2030 Energy Code Update

2030 seems like a long time from now, but it’s only 48 short months away. And, in the grand scheme of the International Code Council (ICC), 2030 is just around the corner as they prepare to take comments and publish the 2030 set of code standards. For those “code nerds,” and there is nothing wrong with being in that category, the debate around how the 2030 group of codes will impact efficiency, building, and consumers’ bottom line has already ramped up full tilt.

Over the past half-decade, changes have occurred in how ICC and the stakeholders, many of whom man the committee, adopt the standards that become the new IECC – International Energy Conservation Code. In the past, this at times contentious process has “generally” led to a set of standards that a majority of those involved in construction can live with. However, there is a shifting of the sands in how ICC is adopting codes and who is playing a large part in what SPEER considers to be a weakening of the standards that keep most Americans safe when it comes to building and mechanical code standards.

This shift will be even more evident as the move towards the 2030 development activity begins.  There seems to be a clear shift away from stakeholder engagement, towards special-interest pandering, and away from science-based, actual data. The scope of the 2030 IECC now proposes a split, in essence, a 2030 code that could be weakened, and then IECC-Expanded, or IECCX, which would incorporate more advanced building components and stronger energy efficiency measures. Even with that being said, initial “looks” at the 2030 proposal DO NOT show a code that is easier to adopt, enforce, or comply with.

A few points to keep in mind as this situation susses itself out:

• The cost-effectiveness test will only consider the first owner of the building. This means the potential for lower efficiency models due to a truncated simple payback period. Exactly what Americans do not need during the explosive rate of increase in power bills.  New homes and commercial buildings “could” be built to standards that are over a decade old…we could literally be going backwards to pre-home automation and demand response elements of the I-Codes.
• Though the IECCX does maintain what could be the current scope of the 2024 and 2027 codes, it does not set forth a consistent set of standards that can be easily utilized by jurisdictions that are working to meet goals set by city councils and/or county commissions. For those jurisdictions already ahead of the “curve” when it comes to code adoption and implementation, moving to a “separate” code could prove cumbersome and costly. For those areas with climate goals, there are basically ZERO added tools to help that process.
• The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) has been a stalwart for the past 3 decades in allowing for cost-effective, sensible energy conservation measures to be included within a code. The movement to separate codes could confuse the incredibly important role that efficiency and conservation could play in buildings for years to come. Conservation and Efficiency are bipartisan efforts that do not need to be a political football being punted back and forth between different administrations.  The ICC Board should trust the code officials and leaders who are helping to develop these important components of the American building landscape.

It is truly difficult to believe that in 2026, energy, mechanical, and building codes have become a lightning rod for attacks on what should be common-sense approaches to improving housing and commercial building stock. Improved standards not only help to alleviate monthly power bill costs for consumers, but just as importantly, especially in the weather cauldron that Texans and Oklahomans are dealing with each month, passive survivability is a huge plus. Can your home or office stay cool or warm for an extended period during power outages? Building technologically better homes should be a no-brainer.