Senator Amy Volk, Chair
Representative Erin Herbig, Chair
Joint Standing Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development
NRCM Testimony in Opposition to LD 1120: An Act To Repeal the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code; in Opposition to LD 1191: An Act To Remove the Municipal andate To Enforce MUBEC; and in Opposition to LD 1093: An Act Regarding the Municipalities to Which MUBEC Applies
My name is Emmie Theberge and I am the Clean Energy Policy Advocate for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today regarding Maine’s Uniform Building and Energy Code (MUBEC).
Brief background MUBEC was adopted in 2008 with bipartisan support because it will help Maine people save money on energy bills and reduce our dependence on heating oil. MUBEC was and is strongly supported by the building industry because it replaced a patchwork of local codes that have been confusing, time-consuming, and expensive for Maine builders and developers. Prior to MUBEC, there was no statewide energy efficiency standard for new homes and commercial buildings, leading to many new homes in Maine being built with inadequate insulation and air sealing. Implementation of the code was projected to save Maine homeowners and businesses more than $100 million in energy costs over the next 10 years, with the average Maine homeowner of a newly built home reaping net savings of more than $200 per year.
In 2011, the Maine Legislature significantly weakened MUBEC by making the code only apply in about half the state—in towns with populations over 4,000. Maine is now the only state east of Mississippi and one of only 10 in the country that doesn’t have a statewide energy code (see attached map).
Our position
We oppose bills to weaken or repeal MUBEC. Repeal of MUBEC would result in increased energy costs for Maine people by eliminating a minimum energy code requirement in the remaining half of the state where MUBEC still applies. We would be left with a voluntary statewide energy code, which amounts to no code at all, because there would be no requirement or enforcement. Before the MUBEC was enacted, only 15% of new Maine homes were meeting baseline energy efficiency standards. Efforts to eliminate or reduce enforcement would also undermine the code.
LD 1120
What the bill does: this bill would repeal MUBEC, leaving Maine without minimum building and energy standards for new construction.
Why you should oppose the bill:
- MUBEC is important to Maine businesses and residents because it reduces energy costs and protects consumers by giving a minimum standard for safe, healthy, energy-efficient construction.
- MUBEC is important to Maine’s builders and developers because it streamlines regulations by providing a predictable statewide framework, rather than a patchwork of different regulations from town to town.
- The code should be protected and expanded to cover the entire state, not repealed or weakened further.
LD 1191
What the bill does: this bill would make adoption and enforcement of MUBEC entirely optional.
Why you should oppose the bill:
- Having a code simply on paper does not protect consumers or save a single gallon of oil. Only implementing the code can do that. Enforcement is critical because that is how we ensure the benefits to consumers, and how we have a fair and level playing field for businesses that are trying to play by the rules.
- Making the code or enforcement of the code optional for towns will fail to move Maine forward toward modern, good quality, and energy-efficient construction. We know this because Maine tried that strategy for many years, when the state had a model code (including a model energy code). That code was largely ignored, because people didn’t want to tackle building and energy codes on a town-by-town basis. As a result, few towns had a comprehensive code, consumers were unprotected, and most of our new homes (85%) were not energy-efficient. There is no reason to believe that would not be the case again were this bill to pass.
- MUBEC already provides towns a high degree of flexibility and does not mandate any single enforcement mechanism. For example, under MUBEC, third-party private sector inspectors may also perform building construction inspections on behalf of municipalities or homeowners. The State has made training programs available for many years.
- Finally, aside from attempting to change enforcement, this bill would create ambiguity about the code for all parties involved in real estate development.
LD 1093
What the bill does: this bill would reduce the number of communities and people protected by MUBEC by removing communities with populations between 4,000 and 5,000 people.
Why you should oppose the bill:
- MUBEC provides important protections, energy savings, and a predictable regulatory environment for builders. This bill would leave an additional 20+ towns (or more than 100,000 people) without the protection of MUBEC.
- We should be reinstating MUBEC to more towns in Maine, not fewer as this bill does.
Conclusion MUBEC has had broad support from Maine’s construction industries, including from the Maine Homebuilders Association, Maine Real Estate & Developers Association, Associated General Contractors, and Retail Lumber Dealers, as well as many others. Attached is a letter sent to this committee in 2011 from trade associations representing more than 1,500 businesses that support MUBEC.
NRCM agrees with businesses and trade associations that a uniform statewide code creates a positive, predictable regulatory environment that actually makes the development process easier and helps attract investment to Maine. Maine’s uniform building and energy code saves money, reduces oil dependence, protects consumers, and streamlines regulations for builders and developers. The code should be protected and expanded to cover the entire state, not repealed or weakened further.
We strongly encourage this committee to vote these bills Ought Not to Pass.
Thank you.
