Dive Brief:

• Property owners will incur $127 billion in additional construction costs since 2006 if all states adopt the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code, the U.S. Department of Energy said in an analysis it released last week. In a sharp rebuke, the International Code Council says the analysis ignores the energy savings the code changes will generate, the value of which would exceed the implementation costs.
• The ICC called the DOE’s finding an “unsupported assertion,” noting DOE did not share the methodology it used to reach that conclusion. “A now-deleted page on DOE’s website stated that adoption of the latest energy codes would save U.S. homes and businesses $182 billion between 2010 and 2040,” ICC says in its ICC Pulse publication. The council oversees the code-writing process.
• ICC also criticized DOE for removing from its website analyses produced by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a DOE research facility, that found utility bill savings consistently offset higher construction costs associated with the codes. “By focusing solely on construction costs while disregarding long-term energy savings, DOE presents an incomplete picture” of the relationship between energy codes and affordability, ICC said.

Dive Insight:

DOE says in a summary if its analysis that the 2024 IECC code, if adopted nationwide, would drive up the construction costs of a single-family home by $14,000, totaling $9.2 billion a year and lead to more than $127 billion in cumulative additional costs compared with 2006. 

Although the findings focus on residential properties, the code applies to commercial properties as well. 

“For too long, climate activists have pushed regulations that increase housing costs,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in releasing the analysis.  

ICC called on DOE to explain the methodology behind its construction cost findings. It pointed out that the agency is “continuing to solicit public input through an open Request for Information on how that methodology should be updated.”   

In its analysis, DOE acknowledges the 2024 IECC code will produce energy cost savings, but it will take decades for the savings to be realized. “In most states, estimated payback periods exceed 10 years, with some exceeding 20 years,” the agency said. 

DOE sent a letter to ICC in February complaining that the code-writing organization has broadened its activities beyond energy efficiency.

“In recent years, the IECC has expanded into … onsite energy generation infrastructure requirements, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and … greenhouse gas emissions,” says the letter by Audrey Robertson, DOE’s assistant secretary of energy for critical minerals and energy innovation.  

In the letter, Robertson said ICC should return IECC to its roots. “The IECC’s energy efficiency provisions should target practicable and measurable improvements in energy efficiency that provide clear cost savings and beneficial efficiency advances to the consumer,” she said. 

Eight states have adopted the 2024 IECC code, either as-is or with amendments, according to a tracker by digital code compliance platform company UpCodes: Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Utah. Some municipalities have adopted the 2024 IECC as well.  

ICC updates the IECC every three years. It’s currently taking comments on the next version of the code, slated for release in 2027. 

DOE is required under the Energy Conservation and Production Act, passed in 1976, to provide input into the IECC and issue a determination of its effectiveness from an energy-efficiency standpoint. ECPA also requires states to review the code as they consider their own building code requirements.

In an email to Facilities Dive, a DOE spokesperson focused on the length of time it would take for building owners to realize the energy cost savings the code would produce. The standards body, the spokesperson wrote, “chose efficiency upgrades so expensive that it took longer to realize a return than most Americans would spend in their new home.” 

ICC told Facilities Dive in an email that it had no further comment beyond what it said in its Pulse publication.