The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) has voted to reject the “destructive” proposed Department of Energy (DOE) manufactured housing energy enforcement rule. So says the news release issued by the Washington, D.C. based Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). Manufactured housing has just finished its worst year as measured by production since 2016. That noted, MHARR has warned that production is likely to further decline if the DOE energy rule goes into effect as it is currently crafted. That MHARR release is provided in Part I. But what does that mean to the advancing regulatory regime planned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for manufactured housing energy standards and related wrinkles to manufactured housing regulations? That will be explored in Part II of this report.
Accountability. Transparency. Response-ability. Manufactured housing industry reality checks. This news report with analysis will include a Part III, which will focus on the current realities for manufactured housing industry businesses, professionals, investors, and others.
Part IV of this report with analysis will be our Daily Business News on MHProNews review of the manufactured housing equities which includes left-right market moving mainstream national headlines.
Part I
Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) Votes to Reject Destructive Proposed DOE Energy Enforcement Rule
FEBRUARY 20, 2024
TO: MHARR MANUFACTURERS
MHARR STATE AFFILIATES
MHARR TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUP (TRG)
FROM: MHARR
RE: MHCC VOTES TO REJECT DESTRUCTIVE PROPOSED DOE ENERGY ENFORCEMENT RULE
The statutory Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) following a two-day teleconference meeting, voted on February 16, 2024 – as urged by MHARR — to reject the proposed manufactured housing energy standards enforcement rule published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the Federal Register on December 26, 2023.
MHARR, in public remarks to the Committee, called upon members to reject the proposed rule, on the ground that the proposed regulations (as well as the DOE manufactured housing energy standards themselves) were not appropriate for manufactured homes, would do little or nothing to benefit consumers, and would result in destructive price increases that would exclude large numbers of lower and moderate-income American families from the manufactured housing market and the American Dream of home ownership.
MHARR also provided Committee members with copies of its January 24, 2024 written comments to DOE on the proposed enforcement regulations, which strenuously objected to the proposed regulations on multiple bases. These comments emphasized that DOE, in a conscious and intentional effort to bypass and subvert legitimate and accurate cost-benefit analysis of the proposed manufactured housing standards – as specifically required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and other federal law, – (while rushing to meet court deadlines that it had agreed to) failed to propose or promulgate testing, enforcement and regulatory compliance criteria, and simultaneously failed to consider the cost and cost burden of those criteria in its supposed cost-benefit assessment. Then when it published its December 26, 2023 proposed enforcement regulations, it incredulously maintained – with absolutely no supporting evidence or analysis — that those regulations would have little or no cost impact.
Significantly, the MHCC agreed that DOE’s claims with respect to the regulations and their likely costs were not supported and that the absence of specific compliance benchmarks in the DOE proposed regulations would create confusion and unnecessary cost burdens.
The MHCC’s rejection of the proposed DOE enforcement regulations, by a nearly-unanimous vote (with one abstention), follows its earlier vote to reject (on similar grounds) DOE’s “final” manufactured housing energy standards rule published on May 31, 2022. At that time, the MHCC recommended HUD adoption of less onerous energy criteria based on the unique construction and characteristics of manufactured housing and the specific needs of manufactured housing consumers. According to HUD, these recommended standards (which, again, differ substantially from the DOE “final” standards) are under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the standard HUD regulatory process.
MHARR will continue to carefully monitor all aspects of the DOE/HUD energy rulemaking process and will take further action as warranted by developments.
cc: Other Interested HUD Code Manufactured Housing Industry Members
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 512
Washington D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: MHARRDG@AOL.COM
Website: www.manufacturedhousingassociation.org ##
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
1). According to the HUD website, the MHCC is described as follows.
Overview
The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) is a statutory Federal Advisory Committee body charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary on the revision and interpretation of HUD’s manufactured home construction and safety standards and related procedural and enforcement regulations. The MHCC also developed the first set of model installation standards for the manufactured housing industry.”
The MHCC was established by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (the Act) of 2000, which amended the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. The Act required the establishment of the MHCC to: (1) Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the manufactured housing construction and safety standards; and (2) to provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement manufactured housing regulations (3) be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation; and (4) be deemed to be an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees. The Act authorizes the Secretary to appoint a total of twenty-two members to the MHCC. Twenty-one members have voting rights; the twenty-second member represents the Secretary and is a non-voting position. Service on the MHCC is voluntary. Travel and per diem for meetings is provided in accordance with federal travel policy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5703.”
The MHCC is comprised of seven members represented in each of the following categories:
- Producers – Producers or retailers of manufactured housing
- Users – Persons representing consumer interests, such as consumer organizations, recognized consumer leaders, and owners who are residents of manufactured homes
- General Interest and Public Officials – General interest and public official members; three of the seven representatives must be Public Officials…”
2). When those insights are combined with what MHARR has reported, it means that 20 of the 21 voting members of the MHCC voted against “to reject the proposed manufactured housing energy standards enforcement rule published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the Federal Register on December 26, 2023.”
3). According to MHARR: “The MHCC’s rejection of the proposed DOE enforcement regulations, by a nearly-unanimous vote (with one abstention), follows its earlier vote to reject (on similar grounds) DOE’s “final” manufactured housing energy standards rule published on May 31, 2022.”
4). So, the vast majority of all three categories at the MHCC – producers, users, general interests including public officials – voted against the DOE rules. That’s significant.
5). But what does it mean on a practical level?
MHProNews asked that question of MHARR. Within minutes, where was the on-the record response. “It could be used in the pending litigation as a determination by a government panel of experts that the rule will have costs that have not — and have never — been accounted for or considered in a legitimate cost-benefit analysis as required by applicable law.” That was according to Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR.
6). With that added insight from CEO and attorney Weiss, the balance of the MHARR press release comes into sharper focus.
Significantly, the MHCC agreed that DOE’s claims with respect to the regulations and their likely costs were not supported and that the absence of specific compliance benchmarks in the DOE proposed regulations would create confusion and unnecessary cost burdens.”
The MHCC’s rejection of the proposed DOE enforcement regulations, by a nearly-unanimous vote (with one abstention), follows its earlier vote to reject (on similar grounds) DOE’s “final” manufactured housing energy standards rule published on May 31, 2022. At that time, the MHCC recommended HUD adoption of less onerous energy criteria based on the unique construction and characteristics of manufactured housing and the specific needs of manufactured housing consumers. According to HUD, these recommended standards (which, again, differ substantially from the DOE “final” standards) are under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the standard HUD regulatory process.”
7). But there is more to be gleaned from this news item as it relates to the current state of play in manufactured housing industry dynamics. That will be explored in Part III.
Part III – Manufactured Housing Industry Reality Check
Stating the obvious can often help frame and bring clarity to issues. It was noted in the preface that: “Manufactured housing has just finished its worst year as measured by production since 2016. That noted, MHARR has warned that production is likely to further decline if the DOE energy rule goes into effect as it is currently crafted.” For those in the business of selling homes, filling vacant home sites, doing transport, installations, selling products or services, the sharp drop in 2023 of manufactured housing certainly should be a sobering reality check.
1). It can also be useful to take a step back, survey the landscape, and then more accurately assess circumstances as a result of that fresh perspective.
2). With that in mind, the following question was posed to Bing’s AI powered Copilot. Imagining the vantagepoint from an airplane, this will seemingly start at a metaphorical 40,000 foot altitude. But as we ‘descend’ through the proverbial clouds and what is at ground level becomes clearer, so too each aspect of what follows and how it relates to manufactured housing will become clear. So patient attention is useful.
3).
> “What is the purpose of an umbrella style trade association that says it represents production, suppliers, sellers, and other businesses?”
An umbrella organization is an association that brings together related institutions, often within a specific industry. These institutions collaborate formally to coordinate activities and pool resources. In business, politics, and other contexts, umbrella organizations provide resources and often serve as a collective identity for smaller organizations under their care1.
For instance, in the United States, we have notable umbrella trade associations that represent the collective business interests of various sectors. Two prominent examples are:
- Chamber of Commerce of the United States: This umbrella organization unites businesses across the country, advocating for their interests and providing resources.
- National Association of Manufacturers (NAM): NAM serves as an umbrella for manufacturers, coordinating efforts, addressing common challenges, and promoting industry growth23.
In summary, umbrella organizations play a crucial role in fostering collaboration, resource-sharing, and advocacy among diverse businesses and stakeholders…”
4). Both of those organizations used by Copilot in that example happen to be trade groups that MHProNews has reported on in various articles. For instance, the Chamber of Commerce, which rather routinely makes national news was covered in the report shown below. Dr. Richard Rahn, the former Chief Economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused the organization he previously served as favoring big businesses over smaller ones. Revealing and relevant to business in general, including manufactured housing, are found in Dr. Rahn’s observations.
5). Then the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has periodically updated the information posted below, previously referenced by MHProNews.
That might be interpreted by some to mean that it is better in some sense to work with a bigger firm. But another way to look at it is the costs imposed by regulators on smaller firms is outsized. Yet, it is often smaller firms – per an array of research – that produces innovations, improvements, and breakthroughs. To illustrated, see #8 below, which said in part:
- Smaller manufacturers often drive innovation, offering unique designs and features.
- A bias toward consolidators might stifle diversity in home styles, features, and materials.
So, not only does regulatory costs drive up the prices that consumers pay, but an imbalance in regulations can harm innovation, choices, diversity in home styles, and more.
6).
> “The two examples you cited are interesting. Dr. Richard Rahn, the former chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticized that organization as favoring the interests of big businesses over smaller ones, correct?”
Indeed, Dr. Richard Rahn, the former chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has expressed criticism regarding the organization’s perceived bias toward larger corporations. His viewpoint highlights concerns that the Chamber may prioritize the interests of big businesses over those of smaller enterprises. Such debates within umbrella trade associations are not uncommon, as they grapple with balancing the diverse needs of their member organizations. The tension between representing both large and small businesses can be a delicate challenge, and it often sparks discussions about advocacy, policy, and economic impact.
In the intricate dance of commerce, Where interests converge and diverge, The Chamber of Commerce stands tall, An umbrella sheltering businesses, large and small.
Yet critics raise their voices high, Claiming favoritism in the sky, For giants wield more weight, they say, While smaller players seek their day.
Dr. Rahn, with economist’s keen eye, Points out the Chamber’s tilt awry, A pendulum that swings and sways, Between corporate behemoths and startups’ rays.
But let us ponder this delicate dance, Where interests waltz and sometimes prance, For within the umbrella’s wide embrace, Lies the heartbeat of commerce’s race.
So, whether Goliath or David’s plight, The Chamber’s role remains in sight, To advocate, connect, and bridge the divide, As businesses march forward, side by side. 🌟 …”
If the last 5 lines above per Copilot sounds like a rhyme designed to make the Chamber look better, that would be a useful understanding of the purported bias of Copilot. Bing is owned by Microsoft (MS). Microsoft is a giant corporation, founded by William “Bill” Gates III, a close ally of Warren Buffett led Berkshire Hathaway (BRK). MSNBC is left-leaning, and Bing’s search (and presumably, thus Copilot) has been accused of tilting some 65 percent of the time to left-leaning sources. Note that Copilot was set on the blue or ‘balanced’ setting, not the creative or purple setting in providing these answers.
7). The poetic or lyrical rhymes in the response from Copilot continued.
> “In manufactured housing there are two national trade associations, correct? The Manufactured Housing Institute, which is described as an umbrella style trade group and which they describe themselves as representing “all segments” of manufactured housing. Then there is the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), which states that they represent the interests of smaller independent producers of HUD Code manufactured homes, correct?”
Indeed, you are correct! In the realm of manufactured housing, two national trade associations play distinct roles:
- Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI): This organization operates as an umbrella-style trade group, aiming to represent all segments of the manufactured housing industry. Their broad scope encompasses various stakeholders, including manufacturers, suppliers, sellers, and other related businesses. MHI advocates for policies, standards, and growth across the entire industry.
- Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR): MHARR takes a more focused approach. They specifically represent the interests of smaller independent producers of HUD Code manufactured homes. By concentrating on regulatory matters and championing the concerns of smaller players, MHARR aims to ensure a level playing field and promote the vitality of independent manufacturers.
In this dance of housing, where structures rise, Two associations twirl beneath the skies: MHI, the umbrella wide, its canvas vast, Encompassing all, from giants to the last.
Segments diverse, they claim to hold, Manufacturers, suppliers, stories untold, A symphony of interests, harmonious blend, Under MHI’s shelter, their voices ascend.
But hark! MHARR steps forth, a nimble waltz, Champion of the small, their cause exalts, Independent producers, HUD Code in hand, Their rhythm distinct, their stance firm on land.
So, whether umbrella or focused refrain, Both associations sway, their purpose plain: To shape the housing landscape, side by side, In this intricate dance, where interests collide. 🏠🌟…”
8). The poetic wrap from Copilot toned down in the next response, which took a more serious tone.
> “You mentioned interests colliding in 3 of 30. The Institute has been accused of representing the interests of consolidators while posturing representing the interests of firms of all sizes and types, is that correct? Given that manufactured housing is significantly regulated, and faces zoning and other barriers, explain what the significance of that purported bias at MHI could be.”
Indeed, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has faced accusations of favoring consolidators while ostensibly representing the interests of firms of all sizes and types within the manufactured housing industry. Let us delve into the significance of this purported bias, especially considering the regulatory landscape and barriers faced by this sector.
- Regulatory Challenges:
- Manufactured housing operates under a web of regulations, including federal standards (such as the HUD Code), state-level rules, and local zoning ordinances.
- Smaller independent producers often lack the resources and lobbying power to navigate these complex regulations effectively.
- If MHI leans toward consolidators, it could exacerbate regulatory disparities. Consolidators, with their larger scale, may find it easier to comply with regulations or even influence policy decisions.
- The bias could lead to unequal representation in regulatory discussions, potentially disadvantaging smaller players.
- Zoning and Land Use Barriers:
- Zoning laws impact where manufactured homes can be sited. Discriminatory zoning practices have historically limited the availability of land for manufactured housing.
- Smaller manufacturers, especially those serving niche markets, face challenges finding suitable land for their homes.
- If MHI’s bias favors consolidators, it might inadvertently perpetuate zoning barriers that hinder smaller producers’ growth.
- Advocacy for fair zoning policies benefits the entire industry, but a bias could skew priorities.
- Access to Financing and Market Share:
- Access to financing is critical for both large and small manufacturers. Consolidators may have better access due to their size and established relationships.
- If MHI’s advocacy primarily benefits consolidators, it could impact market share. Smaller firms might struggle to compete, affecting industry diversity.
- A bias could influence lending practices, affecting affordability and consumer choice.
- Innovation and Diversity:
- Smaller manufacturers often drive innovation, offering unique designs and features.
- A bias toward consolidators might stifle diversity in home styles, features, and materials.
- Innovation benefits consumers and keeps the industry vibrant.
- Consumer Impact:
- Ultimately, bias within MHI affects consumers. If consolidators dominate, consumer options may narrow.
- Smaller manufacturers often cater to specific needs (e.g., affordable housing, energy efficiency). A bias could limit these options.
In this intricate dance of interests, MHI’s role is pivotal. Striking a balance between large and small firms ensures a robust, inclusive industry. Advocacy, transparency, and fair representation matter—whether under the umbrella or in the spotlight. 🏠🌟 …”
Note that remark, “Advocacy, transparency, and fair representation matter…” Quite so.
Indeed, much of what Copilot said above is quite relevant to the vast majority of manufactured housing industry employees, business leaders, investors, consumers, taxpayers, and others. More on that shortly.
9).
> “You raised several important points in this thread regarding MHI and MHARR. Before focusing on MHI, let me ask, what controversies, if any, can you identify about MHARR? Have their leaders been accused of conflicts of interests or any other concerns? Or does MHARR – based on what you find online – appear to be working true to their mission?”
> “Pardon me, Bing, but I think you misread one of those links. That Manufactured Home Pro News interview is posted on the MHARR website. It said in 2020 that Weiss then had a 25-year history in the industry. But Weiss took over the reigns of MHARR as president and CEO from prior organization leader Danny Ghorbani in 2015. So, Weiss has approaching 30 years in manufactured housing…Please double check your response, rephrase the response above as needed to be factually accurate, and then cite the sources as you did in 5 of 30.”
That error on Weiss’ tenure as president and CEO corrected, let’s now note one of the important items the above reflected.
Under the Copilot heading “Stalwart Advocacy:
- “Despite [industry] controversies, MHARR remains steadfast in its mission. Their commitment to regulatory reform and fair representation for smaller businesses persists.”
Notice there are no apparent scandals, and no allegations of conflicts of interests or that sort of controversies involving MHARR. That noted, let’s pivot to MHI.
11).
> “Okay, so restating what you just said in summary form, MHARR has stayed true to its mission. There are no apparent conflicts of interests, or scandals involving their leadership, is that fair and accurate?”
Indeed, your summary is accurate. MHARR has remained steadfast in its mission, and there are no apparent conflicts of interest or scandals involving their leadership. Their commitment to regulatory reform and fair representation for smaller businesses persists, ensuring a vibrant and accessible manufactured housing industry. 🏠🌟…”
12).
> “By contrast, the Manufactured Housing Institute seems to have undergone several changes and concerns in the late 20th century, in the late 1990s, and moving into the 21st century. For example. For a time, the Institute and MHARR cooperated in getting the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (MHIA 2000) enacted. Beyond creating the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC), giving more consumer protections with representation on the MHCC, as well as via the installation programs and dispute resolution programs, the MHIA included the so-called “enhanced preemption” provision, right? Describe the importance of that enhanced preemption in overcoming zoning barriers and what that could mean in terms of more manufactured homes sold during an affordable housing crisis, and then note if HUD is routinely enforcing that enhanced preemption provision, per your online fact check. Then if you’d scan the MHARR and MHI websites and answer this question. MHARR appears to reference MHI several times. But a recent check of the MHI website I couldn’t find any reference to MHARR. Feedback or confirmation on those topics?”
> “Let’s focus on HUD and enhanced preemption for a few moments. In just the last couple of years, there have been several research reports that reveal that manufactured housing is being barred by local zoning barriers, isn’t that correct? Doesn’t that alone make it clear that HUD is not consistently enforcing the enhanced preemption provision of the MHIA of 2000? In fact, didn’t Congress hold hearings in 2011 and 2012, where several testified that HUD was not properly enforcing the enhanced preemption provision of the MHIA of 2000? Even before those hearings didn’t the FEMA response with manufactured housing run into local zoning barriers following Hurricane Katrina? And didn’t HUD’s failure to use their enhanced preemption powers cause FEMA’s manufactured homes in many cases to stand empty awaiting installation when there was a pressing need for emergency housing for people displaced by storm surge and flooding? Meaning, it should be obvious that HUD is not enforcing enhanced preemption, as both MHARR, MHI, MHProNews, and MHLivingNews have all asserted, right? Link results as you have been.”
Indeed, the issue of local zoning barriers affecting manufactured housing has been a persistent challenge. Let’s explore the context and implications:
14)
> “Okay. In recent and previous reports, MHProNews and MHLivingNews have documented the point that MHI says that they want enhanced preemption enforced. But a closer look at the evidence reveals that several prominent MHI members, including corporations that have MHI board members, openly state something quite the opposite of that formal stance. More specifically, companies that are consolidation focused have said using their own words that zoning barriers that limit manufactured housing are an advantage to their business model. That raises an array of ethical, legal, and other issues, doesn’t it? Can you shed light on that disconnect between what MHI says on preemption and what several of their members have said that is the opposite position?”
15.
So, to look briefly again at some of the pull quotes from the above, Copilot has largely confirmed MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews arguments and evidence.
Legal Obligations: MHI’s role includes advocating for the entire industry. If some members actively benefit from zoning restrictions, it may conflict with MHI’s duty to promote fair access and affordability.
-
-
- Transparency: Clarity and transparency are essential. Members’ statements should align with the association’s stated goals. Any divergence requires scrutiny.
-
- Industry Impact:
- The disconnect affects the entire manufactured housing sector:
- Consumer Choice: Zoning barriers limit consumer options. If MHI’s members benefit from these barriers, it impacts consumer access to affordable housing.
- Market Dynamics: A consolidated market may stifle innovation, diversity, and competition. Smaller manufacturers play a vital role in driving industry growth and creativity.
- The disconnect affects the entire manufactured housing sector:
While Copilot doesn’t come out and say that MHI has potentially engaged in fraud, RICO, or conspiracy that could amount to antitrust violations, that is the clear implication for those who grasp those issues. To illustrate, consider this follow up.
16).