A dramatic shift in the Department of Energy’s approach to building energy codes raises a bigger question: What happens when trust in the process starts to disappear?
There are certainly people who will point to the 2021 IECC’s development process as the moment when trust made its move towards the proverbial door. At least, when it comes to energy codes. I would disagree, since an audit conducted by the International Code Council (ICC) found that no rules were broken and that the 2021 model code was legitimate. However, the ICC was persuaded to overhaul their energy code development process in the immediate aftermath, which cast an undeserved shadow over the 2021 IECC outcome.
In the instance cited above, the controversy centered around a code that some felt moved too drastically in the direction of deep energy efficiency measures. In my opinion, a recent decision by the Department of Energy has the potential to dramatically change the landscape of energy codes in a far more negative manner. In late June 2026, DoE released analysis under this headline:“Energy Department Analysis Finds Proposed International Building Codes Would Cost Americans $9.2 Billion Annually”. One has to read no further than the sub-heading to understand this was not a technical decision, but a political one.
For context, this is a DoE that rebranded the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) into the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI). This is a DoE that is putting its funding towards chemical technologies, critical minerals and "space photovoltaic technologies". This is a DoE lead by someone who spent his career in the oil and gas/fracking industry. Sustainability and renewable energy are not high on the priority list, if they’re even on there at all.
Now, against this backdrop, the Energy Star Program transitions from the EPA to DoE. Eliminating the Program is politically untenable, so will this be an opportunity to merely de-prioritize a multi-decade, pioneering initiative? Will its funding get whittled away in favor of “space PV”, the impossible pursuit of “clean” coal or the bolstering of fossil fuels?
What was once an agency respected around the world has now become one whose motives are questioned. Rebuilding trust in the agency is an enormous hurdle to overcome. Before that can happen, DoE needs to return to being an agency that cares about an innovative energy future, not one that clings to past technologies.
Mike Collignon, author of our Code Watch and Housing 2.0 Program Manager, is Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Green Builder Coalition, a not-for-profit association dedicated to amplifying the voice of green builders and professionals to drive advocacy and education for more sustainable homebuilding practices.
DOE's 2024 IECC Analysis Puts Trust in the Agency to the Test
A dramatic shift in the Department of Energy’s approach to building energy codes raises a bigger question: What happens when trust in the process starts to disappear?
There are certainly people who will point to the 2021 IECC’s development process as the moment when trust made its move towards the proverbial door. At least, when it comes to energy codes. I would disagree, since an audit conducted by the International Code Council (ICC) found that no rules were broken and that the 2021 model code was legitimate. However, the ICC was persuaded to overhaul
their energy code development process in the immediate aftermath, which cast an undeserved shadow over the 2021 IECC outcome.
In the instance cited above, the controversy centered around a code that some felt moved too drastically in the direction of deep energy efficiency measures. In my opinion, a recent decision by the Department of Energy has the potential to dramatically change the landscape of energy codes in a far more negative manner. In late June 2026, DoE released analysis under this headline:“Energy
Department Analysis Finds Proposed International Building Codes Would Cost Americans $9.2 Billion Annually”. One has to read no further than the sub-heading to understand this was not a technical decision, but a political one.
For many years, the DoE would perform an analysis after an energy code was published to determine how much more energy efficient it was than its predecessor. At no point was there any complaint, challenge or opposition by DoE on what was developed through ICC’s consensus process. They merely assessed what they were given, and the resulting determinations gave states the confidence to move forward with adoption of the latest code (often with state or local amendments). Now we’re all of a sudden supposed to believe that the 2024 IECC is so egregiously oppressive that it’s going to cost the American people over $125 billion?
is a DoE lead by someone who spent his career in the oil and gas/fracking industry. Sustainability and renewable energy are not high on the priority list, if they’re even on there at all.
Now, against this backdrop, the Energy Star Program transitions from the EPA to DoE. Eliminating the Program is politically untenable, so will this be an opportunity to merely de-prioritize a multi-decade, pioneering initiative? Will its funding get whittled away in favor of “space PV”, the impossible pursuit of “clean” coal or the bolstering of fossil fuels?
What was once an agency respected around the world has now become one whose motives are questioned. Rebuilding trust in the agency is an enormous hurdle to overcome. Before that can happen, DoE needs to return to being an agency that cares about an innovative energy future, not one that clings to past technologies.
By Mike Collignon
Mike Collignon, author of our Code Watch and Housing 2.0 Program Manager, is Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Green Builder Coalition, a not-for-profit association dedicated to amplifying the voice of green builders and professionals to drive advocacy and education for more sustainable homebuilding practices.Also Read