Mixed testimony as committee takes HB 96 — proposal to adopt 2021 energy code sent to subcommittee

Representative Wendy Thomas opened the hearing on House Bill 96, which would require builders to use the 2021 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or an equivalent standard that achieves equal or greater energy savings.

Thomas said adopting the 2021 energy code would promote long‑term savings, resilience and market competitiveness and acknowledged that upfront construction costs rise but argued the investment pays off over time through lower utility bills and better resilience during extreme weather.

Philip Sherman, chair of the Building Code Review Board, said the board takes no position at this time on the bill but asked the committee to consider referring the measure to the board's ongoing review of the 2024 code and to align the legislative language with the most useful edition. He noted the board's statutory role and recommended subcommittee review to coordinate code adoption, cross references and appeals rules.

Industry testimony was split. Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, testified strongly opposed: "We cannot find the words come out more strongly against this bill," he said, arguing that estimates of the incremental cost to adopt the 2021 energy code vary and that applying the 2021 energy code statewide would impose significant additional consumer debt (he cited ranges and scenarios discussed by builders). Mayberry urged caution and said the home‑building sector needs time and data to evaluate impacts on affordability.

Several technical witnesses — including building scientists and engineers (Bruce Buttrick and Paul Bemis) and Clean Energy New Hampshire staff — testified in favor of moving to more efficient codes. They cited benefits including lower operational energy, improved indoor comfort and health (humidity control and ventilation), smaller heating and cooling system sizing, reduced lifecycle maintenance and longer building durability. Bemis cited a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimate for incremental cost from the 2018 code to 2021 of roughly $2,300 for an average single‑family home and said average annual savings could be about $537 (summary figures presented by witnesses were based on national modeling and vary by project and fuel type).

Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire opposed the bill, noting the committee and board reviewed the 2021 energy code last year and the committee voted 20–0 to not adopt the 2021 energy code in 2024. AGC and other industry witnesses urged the committee to allow the board's 2024 review to finish (scheduled for June) and to move the measure to subcommittee for detailed analysis of costs, benefits and implementation provisions.

The committee agreed to send HB 96 to subcommittee for detailed review and stakeholder participation.

Why it matters: The choice of energy code affects upfront construction cost, long‑term energy bills, greenhouse gas emissions, building durability and occupant health. Witnesses sharply disagreed on net cost and payback assumptions, and the Building Code Review Board and multiple stakeholders recommended further study and subcommittee work before any committee recommendation.

Next steps: HB 96 was referred to subcommittee for comparative cost analysis, alignment with ongoing board review (including the 2024 IECC), and stakeholder negotiation.