Testimony opposing
legislation eliminating energy efficiency building standards
Delivered
to the
Good
morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you on HB 2707. My name is David
Schlosser, and I work with Pete McGill and Associates to represent the
interests of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, or NAIMA,
in
NAIMA
opposes HB 2707 for a variety of reasons.
You will hear from several other conferees who oppose 2707 because
energy efficiency building codes are good public policy. I am speaking today for three reasons:
First,
I want to introduce you to the people who will persuade you that energy efficiency
building codes are examples of good regulations -- regulations that provide
more value than they cost to implement.
In addition to the people who will testify today, including
representatives of Habitat for Humanity, the AFL-CIO, and the American Association
of Retired Persons, the you will find attached to my
testimony a considerable sheaf of papers that will describe the benefits of
reasonable energy efficiency regulations.
Second,
I want to acquaint you with the process that produced the Model Energy Code for
residential energy efficiency, and its adoption in
Third,
I want to convince you that process is an example of developing regulations
that should be respected and copied.
The
Council of American Building Officials (CABO) developed the Model Energy Code
(MEC) through a voluntary private initiative that brought together parties
interested in construction and energy efficiency. Through negotiation and consensus, the MEC 93
was voluntarily developed by private industry -- not government bureaucrats.
For
almost 20 years,
The
KCC's order responded to concerns expressed by the proponents of HB 2707 by
explicitly providing six different methods for meeting the model energy
standards and an opt-out clause for contractors who do not wish to comply with
those standards. The opt-out requires
only that builders notify the home buyer that their new home does not meet
energy efficiency requirements. NAIMA
believes that all the KCC's alternatives adequately address the concerns of HB
2707's proponents.
Other
conferees will directly refute the proponents' reasons for supporting
2707. I am here to suggest that you
should not overturn an independent regulatory body's decision that was arrived
at through an excellent example of voluntary, private-sector initiative and
public input.
The
legislature should always have the authority to question whether any regulatory
agency has conducted itself adequately and thoroughly, and overrule any
regulatory authority adopted by a questionable process.
However,
this is not such an instance. The energy
standards adopted by the KCC were developed through voluntary, private sector
initiative and consensus. They were
adopted by the KCC after public hearings with solicitation of considerable
input. At every stage in the development
of the MEC and its adoption by
Favorable
recommendation of 2707 sends the wrong message to regulators -- that when,
after public hearing and input, they adopt good standards, developed through
voluntary private-sector consensus, with creative alternatives for compliance
and even an option for non-compliance, the legislature will allow participants
in that very process to derail good public policy.
Passage
of HB 2707 is not good public policy, and I urge you to defeat it.