In a release to the manufactured home industry dated today, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has published the comments they state they submitted regarding DOE regulations impacting manufactured homes, per the Trump Administration’s executive orders on regulatory freezes and roll backs.
In their cover message to the industry, MHI stated that, “On July 14, 2017, MHI submitted comments to the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding proposed regulations for the manufactured housing industry that should be withdrawn because they are not consistent with President Trump’s Executive Orders to reduce federal regulatory burdens.”
Analytically, that statement may be accurate.
What MHI’s Release Doesn’t Say
However, what MHI’s statement fails to mention is that MHI and its members in the energy working group initially voted for the proposal. The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) was alone in voting against. It’s MHARR’s position that has been consistent in its opposition to the rule as harmful to the industry, and to those consumers who are particularly price sensitive.
Why did MHI’s position on DOE energy rules for manufactured homes shift? A follow up report will be published.
But in an exclusive, the DOE manufactured housing working group document that demonstrates that MHI first voted for the rule that they now say they opposed is linked as a download, here.
MHARR’s submitted comments will be published soon, later today or tomorrow.
Questions the Industry Should Be Asking About MHI’s Shift
- Why did MHI support a rule they now say they oppose?
- Why did MHI fail to mention or explain their shift in policy to the industry in their messaging?
- Did MHI not consider the harm to the industry – per the NAHB priced out study, that says for every $1000 in price increases 200,000 home owners will be ‘priced out’ of the market – prior to taking the votes (documented in the download attached) support the proposed DOE rule?
- Now former MHI VP, Lois Starkey, reportedly said in a working group meeting – on behalf of MHI – that ‘they could live with’ the proposed energy rule. So MHI not only supported it by vote, but supported it vocally.
- Did MHI’s position shift only after MHARR, SBA, George Washington University, MHProNews editorially, and others opposed the rule – did they feel embarrassed into changing their position?
Where is MHI’s consistency in policy?
“We Provide, You Decide.” ## (News, analysis.)
(Note a related weekend report on this issue, linked here.)
(Image credits are as shown above, and when provided by third parties, are shared under fair use guidelines.)
Submitted by Soheyla Kovach to the Daily Business News for MHProNews.com.