Washington, D.C., September 14, 2016 – Written comments submitted by two highly-respected independent organizations regarding the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) proposed manufactured housing “energy” rule — specifically citing the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) — echo and confirm the vigorous objections to that proposed rule set out by the Association in its own comprehensive August 8, 2016 written comments. As these filings show, MHARR-led opposition to the proposed DOE rule is rapidly expanding among concerned independent organizations and individuals.
In comments filed on August 16, 2016, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) (copy attached) notes that the DOE proposal does “not comply” with the requirements of the federal Regulatory Fairness Act that an agency “quantify or describe the economic impact that its proposed regulation might have on small [businesses].” SBA also states that DOE does not appear to “grasp the unique challenges that small manufacturers encounter.” Stressing that the proposed rule “would have significantly disproportionate economic impacts on small manufactured home manufacturers if finalized” leading, among other things, to adverse impacts on competition within the industry, SBA’s comments call on DOE to “adopt a regulatory alternative to the proposed standard that will minimize the economic impact to small manufacturers.” (Emphasis added).
Similarly, comments filed by the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center in Washington, D.C. (copy attached) take direct issue with DOE’s fundamental claim (and the smokescreen put up by its special interest supporters in various published articles) that the proposed rule would result in net life-cycle savings for manufactured homeowners, stating that DOE’s calculations “overestimate” the benefits of its proposed rule in several key respects – particularly for low-income purchasers. Indeed, the Center concludes that, in reality, “a significant portion of the purchasers of single-section and multi-section manufactured homes will bear net costs instead of benefits” under the proposed rule. (Emphasis added).
The Center also notes that “it does not require extensive analysis to conclude that mandatory, across-the-board increases” under the proposed rule “will price many low-income consumers out of the market for manufactured homes entirely,” while having a particularly “regressive impact on low-income consumers in high-poverty regions.” Moreover, as did MHARR, the Regulatory Studies Center concludes that DOE’s proposed rule does not meet the statutory requirement of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) that any manufactured housing standard be “cost-effective,” stating: “The data provided in this comment … suggest that the proposed standard does not meet this statutory threshold for cost effectiveness.” (Emphasis added).
In addition to these crucial points, the Center — citing MHARR materials published in the industry trade journal, MHProNews – echoes serious concerns over anti-competitive effects resulting from the DOE proposed rule. Pointing to an Executive Order issued by the President on April 15, 2016, instructing federal agencies to “eliminat[e] regulations that create barriers to or limit competition” and statutory law requiring agencies to consider “the impact of any lessening of competition … that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard” before any standard is finalized, the Center calls on DOE to “pay particular attention to the prospective effects of its proposed rule on competition within the MH market.”
MHARR commends these organizations for filing comments on the proposed MH energy rule and for highlighting serious (and, in fact, fatal defects) in the proposed rule and its supposed cost-benefit analysis that have either been ignored, glossed-over, or distorted by DOE (in a rulemaking process marred by leaks, discrepancies and non-transparency) and the proposed rule’s special interest supporters.
MHARR, as has been its consistent position, is committed to opposing the adoption of the DOE proposed rule in its current form, and will closely monitor future activity in this rulemaking for aggressive follow-up as warranted.
