Subcommittee recommends 'ought to pass' on HB 96 to update state energy code; members express cost and timing concerns

The Executive Departments and Administration subcommittee voted to recommend 'ought to pass' on House Bill 96, a bill addressing the state energy code, after hearing technical testimony and public comment that highlighted both potential long‑term savings and near‑term cost concerns.

Phil Sherman, chair of the Building Code Review Board, told the panel that the board is beginning its statutory review of the 2024 International Code Council model codes, including the energy code, and that the statutory adoption process would likely yield a legislative advisory submission around Nov. 1 followed by possible legislative action in spring 2026 and an effective date July 1 of the following year. Sherman cautioned that because the board is still reviewing 2024, the committee may be acting before the board’s final recommendation.

Paul Bemis, former president of the New Hampshire chapter of ASHRAE, testified in favor of updating the energy code and provided cost and benefit figures. Bemis said the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code would yield about a 15% improvement in energy efficiency over the existing standard and that lifecycle savings for homeowners could be in the tens of thousands of dollars. “It’s actually a 15% improvement in energy efficiency, not small numbers,” Bemis said. He also cited improved indoor-air quality and reduced moisture intrusion as non‑energy benefits that can extend building life.

Committee members asked about widely varying cost estimates submitted during earlier proceedings: witnesses and documents had cited figures ranging from an average incremental cost of roughly $2,300 (Department of Energy analysis) to a quoted $23,100 figure cited in testimony. Sherman said the BCRB previously voted 9–4 to stay on the 2018 energy code, and he emphasized there is conflicting testimony on cost estimates.

Several members said they were not ready to decide purely on the testimony provided and noted the policy trade-offs amid the state’s housing affordability concerns. One representative said the committee was “chasing the last few percent” of efficiency and questioned whether mandated upgrades would worsen housing affordability. Others said long‑term lifecycle savings and health benefits merited consideration.

After debate, a member moved an 'ought to pass' recommendation; the motion was seconded and the committee approved recommending OTP, with several members recording opposition on the floor. The transcript does not include a detailed roll-call tally.

Sherman and witnesses emphasized the technical process ahead: the BCRB’s review of the 2024 ICC codes is ongoing, and final board recommendations to the legislature will follow the board’s timetable.