HB96

New Hampshire failed to update its building efficienty codes last year, leaving the state behind our neighbors in new building efficiency. It is far cheaper to build efficiency into a building during construction than to retrofit it later. Efficient buildings cost a little more to build (so builders don't like it because their building competes with existing stock), but they save home owners many times over the initial cost in reduced energy spending and are more comfortable to live in. Government intervention is necessary to get buildings built more efficiently.

I support HB 96, requiring New Hampshire builders to use the 2021 Energy Building codes or a similar code that achieves equivalent or greater energy savings. Thank you for your consideration of the matter.

Energy efficiency is the least expensive way of decreasing electricity cost burdens. This is true for all of us, not just the owners/ratepayers in those more efficient buildings being erected with better code standards. When there is increased demand, costs spike for all rate payers so reducing the demand is vital to all of our household budgets.

I strongly support requiring that buildings meet the 2021 energy building codes for many reasons. First and foremost, an energy-efficient building benefits the building owner and also the greater public by reducing the cost of heating and cooling which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet and causing countless problems including more destructive weather events, harm to beneficial plants, and animals and harm to human health, hotter summers and more frequent colder winters, and more droughts, floods, and wildfires. We must build more efficient buildings to keep energy use low, which decreases the cost to the building owner. As climate change warms the planet, we will need more air conditioning in the summer and often more heat in the winter. Energy-efficient buildings are more important than ever as extreme weather events increase in frequency and severity. New Hampshire has fallen behind its neighboring states in requiring buliding standards that create energy savings. New Hampshire residents deserve these savings as well.

New Hampshire failed to update its building efficiency codes last year, leaving the state behind our neighbors in new building efficiency requirements. It is far cheaper to build efficiency into a building during construction than to retrofit the improvements later. Efficient buildings cost a little more to build, so builders don't like this change because their new buildings compete with existing stock. However, more energy-efficient homes save homeowners many times over the initial construction cost in reduced energy spending, and more efficient homes are more comfortable. Government intervention is necessary to require builders to build more efficient homes. The NH economy will benefit from doing so because it will let NH homeowners save money they can spend on things other than out-of-state-produced fossil fuels. And finally, while the payback is quick even under current market conditions, the payback will be even quicker when it is no longer free to pollute, and that is increasingly likely. It would be wise for NH to anticipate a future carbon price on fossil fuels, which will drive higher fossil fuel prices. Carbon pricing is spreading around the world, prices are rising, and CBAMs are putting increasing pressure on the US to price carbon (https://bit.ly/carbon-price-gap-pdf). The US is now the only developed country without a carbon price. Federal carbon pricing is inevitable, and NH should both prepare for it and tell Congress to do it with a good policy like Carbon Fee and Dividend (https://bit.ly/cfdresources) to protect NH citizens and businesses and hold other countries accountable.

As an HVAC and building enclosure engineer, I support the adoption of the 2021 IECC.

I believe that the increase in building cost for a building that meets the 2021 Internation Energy Code does not outweigh the savings one would see from the increased energy efficiency. It is a lot easier and cheaper to build something right at the beginning versus trying to increase its efficiency once constructed.

NH homeowners and renters deserve energy efficient homes. I understand that builders prefer more lenient standards, so they can more quickly construct a home or building, but then the occupants are left "energy poor," paying unreasonable higher energy bills over the long life of a building that was not built to standards using current technology. Last year the legislature ruled that 2021 building standards should be adhered to for other aspects of a building - so why was energy not included in that legislation? It is time to honor the needs of NH residents for efficient buildings and diminishing energy bills.

New Hampshire has a lot of duelings to build in the coming years! Building codes that require energy efficiency will save homeowners costs through reduced energy spending in the future. Furthermore, their homes will be more comfortable and healthy. It is far cheaper to build efficiency into a building during construction than to retrofit it later. Government intervention is necessary to make buildings more efficient in New Hampshire and keep up with efficiency efforts in our neighboring states.

Please support this bill to simplify the building code and bring energy efficiency requirements in line with existing 2021 building codes. I support this bill as a licensed NH architect who aims to provide the best products for clients. Regressive energy codes only help the bottom line of predatory home builders; they do not help the people of New Hampshire who pay higher energy costs in the long term.

It is far cheaper to build efficiency into a building during construction than to retrofit it later, thus saving the consumer money in the long run.

New Hampshire failed to update its building efficiency codes last year, leaving the state behind our neighbors in new building efficiency. It is far cheaper to build efficiency into a building during construction than to retrofit it later. Efficient buildings cost a little more to build, but they save home owners many times over the initial cost in reduced energy spending and are more comfortable to live in. Government intervention is critically needed to get buildings built more efficiently.

This bill is like seat belts and the auto industry. The builders don't want you to pass this bill which will require them to make more energy efficient buildings because it will cost a bit more upfront. Everyone else would like more energy efficient homes and buildings built because: it saves the homeowner money in the long run, (like seat belts saving lives), it is better for the environment, it is better for the country (less energy needs), it is better for future generations (less energy, less cost, more healthy environment). The purpose of government is to require industry to do what is right for the people of the state, and the future of the state. The purpose of government is to have the long view, since businesses do not.

I built an energy efficient home 30+ years ago and have been upgrading systems as time and money have allowed. Energy saved is money saved and once implemented those saving last for the life of the home. Building energy efficient housing may increase the initial cost of a home but that investment pays itself off quickly and the savings go on for the life of the home. This bill just plain makes sense. I encourage you to support it.

Maintaining the energy codes which are closer in line with standards organization provides an important consumer benefit. The 2021 codes represent an appropriate cost/benefit position. New Hampshire has among the highest energy costs in the nation making the need for energy efficiency even more for even greater. The costs of retrofitting houses to align with best efficiency practices are many times higher than incorporating them in the construction process. Using 2021 codes will save consumers many times more in energy costs than the small increase in housing purchase price.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.