Legal Action

The Whitmer Administration has proposed adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in our state. Conservative studies suggest that (for smaller, more modest homes) implementation of this new code will cost some $5,000 per home on average. Under state law, any new energy efficiency requirements must have a seven-year (or better) payback for homeowners and the government must show the analysis they used to determine their proposed code changes meet this requirement. Our State Bureau of Construction Codes (BCC) failed to provide this analysis in promulgating the propose changes. Regardless of whether one believes the 2021 IECC should be adopted, the fact that the State has thumbed its nose at the 7-year payback requirement analysis requires us to object and fight. Governments can and will selectively choose which laws they comply with unless challenged. We must challenge and need your help to sustain this fight.

As a result of our 12 year fight in this case, the courts have upheld state law relating to what local governments may charge for permitting and inspection activities. They’ve also ruled that the city violated the Headlee Amendment to the State’s Constitution (the purpose of which is to prevent cities from passing along tax increases under the guise of fees). A lower court, however, erroneously ruled that HBAM did not have standing to be awarded its legal fees. We have filed an appeal and ultimately expect to get our legal fees back. This could take another 12 to 18 months of legal wrangling to collect. When we do get our legal fees back, our strength to fight on other fronts will be greatly enhanced, so your contribution is vital to sustaining this battle.

Your state association testified at a public hearing in December and conveyed a letter to city officials advising them that their proposed ordinance was really a code change that could only be adopted at the state level. Our lawyer’s letter also pointed out that the city, itself, testified before a state panel (asking the state to give them authority) that they couldn’t enact a ban on natural gas unless state code allowed it.  The State did not act on that recommendation, so the City has now suggested that there is a public health emergency and that they must enact this ban anyway. Stay tuned as more and more business organizations are joining our fight to defeat this proposal.

Somewhat similar to the Ann Arbor situation, here a west Michigan city was proposing several proposals that would ban or discourage certain building materials and dictate other building requirements. Our attorney’s letter advised them they can’t change/alter what are code requirements locally under the guise of it being a “zoning” issue.