A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | May 13, 2013 | Committee Room | Commerce

Full MP3 Audio File

Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the Monday afternoon meeting of the house commerce and job development committee. We have some sergeant at arms with us today. Please welcome Carlton Adams, Bob Brossy, Young Bay and Anton Marshall are our sergeant at arms today. We've got a couple of amendments being drawn up for House Bill 201, so we will not start there, we will start with House Bill 842. There is a proposed committee substitute before us. Representative Brown moves that the proposed committee substitute be properly before us. All those in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The aye's have it. Representative John Bell, you are recognized to explain the proposed committee substitute to House Bill 842. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. House Bill 842, the committee substitute would enact the study, to study the sale of Spiritus liquor by the holder of distillery permit to patriots who have participated in the tour of the distillery. This bill was originally filed after talking with all of the parties involved, realized it needed a more study and input needed to go in to this, so we can make an informed and well versed decision and I want to ask for your support in this study today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time, move for favor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? ?? Representative Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question. Just looking at this, it looks a lot like what we're allowing at wineries now and we've done for breweries recently. What do they feel like are that need study? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The issue with some of the parts of ?? to like it would open a door to privatization of our ABC system and so that's the reason why we want to go and look at what's done in other states and what have we done? What we can work with, as far as with the distilleries. The distillery industry is actually new to the state of North Carolina and it's growing and we want everybody to coexist and be able to get along and promote the distilleries and their job potentials. This will be a way that we can look and find a good solution to some of the concerns that were issues. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Phill Shepard, you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Chair. I guess I'm sort of picky about ?? offer it, representative Allen on his comments, because I thought last session we voted on a bill similar to this for representative McGrady and his district to allow this. I guess my thoughts are, is this not something that we could just do statewide and do it one time to have a limit of these in the future? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Allen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, this is what this study would entail on. This will be a statewide bill, I'm not familiar with what went on last session. I do ?? on to this bill, on this very similar version was actually filed to go into law. It did not pass the muster on some of the committee and so that's why when it was Randy Sheer with the concerns that were reached. We wanted to have a conference, a study to look at what can and can't be done to make all parties happy, but also to file a strong piece of legislation where all parties are informed and happy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, additionally the legislation that McGrady worked on last session only dealt with wine and beer, and this deals with distilled liquor as well, so this is a little bit different area, so that's why the study. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for the sponser. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized for a ?? question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you know of any other industry that takes people and takes them on a tour, shows them what they do and how they do it and then doesn't allow them to buy any of their products? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this time, no I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Rodney Moore, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we propose committee substitute for House Bill 842 in favor to the original. Is there a referral? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, there not a subsequent referral of the motion being properly before us, so many is in favor of the legislation wil say Aye. All opposed say no. Pending chair, the aye's do have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bell, congratulations on passing [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will temporarily relinquish the chair so we can address Hosue Bill 168 as the amendment for House Bill 201 is continuing to be developed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next bill before us is How Bill 168, we

A PCS. Representative Catlin makes a motion that the PCS be before the committee. All in favor say aye.[SPEAKER CHANGES]Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]All opposed. PCS is properly forced. MR chair you have the floor[SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chairman. The original bill as filed has now been signed into law by the governor and so we developed a proposed committee substitute to address fee disputes between attorneys that practiced before the industrial commission for workers comp cases. Currently those fee disputes clog in precious court time and so were moving those fee disputes between plaintiffs attorneys only and go before the industrial commission and with that I would make a motion for a favorable report to house bill 168 unfavorable to the original and be available to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Any questions for members of the committee? Motion be improperly enforced for a favorable report on a proposed committee substitute to House bill 168 unfavorable to the original. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES]All opposed, bill passes. Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES]We will go ahead and get started with House bill 241. Representative Torbett you are recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Chairman Members of the committee I trust everyone had a short sweet weekend and brought their blankets and pillows with them for the duration of the week. Ladies and gentleman in front t of you in not a simple bill. It is pretty much bill saying to reinstate the energy conservation codes back to what they were in 2009. Last session the house ran a bill in answering to a request from the department of insurance in receipt of a federal load or grant and we accepted that and later to find after examination during the interim was that some of the offshoot that it had top the receipt of funding which took both the residential and commercial building codes to a new perspective. Here is a copy of them I have them in here pretty small print y’all can feel free to take a look at it. What it does is tell people building homes and building commercial facilities that what you do you have to make them 30% more energy efficient so now imagine your building your house and or business and you have to buy state mandate make them 30% more efficient. Personally I have nothing against any energy efficient home or business. For example the house I have you may have an energy bill of four hundred dollars. Someone can come to me and say I can do this and that and the other to your house and reduce your power bill down to two hundred dollars chances are I would jump on it because that by and large would make me save money down the long haul. Is there anybody here that would not agree that is you could take a four hundred dollar house power bill and reduce it to two hundred dollars that you wouldn’t try to do that. Everybody here agree to that right? Pretty much. The difference being is here is that the decision would not be mine. The decision is made at the state which in other words a new builder would have to build it with that in mind., so when I found out about the intricacies of this bill I went and looked at what was in place currently in 2009 and felt pretty much very strong that in one the worst home building recessions in the state in forever pretty much recent memory should we add additional cost and impact onto the home builders and onto the commercial builders and developers and my answer obviously came out as no we shouldn’t do that. After finding that out I had a great deep long lengthy discussion with the home building group and they said that they too felt the way I did and that’s why they went in during this process and negotiated the energy efficiency level down to fifteen percent which to them they felt was more ??. that their people would be more inclined to support something like that in a a reduced level from 30% to 15%. I’ve got numerous emails. Honestly they’re

50/50 some supporting the energy code, some not supporting the energy code, and we'll discuss that at a later time. the big one that really came to me was the call I recieved from a local developer, no excuse me, a local company. He said "John, I got a problem", I said "what's your problem," he said "I'm trying to rent what use to be a mill, I'm just trying to rent some space to store stuff in, I've pretty much stocked up with all I have at my current facility and I just need additional space to stock more inventory, until I can ship it to the customer." I said "well whats the problem?", He said "I went to lease one of these buildings and I couldn't lease a building until I had applied 150000$ worth of lighting improvements in this warehouse." I said "You've absolutely got to be kidding." he said "no its the truth." Because your changing in the current code, your changing the use of that facility to a different use, thereby you shall provide the upfits as mandated in this piece of legislation which ended up being the energy conservation code. So I told him up here I would do what I could to address that issue, I think its unfair to both the builders in the community, I think its very unfair to commercial developers. In a time when we need to have businesses operating, this is with less restrictions as humanly possible from their government. I talked to my economic developer back home he said, "this is killing folks in Gadston County." Cause as you may or may not know Gadston county was initially a textile, pretty much the textile king for years and years and years, and we have plenty of available empty buildings now that could serve, in this case for example, as a warehouse, but are currently unavailable, because no one has the out of pocket capitol to invest in a facility just to use as storage, and with that Mr. Chairman I would also like to enter a technical correction. Hearing the drafting it was brought to my attention that some things need to be changed, I think a copy is before you and with your permission I would like to have it distributed to the committee members. [Speaker Changes] Recognized to explain the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, if I would, I would like to yield to staff for the explanation please. [Speaker Changes] Copies of the amendment are being distributed by Serrgeant at arms. Jennifer your recognized to explain the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman, The amendment thats coming around to you right now is purely technical as representative torvin had indicated. It just cleans up the effective date clause typically and coded bill drafting, we don't have multiple sections addressing effective dates where you see in the first addition, section 4a and section 4b, this is just cleaning up to get it all into one section, I'm happy to take any questions you may have. [Speaker Changes] Amendment is being distributed, further discussion further debate on the amendment. Representative Torbid moves for approval of the amendment, all those in favor will say aye, all those oppse say no, Pending the chair the ayes have it. Representative torvid, you're recognized to continue discussion of the bill, I do have representative stone, would you like to make some comments on the bill? [Speaker Changes] just briefly on the bill, thank you Mr. chair. I just wanted to start by saying I thank Representative Torbid for bringing this bill before us. I think that as representatives all back in our districts we can look and see some of the buildings. This will also help out in some of our poverty stricken communities, where some of the buoldings that maybe minor repairs need to be made, but people wouldn't want to put a vast investment in. in order to do storage or some other type of relocation of small busineesses, but anyway int his political climate or what we're facing now in the current economic times, I can't think of a better thing to help us out back home, so its a great bill and I thank you for running it. [Speaker Changes] Further discussion further debate? representative katlyn your recognized [Speaker Changes] thank you, a question please. [Speaker Changes] representative katlyn your recognized to [xx] your question to representative torbit [Speaker Changes] yes, whats the difference between the 2012 standards and 2009 standards? [Speaker Changes] mr. chairman I have the answer to that [Speaker Changes] a lot of it pertains to making a house, for lakck of a better term without getting into the wages, makiing a house air tight. That seems to be the way its leaning towards. I'm hearing down the pipe that they'll come back and ask for sprinkler systems throughout residential properties and thats the course of action, they may end up doing away with crawl spaces, in an effort to make it as tight

possible, is humanly possible. Which, in itself, is not a bad thing to do, but it also drives up the cost, because when you have that, you have a [HBAC?] system that has to comply with that, for example. So, that altogether is going to drive up costs, and it's my feeling is that, do we make that determination or do we let that determination be market driven by people that want those efficiencies of, of um, of increasing their or, lessening their cost in power to their home by increasing the efficiency of their home? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Uh,... [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized for [crosstalk] [SPEAKER CHANGES] [inaudible] It's, it's, it's your discretion now. Where in 2012 it was mandatory. Is that the main difference? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Run that question by me one more time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Energy efficiency standard of, is, is discretionary of 2009 but mandatory in 2012? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, it was still mandated in 2009 but not to the degree and level as they were increased to in 2012. They, at the initial outset of the, of the um, what they brought forward was a 30% efficiency increase to home building. Which, what it was was a-, you can ask them it would've been a cost multiplier. By a large sum. They were able to, housing, the home builders were able to negotiate that down to a 15% increase. And I find that a little disturbing in itself because here you are, they're negotiating with a third-party, who in turn turns around to a government entity and mandates that 15% to increase instead of letting it be market driven. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more follow up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recognized for a third question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hope I'm answering your questions [Tony?]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, you are. And does this include public buildings? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a good question, I have no answer, I would only assume that would be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Perhaps staff can answer that for me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Mutton [Spelling?], you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I believe that the building code applies to buildings whether public or private. And if anybody's here from the building code counsel that would be helpful as well. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Bell, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to know if there was anybody opposing the bill, or, [hasn't?] everybody [present?]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a list of speakers from the public that are signed up to speak in opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I will get to them after Representative Moffitt, I believe, has a, an amendment he would like to run. Representative Moffitt, you're recognized to explain you're amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, the amendment, I'll let staff go over it in greater detail, but essentially what it does is it strips out all the references to the residential aspect of this bill, and makes this bill applicable only to commercial structures. One of the things as Chair of Regulatory Reform that I've had to really come to grips with is the fact that we have a lot of regulations on the books that've been negotiated in good faith by industry and our state agencies or third parties that have that responsibility. So I'm being sensitive to the fact that the home builders had negotiated a 15% level and I would like to honor that and strip out the residential aspect of this particular bill. But, if we could Mr. Chair, recognize staff to explain the bill, um, explain the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Mutton, you're recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Moffitt actually did a very good job of explaining this amendment, and unfortunately you don't have it in front of you, I scribbled it out just as quickly as I could at the start of committee, here. But essentially what this does is strip out all references to the 2012 residential energy code and rem-, and keeps or retains only the commercial code. So all of those analagous changes that would have to be made to the bill to conform to that are made to this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, speak on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I support the amendment and I trust each and every one of you will as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Represent-. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Representative Bumgardner, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Why? Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized to propound you're question on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Why are you supporting the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt pretty much explained it the same way I did. In talking with the home builders, they were perplexed, when they were hit with the possibility of a 30% increase, they went whole hog and, I hate to say fought, but they countered, and they were able to agree with the, on the, with the other people that were proposing a 30% increase

And you should have and 15% in speaking with him in become happy that they are pleased with that 15% and, of like we're doing enough to say I have to come with that understand how that happened and I would consider an 18% still five but also be very watchful my beloved not so would exceed 500 calls a few years, one can run, FOB bottle during the first question unless something else to ask about if we have 15% now we will have 15 more percent a couple years now we're going this delay and what's going on here and an ominous sign that would really like the year before we vote for this man I would like to hear from some people here to stay to four against it calls the budget within seven Burdon properly recognize the best question sponge , personally recognize two,?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) And often been in this nothing in here that says this is the standard were simply selling milk and right to Sharon gubernatorial as the CSCE minimum standard you're still if you have other things would improve the procedure of the market will grab then you have the option to acquire knowledge, this is simply the state team and a portion of person that such a question they wish and I just Spiegel man and recognized that they can and get records of four just calls would negotiate something in the past been on the state was saying the commercial folks on negotiate something also some in one key pairs and there also , but they could be in the day and members of the U.S. from the speakers also denied two builders and throwing away but it's a team Alpha price increase dramatically due to fuel the two calls materials to two atolls like the instead that are really on Me serve for first, why are special or doing in full week of Maryland couple built a better news station for pricing the first of all Abiola null that they call you guys have folks are struggling to buy a home or show that the first told the family in the first goal and all this to all this precious stones is keep pushing people at the first couple's buying more and more own copy from , you know a few little ball this as a commercial building you can go, but they get the cut is there for raising doubts, is there not to drama, and again the social agenda, zinfandel sage structurally sound bells. The slow because it is therefore or, (SPEAKER CHANGES) do is take the scandal, the social agenda and without Nadia one of four and some solid assessor by the blood donors and that the special you recognize the victim and I formation of a standstill will take the additional cost requirements also commercial up buildings that were only debt burden on residential homes to get the back porch as read your mind: yes, Mr. Du cyclical official for that reason, economical against cinnamon reasonably recognized as chairman, I guess said the Colville the solicitation that because can speak so they can crack get this but when they go she had the same as they negotiate from a position of not being very strong, said the compromise reality I would suspect is that they can want these increases in the first place they just decided that the state?? (SPEAKER CHANGES ) instead of promoting and 38 to 15, as a builder I really do agree that alliance SB market driven in the necessarily mandated by the state cell with all due respect to represent them off in a really do oppose this amendment are some black lawyer has admitted in a gesture and question for the bills collateral for wrenching market, whichever you recognize product which got help me understand with regard to the amendment , if we don't make this amendment would leave your bill was signed at our home builders disadvantage to buy back the division of the men of college basketball two months, the adulterous works and those are the links??..

??if I could, they would be the most honest response to your question. I think that is what you are looking for. Please state your name and who you’re with. You are recognized for time not to exceed two minutes to answer the question. [Speaker Change] My name is Mike Carpenter. I am the Executive Vice-President of the North Carolina Home Builders Association. What Representative Moffitt and Representative Torbett indicated is correct. There was an original thirty percent increase in energy efficiency. We negotiated a compromise with Representative Brody to bring that down to fifteen percent, and to also eliminate existing provisions in the North Carolina building code to offset the costs associated with going to the additional fifteen percent. So, essentially the deal that we made with the prior administration had a minimal impact on the affordability of housing. So that is why we support Representative Moffitt’s amendment. We made a deal and we are standing by our word. [Speaker Change] Representative Blackwell is recognized for a second question. [Speaker Change] Follow up with Mr. Carpenter, if I may. The deal with the prior administration that you say you offset the cost of the fifteen percent, by there changing something else. If the bill is not amended and were to pass as it is, would you then be forced to give up the benefits of whatever it was that the previous administration agreed to? [Speaker Change] Well, the requirement was that the Building Code Council removed provisions of the then existing code. It would be up to the Building Code Council to restore those requirements that were eliminated if that were the case. I guess it’s speculative to know how that would turn out. We would hope that would not happen. But on the other hand, again, I am here to defend the deal that we made and the word that we gave. [Speaker Change] Representative Jeter, you are recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Change] As many of y’all know, I am from South Carolina, so I am a little slower than the rest of y’all. After hearing Representative Speciale’s comments and then this reaction, I am a utterly confused about what this amendment actually does or does not do at this point, because I heard it differently than the rest of this crowd. Is it possible that before we vote on this amendment we can actually see it? [Speaker Change] Mr. Chairman. [Speaker Change] You are recognized, Resentative Torbett. [Speaker Change] As far as see it, no you can’t Representative Jeter. No, I am kidding. Yes you can. For clarity, this bill has two components of which we are trying to enact the same piece of legislation on both components. One component is the residential side which had been asked for a thirty percent energy efficiency. They themselves reduced it to fifteen. So on the residential side that is sitting at fifteen percent. Then there is the commercial side. So what Representative Moffitt’s amendment would do would just have no bearing relative to residential but take the commercial back to 2009 levels. [Speaker Change] Follow up real quick Mr. Chair. [Speaker Change] You are recognized for a second question. [Speaker Change] So, if I understand this correctly then, under the Moffitt amendment there would be no change for residential housing than currently exists today based on the passage of this bill? [Speaker Change] Mr. Chairman [Speaker Change] You are recognized [Speaker Change] Absolutely [Speaker Change] Mr. Chairman [Speaker Change] Representative Bumgardner you are recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr. Carpenter a question if he is willing. If not, maybe Mr. Torbett, Representative Torbett can answer. [Speaker Change] You are recognized to ask your question. [Speaker Change] Mr. Carpenter you alluded to the fact that something about the offset of costs associated with this. Could you explain that and expand on that a little bit, please. [Speaker Change] Sure. The original requirements that were proposed would have increased energy efficiency by thirty percent. When we cut back to fifteen percent, we eliminated a number of provisions that would have otherwise taken it to thirty percent. We gave then the Building Code Council a list of choices of existing code…

Provisions that they can choose from that would offset the calls are the additional 15% or to 50% level and they chose those alliance is at\let alone are enough for seclusion one trying to understand you'd be the home builders are negotiating with the bid building inspectors of Ellicott council the building, counselor but ultimately it's the home are its plan for all and so, what are now I am going to a more energy efficient standard is something that's not affecting the calls of the things from the get the home buyers ultimately painful because we eliminated sort of other provisions to the building, get warm and to worry that would have calls roughly equal mail so that the impact on housing affordability at the end of the day was negligible are some of the recognize the baking in and say, they question alike as much fun question which meant by George bush, for making, one of our studies of those thing to eliminate obviously they were second later struggling: houses a deal after that are still stings and red hat slid down with you as well as was done if you can say this amendment fails when we have a wooden houses don't have 50% last year did you see and the last 15% less culpable we also four separate the house would then be somewhat cheaper but that is correct in assuming on that go into a councilman get back in reverse their decision on some of these also brought we may have some 7003 but George Wallace is sufficient personnel should recognize the bacon and I click question for a (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Carpenter accomplishing the in regard to the 2009 energy efficiency standards when the building, to what was negotiated as it currently stands today begin workouts to 15% full which you estimate would be the additional sticker price to the cost, and the worthington's actually builder construct that come from 2009 to the standards today to somewhat longer standing for the constituents I represent, with the increasing cost of this legislature in the wordplay, Kelso was put on their backs on a belt be very helpful to the white fax us to follow question that has to not just the Middle East mosher identified scraper signals from you or we're looking at are roughly 1600 square foot house and only average and the additional calls to go to 15% that was a breakthrough was about 3300 calls so we were able that all said roughly 4300 calls work in the elimination of existing code provisions on related energy efficiency ought to try to get something that was flawed did not have a significant impact on the four buildings for reentry level else ours are looking to recognize that they couldn't think if I understand the amendment we will not be affecting the health and the whole week before the effect of commercial respect that would all of you recognize for Citicorp's sets we're going to be affecting the commercial efficiency and roll it back to older and what was the issue feel a little dated that person: you're having a say on this respectful that it was actually 30% less a modestly one does it get least two different accent lighting existing lighting for aces vs. (SPEAKER CHANGES) other introduce a myriad of things in an appeal process so if you go back home and you will have their thing it incorporates edges of the advance lighting are taking buying the next, weakfish and type of lighting when you're going in we had a warehouse are changing one of getting used to be and what is today you have to apply those changes as well so simply just taking a 30% L Perot in a icon selling as dancing a wakeup call the ones that it's a big part ??....

Recognized for a third question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How would we ascertain as to whether we've met that thirty percent measure if we're just doing cosmetic stuff like changing lighting and this kind of thing? How do we know when we've arrived there or when we've gone too far? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All that is listed in the code then I have the book here. And it goes pretty with specificity on how you check, how do you determine, you hire separate entities come in and check - They're certified - come in and check the air volume, see how much leakage you may be losing in an HVAC system, for example. There's people that do that. And so that's pretty much how they would qualify or quantify that they were getting that thirty percent addition in the new code. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, you're recognized to debate the amendment a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that my limit? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've exceeded your limit, but you can go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry. I'd like to hear from a commercial builder if we have any here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is any commercial builder would like to debate the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Dave Simpson with Carolinas AGC associate general contractors. I'm not a commercial builder. To be honest with you, I'm kind of sitting back and enjoying this particular one. Our folks are all kind of all over the board on this. Representative Corbett has an excellent argument when he says that you could drive down the cost for commercial construction significantly. You definitely could. We did not cut any deals. We still have the thirty percent. I know a lot of builders who say that they can build a lot more without the thirty percent energy efficiency regulations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Representative Collins, you're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to echo what Representative Hager said. The building code should be what it used to be, something that's designed to make sure we have safe buildings so that what happened to the people in Pakistan recently doesn't happen to our people here in the United States, should not be to push a social agenda or tell people what kind of light bulbs they have to have, or anything like that. So, I cannot support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. Representative Moffitt moves the adoption of the amendment. All those in favor will say "aye", all opposed, say "no". Pending the Chair is unable to determine, all those in favor will raise your hand, and all those in favor of the amendment will please raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand. Amendment passes twenty-four to nineteen. We're back on the bill as amended. Further discussion, further debate on the bill as amended. We do have individuals that are signed to speak up. But, since the bill has been amended, I'm going to call individuals up and just see if they still want to speak on the bill as amended. Erin Parker GreenFiber. Mr. Parker, you're recognized for a time not to exceed two minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and fellow members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Erin Parker, and I work for GreenFiber Cellulose Insulation. We're a manufacturer in Charlotte, North Carolina, nationally based. Keeping the energy code current is critical to our success because we rely on continually turning new ideas into new products. For GreenFiber, many of our new products and applications rely on new codes and new technical concepts, such as the current vapor retarder and barrier code language that promote new technology and remove potential product liability from outdated ideas. Reverting back to outdated codes means significantly slower innovation adoption and longer lead times to get new technology to market. The effect of adoption of house bill 201 will be to hinder the ability of small firms like GreenFiber to commercialize new products, create jobs, and build revenues that contribute to the tax base in North Carolina. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have Dan MacFarland from Southern Energy Management. Mr. MacFarland, you're recognized for a time not to exceed two minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon

Ladies and gentlemen. I’m simply here to ask you today to vote no on HP201 and to please support the amendment that was originally given by the representative to make sure that the 2012 North Carolina residential energy code remains as is. The North Carolina building council goes through an extensive multi-year process. When they look at any new code changes, new codes or code changes. This is a multi-year public process to develop these codes. The stake holders at the table include home builders, architects, engineers, and those associated in the building trades as well as state and local officials. This a reflection of the extensive public comment in the process. It reflects that input that folks had as we look to go forward. Our company works with over 200 builders here in North Carolina to make homes more energy efficient. At this point, it’s about business stability and growth. Folks want to be able to move on and know what is known in the building trade to be able to move forward. Thousands of homes have been built in this code. There are a thousand more that are coming out of the ground as we are looking at s resurgence of the home building industry. We want to position builders for success and the market’s responding by were seeing more and more certified energy efficient homes being built. The last note, this comment was made about first time home buyers. Energy efficiency is why we want to help our first time home buyers. Energy efficient homes by a study by the U of NC Chapel Hill found that energy efficient homes had a 1/3 less likelihood of defaulting in their mortgages. Absolutely why we want energy efficiency. What we want is we want more money in the wallet. This is about a home and land security act. This is why we ask you to support and vote no on the House bill 201. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. McPhone. I have Chad Ray from Old Heritage Builders to recognize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good afternoon everybody. Listen, I’m a pretty simple person. I know you guys have a very complicated agenda and especially this week. I want everybody to just slow down a minute. Clear your head and I want you to listen to me very clearly. What I have to say is very important and very simple. The last two years since the energy conservation code has been in place, or a little less than two years. North Carolina has built better homes for more people. Builders are selling more homes than most places in the country even with this standard that we’ve done. Here’s the one group that nobody’s mentioned here today, and that’s the homeowner. That 3,300 dollars which in my opinion, and we debated this for a long time, still high. But, it was offset. The builder did not have to raise the cost of the house one dime. Not one dime. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Ray. I just want to point out, we did just pass an amendment that took residential out of the legislation. So, you’re recognized to continue your comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Thank you Mr. Collins, I’m in your district. It’s so important to think about the homeowner who’s saving $15 a month in net energy costs. People who don’t deserve to work in sick buildings and be hot and cold in their buildings. But, they sure don’t deserve to build a new home and have a home they can’t afford to pay the utility cost on. And, make them sick as well. This is very important. I appreciate all of your service. Thank you for your consideration on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your comments Mr. Ray. I also have Delaine Wizner, American Chemistry Council. Mr. Wizner, you’re recognize. I concede two minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity this afternoon. My name is Delaine Wizner and I live here in Raleigh, NC. I work with the American Chemistry Council. In addition to building owners, there are others that have a stake in this process. That’s the employees of the companies that make energy efficient products. North Carolina is the tenth largest chemical producing state in the country, employing over 41,000 people. Many of the products of chemistry produced in North Carolina go into construction applications including energy efficient roofing, insulation, paints, windows, sealants, siding, piping and house wraps. Our members: Dow, BAYER, Dupont, and BASF have major facilities in North Carolina. House bill 201 if passed would effectively roll the energy codes back for builders…

00:00 2006 energy efficiency levels because the 2009 code here was watered down it will cause our state to miss out on significant energy conservation and will put North Carolina in the bottom tier for states for energy efficiency this is because all of the east cost states have adopted the 2009 version and [??] the 2012 of these codes without weakening amendment please vote no on the adoption of house bill 201. thank you Mr [??] further discussion further debate on the bill representative Torbett you're recognized. thank you Mr chairman all good words and I just wanna [??] on our support trying to create and adopt and implement as much conservation as we can on energy but I much rather prefer it be done by the market not by state [??] I just heard Jim was saying it pretty much that a lot of business is done in North Carolina based on the government saying so it shall be and so it was done type of actions I just like to read this I also had someone talk about how the codes are formed let me tell you about this one the [??] state building codes is usually done by the building code council what the gentleman referenced and the office of the state fire Marshall which is a division of the department of insurance in this case however the department of commerce estate energy office requested and received a federal grant to develop the 2012 ECC which is the energy conservation code a grant of 499 thousand 190 dollars was received from the US department of energy commerce that is the North Carolina department of commerce contributed a recipient's share of 166 thousand 422 dollars for a total project cost 665 thousand 612 dollars commerce acted as the conduit for the funds sending them on to Appalachian's state university in an engineering firm ASU and the firm worked jointly to improve the state's ECC by 30 percent over the 2006 international energy conservation code a code used by most states trained building inspectors and seek improvements in building code development so this is one process that wasn't implemented under the normal building code implementation process thank you Mr chairman. alright I will.. [??] thank you sir motion is probably [??] by representative Torbett I have representative Stone representative Collins and then we will take the vote representative Stone you're recognized. thank you so much Mr chair and this to finalize this is kind of brings it all back around for me I wanna let the committee know that in 2010 I had a retired builder that does commercial contracting came back and build in he build up a full structure about two blocks [??] and this conversation really comes full spectrum I don't think there was a week that went by he didn't come down and complained about how much the building codes had changed and how much dollars it was adding to the commercial structures and you know at that time I didn't know what I could do about it I didn't have a clue that it would be sitting in front of this committee discussing this but the poor gentleman had retired and he had this complain vigorously everyday at how much it change and it [??] the cost that added to the project so I'd ask you to support this bill I think it's a great bill and it'll move us in the right direction thank you. representative Collins is recognized. [??] to remind the committee one thing that representative Torbett said when he first started pointing this out this is a bill about putting already existing buildings that are now vacant back into use and I don't know if your area has many vacant [??] and everything else [??] but we need to let businesses who are willing put these buildings back yo use so I hope you'll vote in support of this bill. I saw representative Wills earlier representative Wills final comment. I expect I've built more buildings than anybody on this committee there are two costs involved in that and I like production one is the cost of actually doing something but what amounts to a bigger cost is figuring out how to do something different now we're looking at changing a code that just got changed last year and I can't tell you how big a pain it is to go to your builder and say I wanna build another building just like the last one and they say you can't do that they changed the code again now from a philosophical point of view there's no conservative argument to change this to 2009 either we'd leave it alone or we eliminate the energy code completely. 05:00

Was no energy code. To messing around with the code every year is bad for business. I am telling you I know its bad for business.[SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Torbett moves that the house committee substitute ?? to a new committee substitute has amended to draw the bill as amended to new PCS and unfavored to original bill. All those so many favor the bill say aye all those who oppose say no.?? all those in favor will raise their hands. So many that are opposed to the bill will raise your hand,[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr chairman and member of the committee. The motion passes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]I don't normally do this stuff but if we call for division could we have account ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 25/14.Next up we have representative MacGrady and Representative ?? Representative MacGrady will recognise to present house bill 440. [SPEAKER CHANGES]House bill 440 creates a new type of corporation. Right now you have for profit corporation and non-profit corporations. Non profit corporations have some sort of public benefit and what we trying to create is something in the middle. Its for profit corporation that allows for a public benefit. This bill has already passed out judiciary B and unfortunately there is been a lot of e-mails back and forth about this being some sort of socialist threat. So I quickly address that representative Hailey of south Carolina ?? were among sponsors of this legislation of the respective states. I have given you a handout that reflects the number of states were ?? were about to deliver and once delivery happens. This will be the corporate law that is recognised most through out the United states many corporations were there. Many conservative groups have supported this. I gave you a hand out from ?? of family council. The south Carolina Chambers of commerce fro example supports it. Representative ?? called the other day from south Carolina trumpeting their new benefit corporation statutes. Both Virginia and south Carolina among the states have passed this. The senate passed it last year 48 nothing. So despite watching some may be getting in your e- mails. This is not that type of entity at all. This bill is really about economic freedom.This gives people who have economic initiatives but have something that they give back to community. The bill need a form of for profit company that does non profit sorts of work. Its a mission driven corporation and i will tell despite some of the emails that are going right now. In few years we will be laughing if we do not soon adopt this. let turn to representative do ??.[SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members i will give examples of people who ?? big corporations ?? for example who ??. Its for really rich peoples ?? is for a religious man ?? drug addicts. And he took it upon himself to round up the people the nobody else wont. we have a some kind of

...jobs for you to do, and so they started moving people from one, from their house to their new house. You got to be a moving company and it got to be very successful and it got these drug addicts a salary and it became very successful. Many of them were able to withstand the urges of drug addiction. Today that's the largest moving company, one of the largest moving companies in the State. He would like to have had a B corporation because he can take the profits that you make from moving people and pour it into helping people that are addicted. Another good example is Paul Newman who made a lot of money making movies but he had this great desire to make a camp for kids who were disabled. So he would take the money that he made from selling salad dressing and put it in these camps. It's a corporation that you don't have to buy stock in it. It's entirely up to the people. If they have a right to organize as they want to organize, and this is just a simple way to be, to do a benefit corporation for many people. When you go to law school they tell you that when you are a director of a corporation, you have an obligation, a fiduciary obligation to maximize the profits of that corporation. That's what you're to do. To make sure that your corporation is doing well. This would be, another general purpose would be maximize something that would help a certain benefit. That's all this is a vehicle for people to use if they chose to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Malone, you're recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quick question for the bill sponsors. You referenced some of these e-mails that are coming out. I guess you call it misinformation or what not. One of the things I heard had to do with agenda 21, it's sustainable growth and what not. Would you please address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not aware that the word sustainable is in the entire bill. I haven't done a word search. There's nothing, agenda 21 or sustainable development in this bill. If you're thinking about what this would look like, this would be like Whole Foods. It's the type of corporation you're talking about. A corporation that has a profit motive, but also has other purposes. This will make some group of people, rather than going out and forming non-profits, they'll form for profits and that's where I see it being good. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized for a second question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So where do you think this comes from? These concerns? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, frankly, don't know. I'm sort of puzzled by the whole thing, but maybe because it does have the word environment in it or something. I couldn't, I'd be speculating. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, you're recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This sounds like a great bill to me because it allows these folks to generate profits but at the same time, it's helping a lessor group of folk who... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speciale, you're recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're talking about e-mails and everything, I don't understand this whole concept, so I'm looking at an e-mail right here. Let me read a little part of it to you and see maybe you can explain it to me. It says, "A non-profit group called B Lab is the primary third party evaluator of B corporations. One of the perks of becoming a B corporation is joining a network of other companies to take advantage of discounted services provided by other B corporations, largely promoters of sustainability measures. Over time, however, it would not be," well, I'm not going to go to that. But it says they don't do it for free, this third party is going to charge up to $25,000 for a corporation to join the membership roles of B corporations. So this is all kind of confusing to someone like myself, so if you could explain this to me, what B Lab has to do with anything. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll do two things. I'll try to answer your question but we actually have a representative of B Lab here. Just like for profit entities have to get their financial side certified, according to generally accounting principals, this entity has got to do that and have this corporate purpose certified. So there's a transparency. Somebody can look at thing and saying, "You know, this has been certified by some other group." I believe in some States, B Lab is an entity that has literally a monopoly...

On being able to do this third-party certification that’s not true in this bill. And we do have a representative of B lab here and she can speak to that and what B lab does also if that’s ok, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please recognize, tell us your name and who you’re with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Chairman. ?? and thank you Committee members. Ashley Perkinson, I do represent B Lab ?? so have taught a class on benefit corporations for the due non-profit management program. And if you look in the bill, the bill does provide a third-party standard. But it allows the business person to pick who puts together that standard. And the way that the public can see the standard, that information is public. It must be provided to the public and it’s also the benefit corporation will do an annual report to the Secretary of State so what’s nice about this, these are mission driven for-profit companies and there’s a lot of transparencies. There’s also the distinction think a lot of folks talk about B Corp. B Corp is a brand, it’s like a stamp. It does not benefit corporation legislation, so they’re two different things and this bit of corporate legislation does not say anything about B Lab or who can do the reporting. It’s left up to the individual businesses to pick that third party standard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Ms. Perkinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that could be someone other than B Lab, is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Ms. Perkinson, I do have 2 members of the public who would like to speak in opposition. I have 6 and now 7 members of the Committee who would like to additionally debate this legislation. The Chair intends to take a vote on this bill today in this Committee. So I will recognize Ms. Winn Cohen, for a time not to exceed 2 minutes to discuss House Bill 440. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hello, I’m from Raleigh. I served for 18 months on the Wake County Sustainability Task Force. My Minority Report influenced the Wake commissioners to reject the Consensus Report. It is interesting, you could bring up Agenda 21 if you want to but this is really about the philosophy of sustainable development and this bill was a model legislation that was funded and conceived out of the Rockefeller Foundation, the own corporate Governor’s lawyer. Last year he spoke to Judiciary Subcommittee C confirmed that. And it is a very definite philosophy and its steeped in socialist ideas. I can’t go into them at the moment but if you go around and look you’ll see this everywhere, this is the structure for the socialist type of structure and the words environment, economy, and social equity are built into this. And that is why I ask if you’re going to blend the nonprofit and the private and the nonprofits to help the corporations fly that’s really crossing checks and balances that isn’t economic freedom. But also what it is does is it enables the standards of environment and society to be written in here when actually why don’t you ask them what is a nonprofit. There are a lot of ?? definitions of nonprofit. Why didn’t they choose the exact three critical terminology that all the international socialists, all the international United Nations use, economy equity and social equity and environment. I have to question that completely. Also I don’t think North Carolina should let worldview foundations like the Rockefellers who are the founding architects of sustainable development, way before Agenda 21 to drive our model legislation. Make your own bills, make your own laws. Write your terminology your own way where you don’t use environment and society, say nonprofit, though I don’t agree with the blurring of the sectors which is the other goal of this. The fourth section initiative coming out of Cabarrus Chapel Hill, the Obama administration has expressed an interest in this. But it’s about blurring and blending the sectors. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Ms. Cohen. Thank you for your comments, Ms. Cohen. Scott Dadong you’re recognized for a time not to exceed 2 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, my name is Scott DeGaud. I’m here as a citizen, my background is an engineer. I develop international standards for multinational corporations. I want to bring attention to one small but very essential term in this bill. It will change the nature of this bill. And that’s the term third-party standard. The implications of not passing this bill without this in my opinion are staggering. There are two kinds of standards, there’s proprietary standards which are imposed to the dominate technology by a single company or regular for a mandate. The danger is that a single company or compliance entity has total control over the market. Open standards are developed and adopted with open governments ?? participation. With an open standard, no one possesses the standard. But everyone uses the standard. The third-party standard definition in H bill 440 is not open standard.

Asians does not preclude the flights carrying more novelistic stand are certified as a corporation to sell certification is necessary with a bats corporation status depending on certification that as proprietary standards and we have to get an assessment might try to certification and the bad try the data to determine school wins and loses the age of criteria can and cannot lose control is over Goulet just a sign of open standards north Carolina’s a world leader in open Technologies Products Services of commerce here we have the opportunity to bring the same work less that that does that opened kids bike tours take the but as soon as my air with sensual modification I would be happy to meet with intensity of the staff to do this please this is my expertise is my background and we don't change a single term limits redefinition August and brought worldwide invasion they were driving back residual kit were just following up an 18-misconduct for comments also like to recognize me on the continent virtue, comedy listings and Karen if I can respond quickly then I got what they wanted me with talent, we do need to try to move the bills (SPEAKER CHANGES) we can I will I would like to work with you, and if it's a way to firm up his third party standards on quite open to daily recognize CIA placed sixth in the left and you recognize for, exceed 2 minutes and he served as chairman and ad trainers running the CLEIUT IND: Erin founder of the small business: 1000 cranes LLC for limited liability company economics I would like to be able to have a corporation and headed downstairs investment company cannot DNLEC Michael and the PDM on the scoreboard C. Clarke ms were stated earlier primaries possibilities of the sharing this area all in my business until I've worked with nonprofit organizations as a T think it's a good effect on profits and I am not for profit and very committed to work out a deal or nonprofit organizations have worked around the state from southeast of the nonprofit organizations become more business Monday the problem is not passing this exam cram celebrating its one year anniversary this year as a lousy instead North Carolina I will regretfully have to move my company to another state, prospects and currently in Washington, DC interment can and (SPEAKER CHANGES) I can get right down to Washington, DC I would really stressed that his committee considered the fastest benefit corporation; a North Carolina and continued U.S. taxes will continue to help support economy and they can already members of a committee of god in this four and I would like to vote on this bill to devote debts that at least 5515 we are way too another meeting that will like the sole lighting around representative stone ages judiciary quickly year explanation of the freshman Ryan no use information as they literally fell to 2011 which is to share committee C which are being conducted by the hearing moved out to 2002 will they came right back to a GC receive you can buy the eighth grade B-E commerce said this thing we will background for some reason this bill never die. If receiving the impression attorneys - that'll make a scary feeling the whale watching all the facts home, where it still could be cut. Ensuring acts as this year, this bill comes to us from judiciary be the correct person Robert Brawley recognize object, your career four questions to pay homage to the first turn recognize that repeated oak beyond the judicial a very small stock and the score for a job for adoption of Congress are you can buy a stock news corporation you can begin to stop collecting one has to choose a object of the little salt lake valley of the concerns of small list grows and really recognize one of under the same question that you recognize for second question what keeps the competition whole discussion of what future corporation from doing what you're talking about male just love boat: the board of directors of the calls to the finish area border routers used in opposition to breaking into the opposition to benefit that there ??..............

...fiduciary duty is to maximize value for the shareholders. If a shareholder objected, the director would be in violation of his fiduciary duty. For example, if you are a director in -- what's the name of that food company? -- Whole Foods, and you're using containers they want to use that cost five dollars more than another container you could buy, it would be in the board of directors' best interest to insist that you use a less expensive container, in this particular case, with a general purpose of, not only making money, but being good using certain products. They can do what they want to do, but here's the thing, Robert. You don't have to invest in this company. This is something somebody does voluntarily. Nobody makes anybody. The Chairman: Representative [Brawley?], you're recognized for a third question. Representative: Yes, Representative Daughtry, I understand that, but my job down here is to not just protect me, but all the citizens of North Carolina. The bill as I read it does require a higher percentage of vote by the board of directors to make a decision. But it also exempts them from being held responsible for those decisions and totally eliminates the fiduciary responsibility. The Chairman: Representative McGrady, you're recognized. Representative McGrady: I don't believe that's true. The B corp, because on the one hand, on the benefit side, it has this third-party evaluation of what it is doing and whether it is achieving those goals, and on the financial side, it's got the same financial oversight that any corporation has. So I don't believe what you understand to be true. The Chairman: Followup then. Recognized for a fourth question. Representative: Does it not exempt the board of directors from some of that responsibility that you have in a normal corporation? That's the reason for the bill itself. Representative Daughtry: No. You have the same fiduciary duty. It's just different in this particular case. Representative: Wait a minute, wait a minute, Representative Daughtry. How can you have the same fiduciary responsibility, it's just different? Representative Daughtry: Because in a C corporation, a regular corporation, the directors' fiduciary duty is to maximize profits; that's his fiduciary duty. In this particular corporation, it's not necessarily to maximize profits. The Chairman: Representative Brody, you're recognized to debate the bill. Representative Brody: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask a question and preface it by saying, here's something here that we just don't know, and maybe we'll find out before it becomes law. But let me ask you, a corporation makes profit, a corporation decides to spend that profit on some type of program, some nonprofit-type program. Are these expenses, then, actually considered the costs of doing the business, or are they going to pay taxes on the full amount and then use whatever's left, for their benefit? Representative Daughtry: They pay taxes like anyone else. The Chairman: Representative Bumgardner, you're recognized to debate the bill. Representative Bumgardner: Yes, sir, thank you. I just have a couple comments about this, this thing. I wish I had more time to go through this, this bill. It's complicated and very open-ended, in my opinion. It lays out a lot of stuff here. Just a cursory reading over it here, it's got definitions, and then it's got "specific corporate purpose, conferring any particular benefits to society or the environment, including, but not limited to any of the following" -- this bill's very complicated, and I think it's opening a can of worms, and unless I have more time to study it, I can't support that. The Chairman: Representative Speciale, you're recognized to debate the bill. Representative Speciale: All corporations by their nature are benefit corporations. They can spend their money on what they want to. They can organize the way they want to, with regard to their purpose, as long as they have shareholder permission. I think this bill brings up more questions than we're able to answer in one committee, and I suggest that we give it an unfavorable report. The Chairman: Representative Jeter, you're recognized to debate the bill. Representative Jeter: I hate to say it again, but I'm from South Caroline, so I'm a little slow, but I just don't quite get the issue here; it's a voluntary company that's forming a B corporation whose sole purpose of the B corporation is to allow the directors to have multiple, or a different set of, fiduciary responsibilities. It does not absolve them of their fiduciary responsibility; it just gives them a different set. And we're going to have companies that otherwise could be nonprofit, and not pay a dime in taxes, who may opt to be for-profit now and provide taxes for the tax rolls. It forces no one...

To do anything. It hurts nobody to do this other than seeing men in shadows where they usually don't exist. I see no reason not to approve this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, you are recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just coincidentally had a conversation with a business development person this weekend about LLCs and the history on LLCs and they made the comment that North Carolina was one of the later states to do LLCs, and we had lost business because we were one of the last, and how great it was that we finally did it. So when I look at B Corps and I look at the number of states that are doing it and I go on what Representative Jeter said, we often say that we want to be comparable to what our neighboring states. Our neighboring states are doing this. And so I don't see a reason why we shouldn't. Why would we be last again to the party? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, you are recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chair. I'd like to offer a motion for a favorable report to the PCS unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is, there's not a PCS though, but motion is properly before us. So many as in favor would say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair is unable to determine. All those in favor will please raise your hand. So many as opposed, please raise your hand. Twenty two in favor, fourteen against. The motion passes. This meeting is adjourned.