Builders Association of the Twin Cities, d/b/a Housing First Minnesota, Petitioner,

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1482

Builders Association of the Twin Cities,
d/b/a Housing First Minnesota,
Petitioner,

vs.

Board of Electricity,
Respondent,

Department of Labor and Industry,
Respondent.

Filed July 19, 2021
Rule declared valid
Gaïtas, Judge

Minnesota Board of Electricity
File No. 82-9001-36673

Courtney J. Ernston, William E. Gschwind, Minnesota Construction Law Services, PLLC,
Vadnais Heights, Minnesota (for petitioner)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Christopher M. Kaisershot, Assistant Attorney General,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents)

Brendan D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapo lis, Minnesota (for amicus
curiae Minneapolis NECA Labor-Management Cooperation Committee)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Pr esiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Gaïtas,
Judge.
SYLLABUS
A deficiency in an agency ’s statement of need and reasonableness (SONAR) may
invalidate an agency rule, but only if the deficiency prejudi ced the rulemaking process.
Prejudice occurs if a SONAR does not adequa tely preview the ag ency’s intentions,
2
evidence, and rationale so as to afford interested parties th e opportunity to meaningfully
participate in the rulemaking process. When a SONAR provides sufficient information for
interested parties to meaningf ully participate in the rule making process, there is no
resulting prejudice.
OPINION
GAÏTAS, Judge
In this pre-enforcement declaratory-ju dgment action under Minnesota Statutes
section 14.44 (2020), petitioner Builders Association of the Twin Cities d/b/a Housing First
Minnesota (Housing First) challenges the Minnesota Board of Electricity’s adoption of the
2020 Minnesota Electrical Code, Minnesota Rule 1315.0200 (Supp. 2020). Housing First
asks us to invalidate the code because the board’s rulemaking processes violated statutory
and due-process requirements.
We conclude that the board complie d with its statutor y and constitutional
obligations and that Ho using First, which mean ingfully participated in the rulemaking
process, was not prejudiced by alleged deficiencies in the board’s SONAR. Thus, the rule
adopting the 2020 Minnesota Electrical Code is declared valid.
FACTS
The 12-member Minnesota Bo ard of Electricity is an administrative arm of the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI). See generally Minn. Stat.
§§ 175.001, 326B.32 (2020). Its membership includes one DOLI representative, eight
electrical professionals, two power-limited tec hnicians, and one memb er of the public.
Minn. Stat. § 326B.32, subd. 1(a). Among other duties, the board is required by statute to
3
adopt “the most current edition of the Nati onal Electrical Code and any amendments
thereto,”1 which then serves as the Minnesota Electrical Code. Id., subd. 2(a)(3). In
performing this function, the board follows rulemaking procedures under the Minnesota
Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA). Mi nn. Stat. §§ 14.001- 14.69 (2020). Although
the board may modify the NEC by adopting amendments during the rulemaking process,
two-thirds of board members must first agre e on any proposed amendment. Minn. Stat.
§ 326B.32, subds. 2(a)(3), 6(b). If a propos ed amendment receives the requisite board
votes, it must be included in the subsequent rulemaking proceedings. Id., subd. 6(b).
In January 2019, the board voted to initiate th e rulemaking process for the 2020
Minnesota Electrical Code, rule 1315.0200. Several months later, the board published a
notice in the state register for public comment. No comments were submitted. The board
then appointed a subcommittee to review changes in the 2020 NEC. After reviewing 53
changes that the 2020 NEC made to the 2017 edition,2 see Minn. R. 1315.0200 (2017), the

1 The National Electrical Code (NEC) is a uni form code developed by the National Fire
Protection Association and approved by the American National Standards Institute. The
NEC—which is updated every three years after opportunity for public input, review, and
comment—prescribes regulations for “[a]ll new electrical wiring, apparatus, and
equipment for electric light, heat, power, tec hnology circuits and systems, and alarm and
communication systems.” Minn. R. 1315.0200; see Minn. Stat. § 326B.35 (2020).

2 According to the information in the record, many changes in the 2020 NEC are updated
standards affecting residential buildings, in cluding “ground-fault circuit-interrupter”
protection for construction personnel, basements (e.g., electric ranges and electric dryers),
and outdoor circuits (e.g., ai r-conditioning equipment); “ar c-fault circuit-interrupter”
protection for dwelling units and replacement receptacles; installation of receptacle outlets
in kitchen islands, peninsular countertops and work surface s; surge protection devices;
installation of “emergency di sconnects” on dwelling exteriors (for first responder
emergency access); outlet boxes for ceiling-suspe nded fans; and receptacle limitations in
bathrooms.
4
subcommittee recommended that the board adop t the 2020 NEC, without amendment, as
the 2020 Minnesota Electrical Code. The board unanimously voted in favor of the
recommendation.
In March 2020, the board p ublished a SONAR, a draft of the proposed rule (the
entire 2020 NEC), and a dual notice to interested parties, as required by MAPA. See Minn.
Stat. §§ 14.131, .22, subd. 2, .23. The SONAR outlined five notable changes in the 2020
NEC that related to dwellings , and it pointed out the associ ated increased costs of the
changes, among other considerations. Many interested parties responded to the SONAR
by providing written comments.
Among the commenters was Housing First, a nonprofit organization consisting of
construction-industry professionals. Housing First submitted nine proposed amendments
to the 2020 NEC and reque sted an opportun ity to be heard during a public hearing held
before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Almost all of the other comments filed by
interested parties expressed support for adopting the 2020 NEC as written.
An ALJ held a public hearing on August 19, 2020, with about 100 attendees. The
board gave a general presentation in suppor t of adopting the 2020 NEC as written and
responded directly to the nine proposed amendments offered by Housing First. Following
the board’s presentation, the ALJ welcomed participation from the attendees and gave each
willing participant an opportunity to testify.
Four participants testifie d on behalf of Housing Firs t, objecting to the board’s
rulemaking process and highlighting provisions of concern in the 2020 NEC. They claimed
the rulemaking process was “flawed,” “rus hed,” “outcome predetermined,” a “rubber
5
stamping” of the NEC,” “arbitrary and caprici ous,” and less rigorou s than the processes
followed by other boards, such as the Minnesota Plumbing Board. Housing First members
criticized the board’s SONAR as a “thinly veiled attempt to comply with the statutory
requirements to achieve its foregone conclu sion.” And they challenged the board’s
analysis of anticipated costs to small businesses and municipalities during the first year of
the rule’s enforcement. See Minn. Stat. § 14.127. They warned that, without amendments,
the 2020 NEC would impose unnecessary, costly regulations on builders and homeowners,
which would primarily benefit product manufacturers and service providers.
The ALJ also heard from commenters who supported the board’s proposal to adopt
the 2020 NEC without amendments. These commenters included members of fire-safety,
engineering, manufacturing, and electrical organizations.
After the hearing, all interested partie s had an opportunity to submit additional
written comments. Housing Fi rst and some of the other participating organizations
supplemented the testimony with two rounds of additional written comments. The board
also issued detailed memoranda responding to Housing First’s procedural objections and
substantive complaints regarding the 2020 NEC.
After the record closed, th e ALJ issued a 46-page report that found the board’s
rulemaking had “complied with procedural and notice requirements, was thorough and
well-reasoned, and was not arbitrary or capri cious.” The ALJ ultimately approved the
board’s decision to adopt the 2020 NEC without amendments as the Minnesota Electrical
Code.
6
Housing First now asks this court to decl are the rule adopting the 2020 Minnesota
Electrical Code invalid in a pre-enforcemen t declaratory-judgment action brought under
Minnesota Statutes section 14.44.
ISSUES
I. Did the Minnesota Board of Electricity’s SONAR and analysis of first-year
costs to small businesses and municipalities violate MAPA and thereby invalidate the 2020
Minnesota Electrical Code?
II. Did the Minnesota Board of Electricity ’s rulemaking pr ocess for the 2020
Minnesota Electrical Code violate substantive due-process guarantees?
ANALYSIS
A section 14.44 pre-enforcement declarat ory-judgment action may be brought to
challenge the rulemaking process and the validity of a rule before the rule is enforced. Save
Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Nat. Res. , 859 N.W.2d 845, 849 (Minn.
App. 2015). In such an action, we have or iginal jurisdiction to de clare an agency rule
invalid if the petitioning party establishes that: (1) the rule violates the constitution, (2) the
rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, or (3) the agency failed to comply with
MAPA rulemaking procedures. See Minn. Stat. §§ 14.44-.45; Coal. of Greater Minn.
Cities v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 765 N.W.2d 159, 164 (Minn. App. 2009), review
denied (Minn. Aug. 11, 2009); see also Minn. Voters All. v. State , 955 N.W.2d 638, 641
(Minn. App. 2021) (explaining this court’s re view is restricted to these three bases for
invalidation). The party challenging an agency’s decision bears the burden of showing that
7
the agency violated MAPA. In re Review of 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of
Charges, 768 N.W.2d 112, 118 (Minn. 2009).
Housing First challenges the board’s rulema king process on two grounds. First, it
argues that the board failed to comply with MAPA procedures. And second, it contends
that the rulemaking process was unconstitutional, violating “substantive due process.” We
address both arguments in turn.
I. The board’s rulemaking process complied with MAPA requirements.
An agency rule is “every agency statement of genera l applicability and future
effect . . . adopted to implement or make specific the law enforced or administered by that
agency.” Minn. Stat. § 14.02, subd. 4. In making agency rules, agencies, including state
boards, must comply with the specific procedures set forth in MAPA. Minn. Stat. §§ 14.02,
subd. 2, .05, subd. 1; see also Minn. Envtl. Sci. & Ec on. Review Bd. v. Minn. Pollution
Control Agency, 870 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Minn. App. 2 015) (“Agency rulemaking is strictly
controlled by statute and the st atutory procedures must be followed in order to create a
valid rule.”). All agency ru les that are validly adopte d in compliance with MAPA
procedures “have the force and effect of law.” Minn. Stat. § 14.38. But an agency’s failure
to follow statutory rulemaking procedures may invalidate a rule. Id.; see White Bear Lake
Care Ctr., Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 319 N.W.2d 7, 8-9 (Minn. 1982).
Housing First raises two specific challenges to the board’s compliance with MAPA
requirements, arguing first, that the board ’s SONAR was defective because it lacks
sufficient explanation, see Minn. Stat. § 14.131, and second, that the board failed to supply
a sufficient analysis of the costs of the 2020 NEC, see Minn. Stat. § 14.127, subd. 1.
8
A. The SONAR is not prejudicially defective.
Before any public hearing on a proposed rule, an agency must prepare a SONAR.
Minn. Stat. § 14.131. A SONAR must “summarize the evidence and argument” advanced
by the agency through “suffici ently specific” information “so that interested persons will
be able to fully prepare any testimony or evidence in favor of or in opposition to the
proposed rules.” Minn. R. 1 400.2070, subp. 1 (20 19). MAPA specifically identifies the
information that an agency must address in its SONAR. To the extent that the agency can
ascertain through reasonable effort, a SONAR must include:
(1) a description of the classes of persons who probably
will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will
bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit
from the proposed rule;
(2) the probable costs to the agency and to any other
agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed
rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues;
(3) a determination of whet her there are less costly
methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of
the proposed rule;
(4) a description of any alternative methods for
achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were seriously
considered by the agency and the reasons why they were
rejected in favor of the proposed rule;
(5) the probable costs of complying with the proposed
rule, including the portion of th e total costs that will be borne
by identifiable categories of affected parties, such as separate
classes of governmental units, businesses, or individuals;
(6) the probable costs or consequences of not adopting
the proposed rule, including those costs or consequences borne
by identifiable categories of affected parties, such as separate
classes of government units, businesses, or individuals;
(7) an assessment of any differences between the
proposed rule and existing federa l regulations and a specific
analysis of the need for and reasonableness of each difference;
and
9
(8) an assessment of the cumu lative effect of the rule
with other federal and state regul ations related to the specific
purpose of the rule.

Minn. Stat. § 14.131. “A general description of the statute being implemented or restating
the proposed rule is not sufficient.” Minn. R. 1400.2070, subp. 1.
Housing First contends that the SONAR fa iled to satisfactorily address the statutory
considerations. Additionally, Housing Firs t seems to argue that the SONAR did not
provide adequate notice of the information ultimately presented during the public hearing,
impacting its members’ ability to prepare.
We first consider Housing First’s claims regarding specific deficiencies in the
board’s SONAR. The SONAR clearly addresse s all eight statutory considerations. But
Housing First maintains that the board fa iled to provide suffici ent information for
consideration (1) and considerations (3) through (6).
Consideration (1) requires the agency to provide “a desc ription of the classes of
persons who probably will be affected by the proposed rule,” including those who will bear
compliance costs and those who will benefit fro m the rule. Minn. Stat. § 14.131(1). The
board’s SONAR identified building owners, e quipment suppliers, contractors, and code-
enforcement authorities. Housing First claims that, because the board failed to distinguish
between those who will bear the costs of complying with the 2020 NEC and those who will
benefit, the SONAR is deficient. The board argues, and we agree, that Housing First’s
argument fails because section 14.131(1)— which identifies the SONAR requirements—
imposes no such obligation. Moreover, we ag ree with the ALJ’s determination that the
10
board’s analysis of this factor “was reasonable and served to provide notice to potentially
affected persons.”
SONAR considerations (3) and (4) require the agency to eval uate “less costly”
alternatives “for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule.” Minn. Stat. § 14.131(3)-(4).
The purpose of the board’s proposed rule was to update the Minnesota Electrical Code in
accordance with the statutory mandate provided by section 326B.32, subdivision 2(a)(3),
which requires the board to adopt the most current edition of the NEC. Thus, SONAR
considerations (3) and (4) required the board to determine whether there were less costly
methods of achieving that particular purpo se—adopting the most current edition of the
NEC.
The SONAR states that the board determined “there are no less costly or intrusive
methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule” because the NEC is the prevailing
model electrical code and its incorporation by reference would be the most cost-effective
method “for adopting a national model code.” Additionally, the SONAR emphasizes the
board’s statutory mandate to adopt the “m ost current edition” of the NEC and “any
amendments thereto.”
Housing First argues that SONAR considerations (3) and (4) also required the board
to discuss potential cost-effective amendments to the 2020 NEC in the SONAR. Housing
First acknowledges the board’s statutory mandate. But it points out that the board also has
statutory authority to adopt amendments. Hous ing First claims that the statute therefore
obligated the board to consid er both the 2020 NEC and hyp othetical amendments to the
11
code. See Minn. Stat. § 326B.32, subd. 6(b). In turn, Housing First contends, the board
was also required to address hypothetical amendments to the 2020 NEC in the SONAR.
However, the board’s discretionary authority to adopt amendments does not create
an affirmative obligation for the board to also consider hypothetical amendments. Indeed,
the board’s authority to propose amendments is limited by statute; before any amendment
can be included in a rule making proceeding, two-thirds of the board must approve it. See
id. We therefore reject Housing First’s asse rtion that the SONAR was defective because
it failed to address hypothetical amendments to the 2020 NEC. The SONAR adequately
addressed considerations (3) and (4), explaining why there were no less costly methods for
achieving the purpose of the rule.
Notably, after the board issued the SONAR, it did consider specific amendments to
the 2020 NEC that Housing Fi rst proposed in response to the SONAR. In written
comments submitted before and after the public hearing, Housing Fi rst challenged nine
new requirements in the 2020 NEC as un necessary and costly, and recommended
alternatives to the new regu lations. The board responded to each of Housing First’s
proposals during the hearing and in post-hearing comments, clarifying how the challenged
regulations in the 2020 NEC furthered th e objectives of safety and uniformity.
Additionally, the board addressed Housing First’s concerns about the increased costs of the
challenged regulations, explaining how any potential cost in crease was both nominal and
justified by improved safety. Thus, contra ry to Housing First’s claim that the board
“conducted no analysis to determine if th ere were less costly methods,” the board
12
considered each of the alternative regulati ons proposed by Hous ing First during the
rulemaking process.
For SONAR consideration (5 ), an agency must addre ss “the probable costs of
complying with the proposed rule.” Minn. Stat. § 14.131(5). The board addressed the
probable costs associated with the 2020 NEC, noting that anticipated cost increases would
not be significant. According to the SONAR, five changes to the 2020 NEC could result
in increased costs of $600 or less per building project— a figure derived from a report
prepared by Home Innovati on Research Labs for the Na tional Association of Home
Builders.3 But the SONAR notes that many variables in each building project ultimately
will affect the costs of compliance.
Housing First argues that the board’s anal ysis lacked necessary detail because, for
instance, it failed to highlight certain change s in the 2020 NEC that will apply to every
construction project. And because the board supplemen ted the SONAR with additional
evidence regarding costs during the public hearing, Housing Firs t suggests the board
introduced new information after the record had closed.
Again, we are unpersuaded. Given that the board is statutorily required to adopt an
entire electrical code, and that each project in volves multiple variables, the cost analysis
proposed by Housing First—a project-by-project comparison of costs under the 2017 and
the 2020 codes—would be a monumental task.4 We agree with the ALJ that the board was

3 The board supplied a website link to the report within a footnote in the SONAR.

4 Both during the rulemaking proceedings and in the briefing to this court, the parties have
relied on our unpublished decision Water in Motion, Inc. v. Minn. Dept. of Labor & Indus.,
13
not required to perform this type of analysis in the SONAR, which is intended to be a
summary of the evidence and rationale in support of a proposed rule. See Minn. R.
1400.2070, subp. 1. The ALJ concluded, and we agree, that the board’s cost analysis for
consideration (5) was suffici ent. The board consulted a research report on costs,
highlighted five noteworthy ch anges to the NEC, and predic ted that costs of compliance
would generally not exceed $600 in additional costs per project.
Housing First correctly notes that the boa rd presented evidence during the public
hearing that was not explicitly outlined in the SONAR. But this was not improper. Again,
the SONAR need only summarize the evidence and rationale in support of a proposed rule.
Minn. R. 1400.2070 , subp. 1. During the subsequent public hearing, the agency must
provide “an affirmative presentation of facts establishing the need for and reasonableness
of the proposed rule.” Minn. Stat. § 14.14, subd. 2. Thus, the public hearing is the agency’s
opportunity to expound upon the information in the SO NAR, as occurred here. Cf. In re
Hibbing Taconite Co., 431 N.W.2d 885, 894-95 (Minn. App. 1988) (“The purpose of the
hearing is to ensure that the agency does not deprive the public of fair notice of the agency’s
intentions.” (quotation omitted)).

No. A16-0335, 2016 WL 7041978, at *8 (Minn. App. Dec. 5, 2016). There, we recognized
the plumbing board’s difficulty in quantifyi ng the costs of adopting an entire model
plumbing code for purposes of preparing a SONAR and the section 14.127 analysis. See
id. We observed that, because we could “envision endle ss permutations in cost
comparison, depending on the particular work that a particular business or homeowner
desires on a particular property,” we were not persuaded that the plumbing board “was
required to undertake such a complex and hypothetical analysis.” Id. As an unpublished
decision, Water in Motion has no precedential value. See Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502
N.W.2d 796, 800 (Minn. App. 1993). But we have the same concerns here about this type
of cost analysis.
14
Lastly, Housing First challenges the adequa cy of the board’s information relating to
consideration (6). This consideration requires the agency to examine “the probable costs
or consequences of not adopting the proposed rule.” Minn. Stat. § 14.131(6). The board’s
SONAR explains that failing to adopt the 2020 NEC would mean that the latest methods
and technologies would not be used in this state’s electrical industry, which could
potentially impact licensing reci procity with other states. Th e board also emphasized its
statutory mandate to adopt the latest edition of the NEC. Housing First again maintains
this was deficient because (1 ) the board “failed to expl ain why no amendments were
necessary,” (2) the board did not present sta tistics, and (3) the rationale provided “has
nothing whatsoever to do with the legislature’s stated purpose for the State Building Code.”
Housing First’s arguments ar e unpersuasive. As we have explained, the board has
authority to vote on and include amendments in rulemaking proceedings—but the board is
not obligated to do so. See Minn. Stat. § 326B.32, subd. 2( a)(3). The board could have
better supported its position that failing to adopt the 2020 NEC would cause Minnesota to
fall behind in terms of electrical methodology and technology standards. The board could
have provided examples of the 2020 NEC’s updated methods and technology, for instance.
But, although conclusory, the board’s underlying premise was reasonable and largely based
on its expertise. “Agencies must at times ‘make judgments and draw conclusions from
suspected, but not completely substantiated, relationships between facts, from trends
among facts, from theoretical projections from imperfect data, from probative preliminary
data not yet certifiable as fact, and the like.’” Minn. Envtl. Sci. & Econ. Review Bd. , 870
N.W.2d at 102 (quoting Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. Pettersen , 347 N.W.2d 238, 244
15
(Minn. 1984)). Given its demonstrated knowl edge of the NEC, we are satisfied by the
board’s rationale that the 2020 NEC will impr ove electrical standards. The paramount
purpose of the Minnesota electrical and building codes is to “establish reasonable
safeguards for health, safety, welf are, comfort, and security of the residents of this state
and provide for the use of modern methods, devices, materials, and techniques which will
in part tend to lower construction cost s.” Minn. Stat. § 326B.101 (2020); see also Minn.
Stat. § 326B.35. The board’s rationale fits neatly within this greater purpose.
Although the board’s SONA R could have incl uded more detail, it adequately
addresses each of the considerations set fort h by section 14.131. We therefore reject
Housing First’s argument that the SONAR faile d to satisfactorily address the statutory
considerations.
Housing First also argues that even if th e SONAR is technically valid on its face, it
did not provide sufficient notice of the information that would be presented at the public
hearing. According to Housing First, the board failed to include “any information” in the
SONAR that was later presented during the public hearing. Housing First contends that it
was “prejudiced by the empty and non-comp liant SONAR” because its representatives
appeared at the public hearing with “no knowledge of the impact the proposed rule might
have.”
A mere allegation of prejudice is not sufficient to invalidate a rule. Instead, a party
must show that a deficiency in a SONAR caused actual prejudice. See Minn. League of
Credit Unions v. Minn. Dep’t of Commerce , 486 N.W.2d 399, 405-06 (Minn. 1992). In
Minn. League of Credit Unions , the supreme court determined that a SONAR was
16
inadequate because it contained ambiguous information. Id. But the court concluded that
the deficiency did not invalidate the resulting rule because the petitioner was not surprised
by the agency’s presentation at the public hearing and did not request a recess to prepare a
response. Id.
The essence of the SONAR requi rement is to provide fair notice so that interested
parties can meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process. As noted, a SONAR must
contain sufficient information to enable parties “to fully prepare any testimony or evidence
in favor of or in opposition to the proposed rules.” Minn. R. 1400.2070, subp. 1. But a
SONAR need only “summarize the evidence and argument th at the agency is relying on”
for the proposed rule. Minn. R. 1400.2070, subp. 1 (emphasis added). The public hearing
is the subsequent forum for the agency to make an “affirmative presentation” establishing
that the rule is necessary and reasonable. Minn. R. 1400.2220, subp. 3. Thus, a deficient
SONAR only causes prejudi ce when it does not adequate ly preview the agency’s
intentions, evidence, and rationale so as to afford parties th e opportunity to meaningfully
participate in the ru lemaking process. See Minn. Stat. § 14.131; Mi nn. R. 1400.2070.
When a SONAR provides sufficient informati on for interested parties to meaningfully
participate in the rulemaking process, there is no prejudice.
Here, the record confirms that Housing First meaningfully pa rticipated in the
rulemaking process. Housing First fully re sponded to the board’s proposal to adopt the
2020 NEC without modification—before, duri ng, and after the public hearing. We
therefore conclude that Housing First has not shown that alleged deficiencies in the board’s
SONAR were prejudicial.
17
First, based on the SONAR, Housing First requested a public hearing and submitted
prehearing comments. The prehearing comments included Housing First’s nine detailed
proposals to amend specific provisions of the 2020 NEC.
Second, at the public hearing, Housi ng First’s objections to the 2020 NEC were
addressed extensively. Housing First members testified, providing their views of the 2020
NEC and articulating concerns about the board’s rulemaking process. The board responded
to each of Housing Firs t’s proposed amendments. Housin g First’s legal counsel testified
that the board’s presentation was “extremely enlightening,” with “ample information . . . as
to the cost analysis,” but complained that much of that information was not included in the
SONAR. However, administrative rules clea rly state that a SONAR need not include
rebuttal to public comments. Minn. R. 1400.2070, subp. 1.
Third, Housing First had an opportunity to request a recess in order to prepare
responses to any new information rev ealed during the public hearing. See Minn. R.
1400.2210, subp. 3. Housing First did not exercise that option.
Finally, Housing First submitted posthearin g comments, which were consistent with
its prehearing comments and the testimony of its members at the public hearing. Housing
First’s posthearing comments did not raise any new concerns in response to information
provided during the public hearing. And Housing First made no claim that its members
were ill-prepared for the hearing due to the allegedl y inadequate SONAR. After the first
round of posthearing comments, the board issued detailed responses. Then, Housing First
participated in a second round of posthe aring comments, to which the board again
responded.
18
Given this record, we are satisfied that Housing First was able to meaningfully
participate in the rulemaking process and therefore was not prej udiced by any alleged
deficiency in the SONAR. We will not i nvalidate the board’s adoption of Minn. R.
1315.0200 (Supp. 2020) based on the contents of the SONAR.
B. The board provided a sufficient analys is of first-year costs to small
businesses and municipalities.

Housing First also challenges the board’s compliance with another MAPA
provision—section 14.127, su bdivision 1—which requires an agency to determine the
impact of a rule on small businesses and muni cipalities. Under this section, the agency
must determine, before the record closes, whether small businesses (less than 50 full-time
employees) or municipalities (less than 10 full-time employees) will pay more than
$25,000 to comply with the proposed rule in the first year it takes effect. Minn. Stat.
§ 14.127, subds. 1, 2. Then, the ALJ “must review and approve or disapprove the agency
determination.” Id., subd. 2. If the costs will exceed $25,000, affected small businesses
and municipalities may claim a temporary exemption from the rule. Id., subd. 3. An
agency deviates from rulemaking procedures when it fails to perform the analysis required
by section 14.127. See Builders Ass’n of Twin Cities v. Minn. Dept. of Labor & Indus. ,
872 N.W.2d 263, 274 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. Dec. 29, 2015).
Here, the board provided the required cost analysis in the SONAR and in its
posthearing submissions. Based on the board’s analysis, small businesses and
municipalities would not incur costs over $25,000 during the first year following adoption
of the new code. The board de termined that cost increase s in the 2020 NEC would be
19
largely offset by new cost reductions. Moreover, according to the board, even if all of the
potential new costs applied to an affected proj ect, the total increase per project would be
approximately $450 to $600, which would result in increased costs under $25,000 per year
for a small business.
During the rulemaking process, Housing First challenged the board’s cost analysis.
Housing First claimed that th e board showed “very little analysis” in addressing section
14.127, “much of which was misguided.” Mo reover, Housing First asserted to the ALJ
that the board’s conclusion “that Minn. Stat . § 14.127 [was] not . . . violated without
showing its work represents the board’s will, not its judgment.”
The ALJ approved the board’s compliance-cost analysis. According to the ALJ, the
board’s conclusion was “reasoned and well -supported.” The ALJ dismissed Housing
First’s calculations as speculative.5
Now, before this court, Housing First again contends that the board’s analysis of the
costs associated with the 2020 NEC was inaccurate. It maintains that some of its own
members are small business owners who believe they will face over $25,000 in new costs
during the first year after the adoption of the 2020 NEC. Additionally, by Housing First’s
own calculations, first-year compliance costs will very likely exceed $25,000. Housing

5 The ALJ disagreed with some of the board’s comments regarding costs made at the public
hearing. At the hearing, the board advised that costs “will be passed down to and borne by
the homeowner and not absorbed by the home builder or electrical contractor.” The ALJ
rejected the board’s “analysis of pass-through costs,” observing that this reasoning would
render section 14.127 meaningless.
20
First asks us to invalidate the board’s adopt ion of the 2020 NEC ba sed on the allegedly
erroneous cost analysis.
But the board conduct ed the analysis required by s ection 14.127. Moreover, the
ALJ reviewed the board’s analysis, agreed that the costs determination was reasonable and
supported by the record, and approved it. Both the board and th e ALJ followed their
statutory obligations. Cf. Builders Ass’n of Twin Cities, 872 N.W.2d at 274 (determining
that rulemaking process was violated where agency did not conduct analysis required under
section 14.127, even though ALJ found statutory requirement satisfied nonetheless). And
as the reviewing court, we will not substitu te our judgment for the board’s informed
analysis.
In sum, we conclude that the board di d not violate MAPA procedures in adopting
the 2020 NEC as the 2020 Minnesota Elect rical Code. Because the board’s SONAR
satisfied statutory requirements and afforded Housing First the opportunity to meaningfully
participate in the rulemaking process, it was not prejudicially defective. And, both the
board and the ALJ complied with section 14.127. We therefore reject Housing First’s
request to invalidate the rule based on the alleged MAPA violations.
II. Housing First fails to allege a cognizable due-process claim.
Housing First also contends that the board violated “s ubstantive due process” by
“rubber stamp[ing]” the 2020 NEC without amendments. Because Housing First provides
little analysis or authority in support of its due-process claim, we question whether the
argument has been adequately briefed. See State Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel
21
Drivers, Inc. , 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (d eclining to consider inadequately
briefed argument). We nonetheless elect to briefly address the issue.
“In attacking a statute or regulation on due process grounds, one bears a heavy
burden; the statute or rule need only bear some rational relation to the accomplishment of
a legitimate public purpose to be sustainable.” Manufactured. Hous. Inst., 347 N.W.2d at
243. A rule that bears no rational connection to the agency’s target objective is invalid.
Builders Ass’n of Twin Cities , 872 N.W.2d at 268. But agency rulemaking enjoys a
“presumption of correctness,” and reviewing co urts generally refuse to second guess an
agency’s technical determinations, affording deference instead. Minn. Envtl. Sci. & Econ.
Review Bd. , 870 N.W.2d at 102 (q uotation omitted). “We a pply the arbitrary-and-
capricious test when considerin g whether an administrative ru le violates substantive due
process.” Builders Ass’n of Twin Cities, 872 N.W.2d at 268. Th is demands “a searching
and careful inquiry of the record to ensure that the agency action has a rational basis.” Id.
(quotation omitted).
As one ground for its due-process claim, Housing First essentially reiterates its
challenges to the SONAR, claimi ng that the board’s failure to consider “alternatives” to
the 2020 NEC was “arbitrary and capricious.” Housing First also claims that “[t]he 2020
NEC is invalid because it bears no rational relationship to the accomplishment of a
legitimate public purpose.”
Neither of these claims establishes a constitutional violation. Housing First’s
argument that the board should have considered alternatives to the 2020 NEC ignores the
board’s statutory obligation to adopt the la test version of the NEC and to consider
22
amendments in its discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 326B.32, subds. 2(a)(3), 6(b).6 As noted,
the board’s discretionary authority to consider and implement amendments does not require
the board to manufacture hypothetical amendments for inclusion in its SONAR. Likewise,
we reject Housing First’s ar gument that the board’s adopti on of the 2020 NEC had no
legitimate public purpose. The board’s stated purpose in adopting the 2020 NEC was “to
reduce the loss of life and property across the entire spectrum of all the buildings in which
we live, work, and play.” This is consistent with the legislature’s purpose for the electrical
and building codes. See Minn. Stat. § 326B.101, .35.
After reviewing the record here, we ar e convinced that the board’s rulemaking
process complied with MAPA requirements, provided sufficient notice to allow interested
parties to meaningfully participate, and was thorough. Housing First has not demonstrated
a basis for us to invalidate the 2020 Minnesota Electrical Code. To the contrary, the record
establishes that the board’s adoption of the rule was reasonable and procedurally compliant.
DECISION
The Board of Electricity complied with MAPA in adopting the 2020 Minnesota
Electrical Code, codified as Minn. R. 1315. 0200, and Housing First was afforded an
opportunity to meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process. Additionally, Housing

6 We note that Housing First also seems to suggest in its brie f that the board exceeded its
statutory authority, which is another basi s for invalidation of an agency rule. See Minn.
Stat. § 14.45. However, the only issues analyzed by Housing First involve the two matters
of statutory compliance already discussed and the substantive due process claim. Because
inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court, we need not address
this as a separate argument. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d at 480.
23
First fails to articulate a cognizable constitutional claim. We accordingly declare Minn. R.
1315.0200 valid.
Rule declared valid.