Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Energy Code Preemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas City energy code sparks statewide debate at House Commerce hearing on HB 939
Summary
Representative Mike Jones said House Bill 939 would prevent municipalities from imposing residential green-energy and efficiency mandates above a state baseline, citing Kansas City's 2023 adoption of a stricter IECC-based energy code as evidence that local requirements raise first costs and reduce housing supply.
Representative Mike Jones told the House Committee on Commerce that House Bill 939 would limit local governments' ability to impose energy-efficiency and other green requirements on new residential construction, arguing those local mandates raise construction costs and reduce housing supply.
"These regulations strip away consumer choice and add substantial costs, making it harder for Missouri families to achieve the American dream of owning a home," Jones told the committee, citing Kansas City's ordinance that adopted the 2021 IECC energy code as an example.
Why it matters: Supporters — including the Home Builders Association of Greater Kansas City, Associated Industries, and local builders — said stronger local energy mandates have made new homes more expensive, citing a comparison of two nearly identical model houses built under different codes and local permit counts that fell after Kansas City's new code took effect. Opponents — city officials, architects and the Sierra Club Missouri Chapter — said local code adoption reflects local priorities, improves long-term affordability through lower operating costs, helps public-health goals and leverages federal grant money designed to support energy upgrades.
What supporters told the committee: Builders and homebuilders said Kansas City's 2023 energy-code update increased first costs materially for many common house types and that builders had shifted work to surrounding jurisdictions. "We built the exact same house next door to it six months previous before the code changed facing the exact same direction... The new customer ended up paying about $1,500 extra per year in mortgage payments," builder Sean Woods testified, adding that the higher upfront cost means the efficiency measures do not pay back within the owner's expected ownership horizon.
What opponents told the committee: Laura Pastine, president of AIA Missouri, said there is no statewide energy code; localities choose code versions that fit their needs. The Sierra Club's Ashton Kienel said over a hundred Missouri jurisdictions have stronger energy codes and the state could lose access to federal funds for home-energy rebates if local governments cannot adopt standards that qualify for those programs.
Data and disagreements: Witnesses disputed baseline costs and payback estimates. Architects and energy advocates pointed to higher utility bills experienced by occupants of older housing stock and said many efficiency measures have three- to five-year paybacks on operating costs; builders and some developers pointed to higher first costs and a steep short-term impact on supply. The committee heard permit-count data showing a decline in single-family permitting in Kansas City after the code took effect and testimony that builders moved projects to suburban jurisdictions.
Committee next steps: Committee members pressed witnesses on whether the bill would curtail local control and on the details of permit- and cost-data. The committee did not vote at the hearing; sponsors and opponents indicated further briefing and possible amendments would follow.
Ending: The hearing framed a classic policy trade-off: local authority and longer-term household energy savings versus short-run development costs and single-family housing affordability. The committee will decide whether to restrict local code choices or to preserve municipal discretion.
