Happy new year… or is it? I’m back with my annual energy code outlook blog to share the good, the bad, and the political intrigue.
For the past few years, energy codes benefited from unusual alignment of federal attention and funding. Through programs tied to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, resources flowed to activities like code adoption, technical assistance, and workforce development. That infusion put energy codes in a spotlight, encouraging states and localities to update their standards and enabling a wide ecosystem of organizations to support that work
That moment has largely passed. Federal funding has narrowed, has been contested, and, in many cases, has been terminated altogether. In the same breath, equity and climate have seemingly become political liabilities rather than political priorities, at least at the federal level. What felt like an exciting landmark moment of progress and promise has swung hard in the other direction.
But it’s not all bad. In fact energy codes still progressed in very real ways, with states all over the country continuing to lead where federal momentum has faltered. Here’s some highlights from 2025:
2025 adoption highlights
Colorado took a big step forward by publishing their Model Low Energy and Carbon code, a modified version of the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which will be the state’s new minimum energy code in July of this year. The code uses amended performance pathways and requirements that improve competitiveness for high-efficiency electric systems (like heat pumps) compared to fossil gas-based systems as part of a broader strategy to cut emissions and align construction practices with state climate goals. While Colorado is a home rule state with no statewide energy code, cities and counties in Colorado will be required to adopt the code when updating their local buildings codes, unless they want to adopt something even more advanced.
Illinois continues their midwestern leadership streak. The state adopted the 2024 IECC as its base energy code in November 2025. IMT supported that process by recommending language ensuring the fair treatment of efficient electric appliances in both the commercial and residential codes. Illinois is now working to finalize its Stretch Energy Code—a voluntary, higher performance option for municipalities seeking deeper efficiency gains. Expect to see that code published later in 2026.
Rhode Island led the Northeast by being the first in the region to adopt the 2024 IECC, along with electric ready provisions for residential and commercial buildings. Several other northeastern states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York—are actively pursuing 2024 IECC adoption efforts as well. NEEP’s Regional Roundup offers a great snapshot of how that is playing out across the Northeast.
These updates show that energy codes are still moving forward in meaningful ways, even amid federal pullback and political headwinds. But that progress is increasingly uneven, and in many states it’s being met with direct legislative resistance. That brings me to what I’m watching most closely in the 2026 legislative sessions.
What to look for in the 2026 legislative cycle
Instead of debating how strong new energy codes should be, some states are debating the pace of change itself, turning what has historically been a (more or less) continuous improvement system into something more static. My home state of Missouri has revived efforts to drastically limit energy codes: HB 2384 would prevent jurisdictions in this home rule state from adopting energy codes that exceed the stringency of the 2009 IECC. While last year’s version of the same bill was unsuccessful, it moved quickly through the legislature and HB 2384 seems to be following a similar trajectory based on its early movement.
In a similar vein, HB 2141 in Washington would freeze state building and energy code updates for a decade. LB 1134 in Nebraska would halt the adoption of energy codes in localities that are more stringent than the state code until 2031. These bills are similar in spirit to North Carolina HB 488 (2023) and California’s AB 130 (2025), both of which effectively froze residential building code updates until 2031. Taken together, this “freeze” approach is becoming a recurring legislative strategy, and something to pay attention to in this and future legislative sessions.
Contrasting that trend are LB 800 in Nebraska, HB 1180 in New Hampshire, and HB 65 in Utah, all of which would move their states toward adopting the 2024 IECC as the statewide energy code baseline. While there is no guarantee this early in session that any of these bills will advance, this contrast is interesting. Energy codes in the U.S. have always been something of a patchwork and it seems that the patchwork could be splitting at the seams.
Even as some states work to slow or freeze energy codes, the code development process has continued to grind forward, defining what the next generation of model energy codes will be, whether states are ready for them or not.
2027 IECC shifts in 2026
After the 2024 IECC was published in late 2024, development of the 2027 IECC kicked into full gear in 2025 under the International Code Council’s (ICC) consensus committee model. By the end of 2025, the foundational work was completed: code change proposals were collected through public comment and acted upon by the committees, a Public Comment Draft was developed, and substantive technical comments were collected. The work continues into 2026, with the consensus committees and subcommittees reviewing the comments received on Public Comment Draft #1 and determining which revisions to incorporate into the next draft. Once that review is complete, the process will move into another round of balloting and resolution of negative votes. The ICC is currently targeting a final publication date of December 2026.
This cycle is distinctive because the IECC is being developed under a standards-based consensus process rather than a governmental consensus process, as was the case prior to the 2024 cycle and still applies for all other I-codes. The Energy Efficiency Codes Coalition has described the new process as involving “a bigger time commitment, greater opportunity for discussion and refining of changes, less code official participation, very little improvement to energy efficiency, and a lot of process confusion.” Frankly, I agree. There has been a little bit of good alongside a whole lot of frustration…which is why it was hard not to raise an incredulous eyebrow when the ICC Board of Directors announced yet another round of process changes for the IECC.
Dare I even mention the 2030 IECC?
The ICC Board of Directors released a draft 2030 Scope and Intent proposal that would significantly restructure the model energy code. It proposes a two-tier structure for the IECC framework: a streamlined core code intended to function as the minimum efficiency baseline, and a separate “IECC Expanded” (IECC-X) pathway, would allow for more advanced performance and emissions-focused provisions intended for jurisdictions willing to adopt more ambitious requirements.
Unsurprisingly, the proposal has stirred a lot of interest. This is the second time in recent memory the Board has opted to significantly change the rules with respect to IECC development. Here’s how I see it: at best, this approach could reduce development process warfare and create a clearer on-ramp for jurisdictions that want more from their energy code than bare minimum energy performance—assuming, of course, they can actually adopt the expanded version. At worst, it risks weakening the base energy code while producing an “expanded” version that may be difficult to adopt in some jurisdictions, depending on how state statutes or rules reference the IECC.
I plan to explore this in more detail in a future blog. If you’re eager to learn more, check out this post from the New Buildings Institute. In the meantime, start drafting your comments to the ICC because they’re due February 15th and your voice matters.
Energy codes are being pulled away from their original role as a practical tool for improving building performance and reducing energy use. They have become widely politicized and increasingly contested, even as severe weather shows the value of energy efficient buildings for resilience and controlling utility costs. The next few years will determine whether energy codes remain a vehicle for steady progress or become a battleground where progress stalls under the weight of politics, process changes, and uneven adoption.
Either way I’ll be here, obscenely over-caffeinated and cautiously optimistic, pushing for progress.
