The Problem with Energy Codes

This week I was brave enough to wander around the massive GlassBuild America conference in Orlando, FL. I say brave because this conference is massive! At the conference I listened to a few sessions on energy efficient building codes and standards for new residential and commercial building in the US.

I was struck by the charts they displayed showing the ever increasing energy efficiency requirements for windows since the 1970s. Then they shared the 2027 proposed requirements for the International Energy Efficiency Code (IEEC) showing yet another tightening of the requirements.

The whole time I was looking at these graphs they were bragging about, I was picturing the reverse of these graphs showing the ever increasing price of housing in America. Now don’t hear what I’m not saying; I don’t believe that the cost of housing has gone up ONLY because we have increased the code requirements of how tight we build structures today, but we would be foolish to believe that it hasn’t played some part in that increase in price and the corresponding lack of affordability we are faced with in this nation today.

You can’t make a house more technologically advanced without increasing costs. I have yet to see a triple-pane, argon-filled, low-e window that costs less than a single-pane window and I doubt you have either. Anyone? Bueller?

If housing affordability is a major problem that requires decisive and immediate action as all the politicians keep telling us then why do we keep creating more and more stringent energy codes that inevitably make these houses more expensive.

The Purpose of Building Codes

Before people start calling me names, let me first say that I believe building codes exist for good reasons. If a building is unsafe for occupants that puts unknowing homeowners, or children, or other at risk populations in harm’s way. You need to be able to trust that your roof won’t cave in after a snowfall, and the walls won’t be filled with black mold because the flashing or building wrap was never installed. 

In my honest opinion as a contractor, the building code should be there to prescribe the minimum quality standard to which a home can be built in order to keep the occupants safe.

The first building codes were just that. People could know that their wall framing was built using 2x4s and not a bunch of paint sticks glued together. That’s good to know. It was there to prescribe how to build a roof that didn’t leak. Also a plus.

Then as we discovered other issues with our buildings like the damage that hurricanes and storm winds could create, so we started requiring straps and metal connectors to our framing to keep roof from blowing off in a hurricane. As a Florida contractor that’s a very good thing to me.

But then came the energy codes where the government began to tell us not that we should make our building more energy efficient, but that we have to make it efficient. How efficient do we have to make them? That’s not our decision. It’s the building code that decides. Don’t worry the experts will tell us and we just have to comply.

But what if I can’t afford to make my house more energy efficient? Will I be in danger or will my house be unsafe? No, my utility bills will just be higher than my neighbor. So the energy code isn’t really there to save me from an unscrupulous builder who may construct an unsafe building, but to save me from choosing to pay less for a house and have higher utility bills than I otherwise could have.

So, now the government is in the business of requiring me to save on my utility bills? That seems unnecessary since I could simply decide to keep my thermostat at 65ºF all summer resulting in a ludicrous utility bill compared to my neighbor who keeps their thermostat at 78ºF.

That may sound like hyperbole, but I’ve seen that kind of difference in homeowners and it’s wild to me.

Abolishing Energy Codes?

What if we abolished energy codes? If that sounds like a wild idea to you give me a few minutes more of reading to make my case and then you can refute me in the comments section.

The Costs of Energy Codes

An energy code requires homebuyers to spend significantly more on the price of the houses they buy. I think that is apparent to anyone with a calculator, but how much extra do they spend? Well, before we advocate for enforcing these energy codes on everyone regardless of their financial status I think calculating these costs is important.

Let’s get into the dollars and cents. Imagine two homes built side-by-side in 2025. Same layout, same finishes, same roof, same foundation—no fancy upgrades, no reclaimed barn-wood accent walls, no “but it comes with a Peloton room” real-estate tricks. The only difference between these houses is energy code compliance. One house follows the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The other is built as if all the energy rules we’ve added over the last 60 years never existed—still completely safe, structurally sound, and fully within normal building code… just without the energy efficiency mandate package layered on top.

According to research from Home Innovation Research Labs, when you build that standard 2,400-square-foot American home to the 2024 IECC, it costs an extra $13,000 to $22,000, with a realistic national average landing around $17,000. That’s not a marble kitchen island. That’s not an upgraded primary bath. That’s just the energy requirements—purely the privilege of meeting the current code.

Where Does the Money Go?

Insulation and air sealing: The national cost data shows that bringing the attic and walls up to 2024 levels adds roughly $5,000 to $6,000 on the average house. That’s before you even get to tightening up the building envelope enough to pass the required blower door test—the test itself plus the sealing labor typically adds another $1,000–$2,000. “Tight as a pickle jar your grandfather closed” is the new metric.

Windows: If the zero-requirements house uses basic single-pane units (which were standard across America for most of the 20th century), and the code-compliant house uses today’s low-E, double-pane windows, you’re looking at another $4,000 to $9,000 in added cost.

This doesn’t include custom steel sash, divided lites, or anything fancy—just normal vinyl or wood windows that meet the required U-factor. Energy codes have turned windows into small computers, and like computers, the price moved accordingly.

Mechanicals: You can’t use the inexpensive water heaters, furnaces, and air conditioning equipment of the past anymore and that adds costs as well. Swapping a basic electric water heater for a heat pump water heater adds about $1,200 to $2,500 depending on brand and capacity—again, totally ordinary, nothing boutique.

Bumping to a 95 AFUE furnace adds roughly $500 to $750. The point is: the code effectively requires one more layer of upgrade beyond insulation and windows.

When you add it all up—insulation, windows, sealing + testing, and that appliance shift—you get the extra $17,000-ish baked into the price of newly built homes across America today. That’s not speculative. That’s not politically spun. That’s literally the invoice.

Whether that cost is “worth it” is a different conversation—and one homeowners, policymakers, and builders should absolutely continue to have. But any honest conversation about housing affordability has to acknowledge that we’ve quietly made the floor more expensive. Not because builders upsold granite. But because the baseline building requirements moved.

Sources (with URLs)

• Home Innovation Research Labs – 2024 IECC Cost Analysis for Single-Family Homes (RSMeans-based)
• NAIMA / Home Innovation Labs – Insulation Costs for New Construction Homes
• DOE / Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – 2024 IECC Determination Technical Support Document

The Veridct

Now we have some numbers associated with the costs of building a home to the current energy codes we can talk about whether we should require these standard or not.

Personally, I feel that affordability and freedom are more important. I would rather we made homes that are more energy efficient. If you are asking me if I would rather have more energy efficient homes or making housing more affordable and allow more lower income people to escape being renters then my answer is an emphatic “No.”

We shouldn’t keep people without financial means from achieving the goal of homeownership so that those of us who can afford it can feel better about lower utility bills.

There are already a wealth of government programs and non-profit organizations that donate weatherization services to poor communities for free or greatly reduced rates. Free insulation, tax credit for energy efficient water heaters and HVAC equipment, rebates for from power companies that make energy wise home improvements much more affordable.

Wouldn’t our time and money be better suited to helping people in this way rather than raising the bar of entry higher and higher each year until only the very richest can afford a home?

Moving Beyond Energy Codes

It’s my opinion that we don’t need energy codes, but rather we need to utilize the wealth of voluntary programs available to us to build beyond the requirements of the code. Those who can afford to build incredibly efficient or net-zero homes have resources like the programs below to guide them on how to build these super homes if they want.

For those who can’t afford these voluntary programs (yet) they can build a basic home that provides the main benefits a home has always provided; shelter and safety, without the expense energy codes create.

Passivhaus

If you want to go all-in on low energy use, Passive House is the granddaddy of voluntary standards. This approach focuses on building a tight house—truly airtight—paired with thick insulation, high-performance windows, and balanced ventilation so the air is always fresh without losing heat or cool.

The result is a house that can use up to 90% less heating energy than a conventional build. There’s no prescribed layout or aesthetic. The design just has to hit the performance metrics. It’s rigorous, but if your goal is absolute efficiency, this is the gold standard.

ENERGY STAR Certified New Homes

Think of ENERGY STAR as “better than code, without going crazy.” It’s a voluntary program from the EPA that focuses on tighter air sealing, proper insulation installation (not just stuffing batts in crooked), and more efficient HVAC and water heating equipment.

A third-party rater tests the house and signs off on it. It’s widely adopted, practical, and a good fit for production builders or anyone who wants a legit efficiency bump without changing their whole building philosophy.

DOE Zero Energy Ready Home

This one takes ENERGY STAR and turns up the dial. A Zero Energy Ready Home is efficient enough that, once you add solar, it can produce as much energy as it consumes over a year. It requires solid envelope performance, better-than-baseline equipment, and good indoor air quality.

It’s a strong option for homeowners who want long-term utility savings and resilience, but still want a normal-looking house that doesn’t scream “experimental lab building at a tech campus.”

LEED for Homes

LEED looks at the house as an ecosystem: energy, water, materials, site selection, and air quality all get weighed. It’s a points-based system, so you can build to Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum depending on how ambitious you feel.

While some builders use LEED mainly for the “sustainability credential,” it does incentivize healthier materials and more thoughtful design choices. It’s broader than the pure energy-focused standards, so this one appeals to people who see the house as a whole-lifestyle environment.

Living Building Challenge

Now this one is the summit attempt. The Living Building Challenge doesn’t just want efficiency—it wants net-positive buildings: producing more energy than they use, collecting their own water, and using materials that avoid a long “Red List” of toxic chemicals.

This is the “no shortcuts, no excuses” standard. It’s not something you stumble into. People pursue LBC because they want their house to be a statement—about environmental stewardship, future-proofing, and doing things extremely well. It’s beautiful, inspiring, and definitely a commitment.

My hope for this post is that it will start some conversations that I feel need to be had. Just going along the same path we are will inevitably lead to housing that becomes more expensive each year and prices more and more of the population out of homeownership.

The goals of housing should be shelter and safety first with efficiency as an option when and if it is affordable. Just like most municipalities offer recycling but don’t require it, or offer composting but don’t require it we should do the same with energy codes. Recommendations not requirements.

We should educate people on the importance of energy efficient homes, but not make it a barrier to entry to those on the bubble. My two cents. Stepping off the soapbox now. Let me hear your thoughts.