instead really devote some serious brainpower to creating a truly informative (energy) profile that could benefit both (home) buyers and sellers,” he said.

Huffman wasn’t alone.

Peter Kelman kicked off the public portion of the hearing by expressing his misgivings about the proposal.

“I’m very much in favor of the goals of this ordinance (but) I have severe doubts about the details,” he said, ticking down a list of concerns that include the algorithm-driven profiles that are blind to nuance.

If the council is serious about advancing the city’s Net Zero initiative, Kelman said, the council should be looking at incentives to encourage homeowners to invest in energy efficiency upgrades.

“This is a little stick,” he said. “Where are the carrots?”

Most of the support for the proposed ordinance was accompanied by caveats.

Daniel Jones said the proposed ordinance was “a great start,” while noting the council should be open to down-the-road adjustments if if it is adopted.

“Don’t let perfect get in the way of progress,” Martha Nowlan agreed.

While she supported the proposed ordinance, Nowlan, a realtor, who lives in Barre, said she wanted to make sure the compounding penalties contemplated would be levied against sellers — not their real estate agents.

Jeff Fitzgerald likened the resistance to the new mandate to push-back that initially greeted seat belt laws nobody questions now.

“The idea of a mandate shouldn’t scare people if it’s (an idea that is) a little ahead of its time,” he said.

However, even Fitzgerald, who serves on the committee that is recommending the ordinance, echoed concerns about an algorithm that yielded an “impossible” result with respect to his home — a property that, he said, “produces more energy than it uses.”

“You have to be able to override the algorithm with your actual data,” he said.

Others, like Lori Holt and Corby Griffin, were more blunt with their critiques.

Holt, a Montpelier realtor and former long-time resident who now lives in Roxbury, described the proposed ordinance as “overreach” that would accomplish little.

“I think that strapping a seller with this need, facing penalties and enforcement, using public databases of information that aren’t always accurate, and being held accountable, are issues for me,” she said.

So, Holt said, is the conscious decision to use the possible sale of the home as the trigger for the need to complete an energy profile.

“If it’s that important that we all be energy efficient, then why wait for a (property) transfer?” she asked.

Griffin argued the proposed ordinance was the product of misplaced priorities in a city with aging infrastructure that needs attention.

“I’m just really tired of the City Council spending its time and our money on things that are not directly benefiting the people of Montpelier,” he said.

On a night when several realtors spoke, Peter Tucker and Tim Heney were among them.

Tucker expressed concern about the accuracy of the algorithm and broader concerns about privacy and potential liability in the event of a misrepresentation that might have been an honest mistake inputting information.

Tucker said he preferred a voluntary approach.

Heney suggested Montpelier wait for the state to deal with an issue it has been discussing for years.

“The devil is in the details,” Heney said, adding: “Getting it right is important.”

So, said Nathan Suter, is getting it done.

Concerned about climate change, Suter offered what may have been the only unequivocal endorsement of the ordinance as it is currently proposed.

“We can’t move fast enough,” he said.

Some councilors had questions of their own and Dan Richardson asked most of them, though few were definitively answered.

Among Richardson’s questions were whether the energy profiles and the data they contained were public records and obtainable upon request.

Richardson also asked about the evolution of the proprietary algorithm, the city’s yet-to-be-finalized plan for enforcement, the compounding $25 a day fine for violations and the recording requirement.

By the end of the evening, Richardson said he was leaning toward starting with a voluntary ordinance with a plan to move toward the envisioned mandate in a year.

Others on the council — including two members who reported they encountered differing levels of accuracy when creating energy profiles for their homes — said they were open to that idea.

Some were more open than others, and Councilor Lauren Hierl said while a “trial period” might make sense based on the feedback, “that cannot be our end goal.”

Hierl said voluntary climate measures don’t work and the “status quo” must change.

“As a community, as a council and as a state, we’ve declared a climate emergency,” she said. “We’ve established a net-zero goal as a community and to me this is a modest step, but a valuable step towards that goal.”

The stated aim of the proposed ordinance is to help those in the market for homes make educated decisions based, in part, on expected energy costs.

Mayor Anne Watson said a uniform home energy labeling system would assist in that regard. Though the effort that led to the proposed ordinance has taken a lot of volunteer time, Watson pushed back on the notion it has required much in the way of taxpayer money. The all-volunteer committee has required some staff support and incurred some nominal legal fees, she said.

Councilors unanimously agreed to schedule a second reading on the ordinance for its April 28 meeting and will resume the discussion at that time.

david.delcore @timesargus.com