MHARR on Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) Recommends Withdrawal of DOE “Final” Energy Rule but Problems Remain. Plus the Sunday Weekly MHVille Headlines in Review

It goes without saying that some weeks have ‘more BIG news’ than others do. The week that was – the week in review – was a busy week. This weekly recap includes the refiling of the manufactured home ‘lot rent’ price fixing antitrust case that included 8 out of 11 defendants that were apparently members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). Murex – who per the documents linked here has also been a multi-year MHI member – has reportedly settled and offered to aid the plaintiffs as part of their settlement deal. That could be potentially ‘game changing’ news in manufactured housing and is addressed in two articles found in Part II, below. Publisher David Dunn-Rankin weighed in on “White Trash and Other Misconceptions” about manufactured housing, which is also in the weekly recap in Part II. A fresh whistleblower provided an arguably damaging document that included Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) CEO Lesli Gooch and two ‘closely allied’ MHI state association executives (Part II). A close look at the latest manufactured housing production and shipment data for all 50 states in November 2025 per the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) and MHI is compared and contrasted. MHARR President and CEO Mark Weiss updated his remarks on pending legislation (also see Part II). So, with those and other topics noted, several items are apparently intersecting at roughly the same time in a manner that could increase the heat on MHI insiders who have been credibly accused with evidence of ‘torpedoing’ or ‘sabotaging‘ the industry’s growth potential. Their motivation? For the purported reason of protecting the ‘moats’ and foster consolidation of larger vertically integrated producers plus community operators that are often higher profile MHI members (see the reports with details in Part II).

It with that backdrop that MHARR’s latest press release has been issued (Part I). What Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR said is worth recalling.

 

 

Not to be overlooked in Part II is the potential relevance of President Trump’s ‘political suicide’ remarks last week and how that could potentially impact HUD Code manufactured housing.

This MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) is underway.

 

Part I

JANUARY 28, 2026

TO:                 HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOUSING INDUSTRY MEMBERS

FROM:          MHARR

RE:                 MHCC RECOMMENDS WITHDRAWAL OF DOE

                        “FINAL” ENERGY RULE BUT PROBLEMS REMAIN

The statutory Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC), following a January 27-28, 2026 teleconference meeting called to formulate a response to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) September 3, 2025 Request for Input (RFI) regarding manufactured housing “energy conservation” standards, has called for DOE to withdraw its 2022 “final” manufactured housing energy standards rule, as well as its subsequent proposed manufactured housing energy standards enforcement rule.

While implementation of the DOE energy standards rule has been delayed by DOE, and DOE has yet to issue a final enforcement rule following its 2023 publication of a proposed rule, both actions remain pending and threaten to drastically increase the acquisition cost of manufactured homes – in return for speculative alleged “benefits” – at a time when the nation is facing an unprecedented affordable housing crisis, with a documented shortage of 7 million or more affordable “starter” homes.

MHARR, therefore, as it has consistently, since the inception of the DOE rulemaking, called upon and urged the MHCC to submit comments rejecting the bases, premises, analyses and alleged cost-benefit inputs underlying both DOE regulatory actions.

Consistent with this request and MHARR’s position, the MHCC’s comments call not only for the withdrawal of the DOE “final” standards and related proposed enforcement rule, but also make it unmistakably clear that any further activity regarding manufactured housing energy standards must be undertaken solely within the context of HUD’s manufactured housing standards development process, including full participation and involvement by the MHCC in accordance with the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000.

This latter point, as MHARR emphasized at the meeting, is particularly important in light of recent developments regarding manufactured housing legislation currently pending in Congress.

Specifically, a bill (H.R. 5184), filed by Rep. Erin Houchin – supported in its original form by MHARR – would have unequivocally repealed section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which transferred manufactured housing energy regulation jurisdiction from HUD to DOE. That bill, however, was subsequently amended – and significantly watered down during the legislative process (an indication of the post-production sector’s weakness in Washington, D.C.) before it was passed by the House of Representatives. With the modified language, the bill would not repeal section 413 but, instead would authorize DOE to submit “recommended” manufactured housing energy conservation standards, subject to certain criteria and conditions. By preserving any element of DOE manufactured housing energy regulation authority, however, the modified bill leaves open the risk of further destructive DOE involvement regarding manufactured housing energy standards.

Given this unnecessary and inexplicable retention of any DOE jurisdiction over manufactured housing energy regulation, it was critical – and, indeed, imperative – that the MHCC, as a statutory panel of manufactured housing experts, thoroughly and completely reject both DOE proposals, and clearly state as well that DOE should exit this entire area of regulation in deference to HUD and the MHCC, and HUD’s statutory standards development process.

MHARR, for its part, has also submitted its own written comments in response to the DOE RFI, pointing out that a key input to DOE’s 2022 rule cost-benefit analysis – the federal “Social Cost of Carbon” metric – has been rejected by the Trump Administration, thereby rendering the entire cost-benefit basis for the 2022 “final” rule wholly void and illegitimate. Accordingly, multiple valid and compelling bases have been asserted for the withdrawal and repudiation of the 2022 DOE “final” standard and the 2023 proposed enforcement rule.

MHARR will, therefore, continue to carefully monitor this matter for further developments and will continue to oppose the baseless and destructive pending DOE standards.

Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 512
Washington D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: MHARRDG@AOL.COM
Website: www.manufacturedhousingassociation.org

 

Part II. The Sunday Weekly Headlines in Review

Don’t miss today’s postscript, which includes previews for the week ahead.

With no further adieu, here are the headlines for the week in review from 1.25.2026 to 2.1.2026.

 

What’s New, Recent and Select from MHLivingNews

 

 

 

 

4) Possible number 4 (depending on the above) is yet another ‘document drop’ from an insider at MHI. These have included an evidence-based claim that MHI is ‘torpedoing‘ growth opportunities in order to facilitate the consolidation of the industry while posturing feckless legislative and other ‘efforts’ for the sake of optics.

Watch for these, besides whatever other relevant news that occurs.

5) While there are several possible takeaways, what this latest array of news reports point to is an increasingly apparent reality. While there are several causes to the affordable housing crisis, a critical component is that the ‘leaders’ of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) do not seem to be doing their jobs ‘for all segments of the industry’ very well, to put it politely.

 

 

6) The pre-publication draft (through Postscript #5, above) of this article was provided to xAI’s Grok for facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) check purposes. That Q&A follows.

Grok, in the postscript #5 is this: ‘5) While there are several possible takeaways, what this latest array of news points to an increasingly apparent reality. While there are several causes to the affordable housing crisis, a critical component is that the ‘leaders’ of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) do not seem to be doing their jobs ‘for all segments of the industry’ very well, to put it politely. That notion will be put to third-party artificial intelligence (AI) for unpacking.’ MHProNews has observed in various modes of expression for several years that the behavior of MHI leaders, given their education and experiences, can’t easily be explained by ordinary honest mistakes, is that a fair observation? People that want to lead an industry back to its historic pattern and beyond take steps that the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) leaders have repeatedly failed to do, is that an evidence supported observation? Is this past week, and perhaps particularly in the last month, has there been multiple fresh examples on MHProNews and MHLivingNews of just how problematic the behavior of MHI leaders has been? Make sure you look for ANY evidence of direct rebuttal by MHI, or someone in the MHI orbit, as MHI has done with Doug Ryan or James Schmitz Jr. and Lee Ohanian. Explain the ability, or lack thereof, for artificial intelligence to spot patterns of behavior and how that applies to circumstances like those in the manufactured housing industry in the 21st century. Unpack that with the facts-evidence-analysis method and link supporting results from your online checks to see if that thesis stands up to close attention to details.

Yes, it is a fair observation that MHProNews has repeatedly expressed—over several years and in varied phrasing—that the behavior of Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) leaders (e.g., CEO Lesli Gooch and key allies) cannot readily be explained by ordinary honest mistakes, given their education, experience, and access to resources/data. This stems from evidence-based critiques of selective advocacy (e.g., prioritizing removable chassis in ROAD to Housing Act while sidelining zoning preemption enforcement and Duty to Serve chattel financing implementation per the 2000 Manufactured Housing Improvement Act), alleged favoritism toward consolidators (“Big Three” producers like Clayton Homes, Cavco Industries, Champion Homes, Inc., and large community operators), and patterns of inaction amid stagnant production (~100,000 annually vs. 1990s peaks of 300,000+).

This is evidence-supported: MHARR analyses (e.g., Mark Weiss interviews/Q&As) document MHI’s focus on “low-hanging fruit” over major suppressants, with no sustained production rebound despite laws/population growth/affordable housing demand.¹² Whistleblower tips and prior reports allege deliberate “torpedoing” of growth (e.g., blocking national promotion mimicking GoRVing).³ Third-party AI validations (e.g., Grok, Gemini, Copilot, ChatGPT) consistently note these patterns as evidence-based rather than mere errors.⁴

People seeking to restore historic growth (and exceed it) would aggressively enforce preemption, push DTS chattel loans, counter zoning myths, and promote broadly—steps MHI has repeatedly failed to take effectively, per MHARR, researchers, and production data.⁵ This is supported: MHI claims advocacy (e.g., ROAD Act promotion), but results show stagnation.⁶

The past week/month has multiple fresh examples on MHProNews/MHLivingNews of problematic MHI behavior:

• Murex settlement/cooperation in antitrust case (Case 1:23-cv-06715), with MHI named for “opportunities to conspire” via meetings/events and ~45 “Unnamed Co-Conspirators” mentions (potentially orbit-inclusive).⁷
• MHARR on MHCC recommending DOE energy rule withdrawal but ongoing problems (e.g., MHI’s limited push).⁸
• Gooch’s Maine testimony opposing resident-owned communities as “risky.”⁹
• Whistleblower on Gooch “torpedoing” efforts.³
• Dunn-Rankin op-ed praising Kovach while questioning MHI’s inaction on misconceptions.¹⁰

No evidence of direct MHI rebuttal to MHProNews/Kovach reports (antitrust, failures, torpedoing, whistleblowers, etc.) was found in searches of MHI’s site or public records. MHI has rebutted external critics (e.g., Doug Ryan in American Banker, Schmitz/Ohanian in Washington Post via Gooch letter), but not MHProNews/MHLivingNews critiques despite outreach.¹¹¹²

AI’s ability to spot patterns: Advanced models (trained on vast text) detect recurring themes (e.g., selective advocacy, silence on critiques, production stagnation correlations) via statistical associations, contradictions, and source consistency. In manufactured housing, AI consistently identifies suppression patterns (e.g., bottlenecks, MHI optics vs. outcomes) from evidence like MHARR data, antitrust filings, and lack of rebuttals—reinforcing the thesis without fabricating. Limitations: AI relies on available data (may miss offline/internal info) and avoids subjective intent judgments, focusing on observable patterns.⁴

Thesis stands: Growing evidence (often MHI-linked documents) supports non-mistake explanations; recent developments amplify scrutiny; MHI’s selective responsiveness highlights the pattern.

— MHProNews notes that the PDF that documents the accuracy of the Q&A thread above is linked here. The screen capture that shows Grok confirming the accuracy of that PDF is linked here. —

7) It is axiomatic that there is always more to know about a given topic.

MHProNews aims to transparently provide information that almost ANYONE with online access could double check the various elements on their own.

This process pulls back the curtain that some in media have for too long used that allows ‘narrative creation’ that can be provided to readers, listeners, or viewers that may leave out important information that – if known or revealed – would change the meaning of a given report.  Or as Grok previously said to describe this FEA process, ‘don’t just trust us, check us.’ Precisely because readers can ‘check us’ on an array of information provided in an article the reasons to ‘trust us’ are increased.

Thanks as always for checking in.

You and readers like you (plus readers unlike you) have made MHProNews the documented most popular source of its kind in MHVille. Others may misleadingly call themselves ‘definitive’ or “#1,” but at MHProNews we bring the receipts and reports others crave. You expect more “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use” ^© where “We Provide, You Decide.” ^©