End Federally Funded “Net-Zero” Building Codes – Watts Up With That?

From MasterResource

By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton

“The basic structure of EERE, populated by climate alarmists, is beyond redemption. Eradication appears to be the only thorough remedy.”

As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) strives to improve government efficiency, we urge them to look carefully at the“target-rich environment” of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with respect to both building and appliance energy efficiency standards. To this end we emphasize there are two facets: doing the right thing and doing the thing right. After explaining these codes, we offer historical perspective and expertise to assist DOGE in its endeavors.

Some conservative energy policy pundits believe “Net-Zero” policies are rapidly fading away. We disagree, at least with the “rapid.” A case-in-point is the recent growth and funding of biased building energy efficiency codes and performance standards throughout the US.

Over the years, we have focused mainly on appliance energy efficiency codes (as evidenced by the Krebs category archives).  But no one else came forward to cover building energy efficiency codes and performance standards, so we are belatedly taking it on now. This article is intended to correct that issue by introducing the basics:   building energy codes and performance standards and the threats thereof to consumer choice

Welcome to the byzantine world of building energy codes. There are two basic types of building energy codes. The first type is that of codes that can be adopted by state and local authorities that prescribe how residential or commercial buildings should be constructed to reduce energy consumption (or redirect to that bureaucratically deemed “clean”) and thus qualify for getting a building permit (alongside more traditional building safety codes).  The second type of building codes are performance oriented.  These set operating budgets for building energy consumption and/or carbon emissions. Additional details for each type of program are summarized as follows:

A: Essentials of Building Energy Codes & Standards (BECS)

BECS are officially referred to as “voluntary,” and supposedly developed by “consensus,” for state and local governments to implement building energy efficiency requirements. The International Code Council (ICC), through its numerous committees, publishes these codes and generates revenues by selling them to whoever needs them (e.g., code officials, builders, trades, etc.). ICC energy codes are organized and managed under a separate division of the ICC called the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

Jurisdictions seeking to adopt IECC building energy codes can simply adopt the latest version once certified by DOE that they “save energy” under statute and are administrated under DOE’s EERE through their Building Energy Codes Program.” Once published by the ICC, these codes are ready for adoption into state and local building authorities and purchased by whomever. Publication sales represent a major source of ICC’s revenue. State and local code authorities may elect to adopt earlier IECC versions of the IECC codes or take an ala cart approach, picking and choosing an extensive selection of sections and options as they deem appropriate.

 “Consensus” building energy codes have been largely and silently commandeered by EERE which has accelerated under the Biden administration.  “Consensus” comes through “packing the bleachers” of committees with loyalists to further the Net-Zero concept.   Tactics include “improving” building energy efficiency codes through “public/private partnerships.” However, the true cause of Net-Zero policies is to advance electrified “energy efficiency” via “clean” (a.k.a. renewable) energy so that consumers can be more readily controlled.

DOE’s takeover of building efficiency is directly counter to the historical role of ICC energy codes, embodied in the IECC. The IECC includes requirements for residential and commercial buildings that essentially run parallel. Prescriptive building requirements can also be met through alternative “performance” based requirements.

 With a quick look at committee membership rosters, the preponderance of true believers in the Net-Zero cause is obvious. We have identified these committees below:

B: Essentials of Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS)

EERE and their National Labs also develop and fund Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS).  Such set energy and/or emissions budgets that buildings must abide by. These may become more stringent over time and made enforceable by establishing financial penalties for non-performance. By design, BEPS can also be used to generate governmental revenue streams. Energy rationing may also be proposed (see here). Fortunately, BEPS are only applied to larger commercial buildings, so far at least. 

Much of the initial BEPS concept was developed and financed via Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities Climate Challenge program to “award” municipalities with cash to sign-on. The following graphic shows the status of BEPS in 2021:

Source:  Draft ICC proposal to “normalize” BEPS from 2022

Bloomberg’s program was handed over to DOE/EERE via Biden’s (perversely named) “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA) funding. The following map shows the status of BEPS before IRA

Bloomberg American Cities Climate Challenge winning cities

Source:  https://www.bloomberg.org/environment/supporting-sustainable-cities/american-cities-climate-challenge/

The following graphic summarizes the status of BEPS after IRA (as of July 2024):

Source: https://www.imt.org/resources/map-national-bps-coalition-participating-jurisdictions/

The Devil IS the Details

Again, the common theme between BECS and BEPS is the massive/recent intervention by DOE’s EERE, its Labs and its well-financed NGO largesse. Initially, Net-Zero energy objectives were marketed in a manner that basically meant buildings should emit no more carbon than they consume (through fossil fuels).  Under the Biden Administration and its allegiance to the “Paris Accords,” this definition simply became no more carbon emissions period. The following graph shows another reason why:

“Transitioning” energy efficiency to carbon efficiency grows the regulation business

Source: “Electrification – What Does It Mean for Energy Efficiency?

EERE has provided conditional (strings attached) funding to the ICC for a long time.  We have a video clip of EERE trying to buy the ICC that dates to 2009 during an ICC public meeting. The Biden Administration, through its IRA, lavished additional support for Net-Zero funding upon EERE and its National Labs, entities like the ICC and many non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

In turn, EERE and NGOs provide State and local “assistance,” financial and otherwise. For example, DOE’s Inspector General (IG) estimates that DOE’s “energy loan program” is in the range of $400 Billion total.  Unfortunately, DOE’s IG advice was largely ignored, and the paper trail for accounting for such expenditures may be difficult at best to establish.  The following excerpt is from a recent article, ‘Significant Risk of Fraud’: Federal Watchdog Calls for Emergency Halt to Biden’s $400 Billion Energy Loan Fund:

The Department of Energy’s inspector general on Tuesday issued an unprecedented call to suspend the Biden administration’s $400 billion energy loan program, warning that officials aren’t complying with conflict-of-interest rules and that the program carries a “significant risk of fraud.”

This par-for-the course corruption within the Biden Administration was further discussed as follows:

As the above articles illustrate, corruption “flows downhill.” It also applies in the case of EERE’s building energy codes & standards. EERE’s obscenely lavish funding of Net-Zero codes & standards programs and related energy policy objective measures invite corruption and have been “flying under the radar” for too long. Federal funding for codes & standards have also financed grass roots activists for untold years to come to further in fluence state and local governments into adopting “green” building codes, both BECS and BEPS.

Moreover, BECS and BEPS are not mutually exclusive.  Both are often adopted and enforced simultaneously by State and/or municipal “virtue signaling” derived through “other people’s money.” As recently documented by Project Veritas in Throwing Bars of Gold Off the Titanic, the EPA is just as corrupt in its contempt for taxpayers.

Presently, building energy codes and standards do not legitimately serve the best interests of consumers or the environment. By intentionally limiting consumer choice to electric appliances, such policies drive-up utility costs, drive-up construction costs, squander taxpayer dollars and leads to additional overall inflation.

Consequently, these policies (along with their appliance efficiency dictates) violate (at a minimum) the following of President Trump’s Executive Orders (EOs) signed on January 20, 2025. [1]

Traditionally, energy efficiency building codes are predicated upon the scientifically indefensible notion of emissions reductions measured at the site of consumption according to energy-use intensity (EUI) metrics per square foot. Such policies are analogous to professing that energy is created inside of utility meters. Similarly skewed logic would be to reduce the amount of buildings since buildings emit at least 37% of worldwide emissions. More Ukraine’s anyone?

Conversely, the full fuel-cycle (a.k.a., “source”) of energy accounts for most of the upstream losses and emissions needed to deliver energy to consumers is generally (but not always) ignored. Energy building codes typically also work by setting site-based limits on carbon emissions and/or consumption. Subsequently, electric resistance heating is considered “clean” and electric heat pumps can be several times “cleaner.”

While EERE and DOE National Laboratories are authorized to implement Administration energy policies, these entities are not given authority for developing energy policy. They have simply done so, for decades, under the recently debunked “Chevron Doctrine” per the Supreme Court. Adding insult to injury, these taxpayer funded entities are responsible for evaluating their own cost-effectiveness.  This includes so-called “peer reviews” conducted via DOE selection and “management.”

DOE’s National Laboratories and energy efficiency NGOs, receiving Federal funding are likewise not authorized via statue to implement Net-Zero building codes. Neither are they authorized by statute to cajole state and jurisdictions into adopting them. They just do it because nobody stops them. Unwittingly or otherwise, mainstream political “leaders” tend to ignore it all and don’t seem to even think about the effect un consumers. Or if they do think about it, it’s because the DNC directs them to “get on board.”

Midway Review

So far, absorbing this stream of information is probably like “drinking from a fire hose.”  Therefore, let’s recap before we get “back in the weeds.”  Major roles of these entities are summarized as follows:

1. With EERE funding, ICC manages “consensus” committees to develop codes and publish the result codes, but “packs the IECC committee rosters” by appointing NGO representatives with vested interests to Biden Administration Net-Zero policy goals
2. NGO’s, along with National Lab representatives, serve simultaneously as code change proponents, voting committee members, and evaluators of cost effectiveness of their proposals. [2]
3. NGO’s also pressure state and local entities to adopt these codes, aided by EERE funding inducements to limit state and local amendment to Administration energy policy goals. 

To reiterate our main contention, the Net-Zero myopic objective to eliminate non-electric energy. Some states and cities are further indoctrinated than others and have moved much closer to BECS and BEPS that are biased towards electrification predominately (in theory) powered by renewables but irrespective of overall consumer cost effectiveness (or the lack thereof). Even if they say it is, it’s not about reducing consumer costs.  It’s about reducing consumer emissions by controlling what they can and can’t do in accordance with “higher order” dictates from the UN and/or some other “new world order” directive.

Additionally, DOE also “helps” (fund) states and local jurisdictions with grants to implement these policies and to “train” code officials. A partial list of DOE’s help can be viewed at their Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP) titled  Inflation Reduction Act Support for Building Energy Codes and Innovative Codes – Round 1.

Although never clearly stated, emission limits, like appliance minimum efficiency limits, may increase in severity over time and can also easily be made enforceable to generate additional revenue for state and/or local jurisdictions, [3] For a more extensive list of SCEP- funded programs, see State and Community Energy Programs News & Blogs.

“Back to the Weeds”

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is another player in developing building codes and standards.  Regarding, building energy efficiency, ASHRAE’s primary leading building energy efficiency “guidance” is through their Standard 90.1, titled Energy Standard for Sites and Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.  According to google AI:

ASHRAE 90.1 does not directly compete with the IECC commercial codes, but rather serves as the underlying standard that the IECC often references for commercial building energy efficiency requirements, meaning that while they are both related to commercial building energy codes, the IECC acts as the adopted code by states while ASHRAE 90.1 provides the technical basis for those requirements; essentially, the IECC is a “model code” that incorporates aspects of ASHRAE 90.1 to set its compliance standards. 

Given the length and complexity of this article, we have chosen not to explain ASHRAE 90.1 any further; at least not now. Suffice it to say, ASHRAE 90.1 is equally byzantine and infiltrated as IECC.

While and BECS and BEPS programs may be predominately associated with Democrat-governed regions, they are not necessarily restricted to them. Regardless, the amount of these activities is growing largely due to contractually obligated funding already released during the Biden Administration. Another source for more in-depth and current information be obtained from the U.S. Climate Alliance Climate Policy Database:

The U.S. Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of twenty-four governors committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The Climate Policy Database is maintained by the U.S. Climate Alliance Secretariat with support from the United Nations Foundation.

Conclusions & Proposed Action Plan

The building real-estate market has become far from free, and this market is becoming less free as a function of increasing regulations as recognized by President Trump’s EOs listed above (with excerpts in the endnotes). The referees, in the form of policy-driven regulatory agencies and officials, have been routinely bought and paid for. The rules, in the form of advocacy-driven requirements upon the market, are rigged and the bleachers have been packed to further the Net-Zero agenda of the Biden Administration and their vast parasitic largess.

 We have attended many hearings over many years regarding electric utility regulation and building codes & standards. The climate alarmistsoperate within the spectrum between a cult and the occult. They have become permanent fixtures as major stakeholders. 

Some of the more regular climate change alarmists NGO’s include: New Buildings Institute (NBI), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), Institute for Market Transformation (IMT), Sierra Club, Energy Efficient Codes Coalition (EECC), Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP), etc. We have witnessed many of these entities packing the bleachers and issuing their members with instructions about how to vote. Any free-market opposition is usually scarce to non-existent.

The basic structure of EERE, populated by climate alarmists, is beyond redemption. Eradication appears to be the only thorough remedy. Clawing back funding Is also appropriate but may be much easier said than done. Only time (and effort) will tell. On January 27, 2025, OMB issued a memo to all Federal agencies ordering a “Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs.” (Since withdrawn, the handwriting is one the wall regarding EERE.) The following day, President Trump offered an eight-month salary severance package to all Federal workers. At a minimum, there should be zero tolerance for failure to obey the OMB memo and should result in immediate termination without severance.

Comprehensively correcting this situation starts with “following the money.” This includes identifying and targeting EERE’s appropriations to develop Net-Zero code provisions and related policies through support of code-making bodies (i.e., ICC and their “energy efficiency” NGO cronies). Federal Lab supporting NetZero code as and standards under EERE include Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory (LBNL), and others.

With Trump back in office, such State and local hearings are likely where most of the near-future battles will be fought for at least the next four years. The problem is a general lack of organized free-market push-back against the “usual suspects.” 

My article “Green” Weaponization in Missouri: Ameren vs. Ratepayers, Taxpayers provides a good case-in-point. Similar situations are playing out around the country. This lack of free-market representation is a major shortcoming that must be resolved. While there are numerous conservative organizations around the US, none are presently organized to effectively respond to the climate alarmists active at the State and local levels, especially when it comes to energy/regulatory intervention matters.

We need a plan. After all, “failure to plan is planning to fail.” Any ideas regarding who/ how this problem would be appreciated by leaving comments and suggestions below.

Numerous smaller localized “grass roots” NGOs are also involved in promoting Net-Zero codes and standards.   Given the sheer numbers of these small entities around the country receiving DOE funding, they could be too numerous to fully identify (example here).

Given the extent that Federal Net-Zero funding has already been distributed and disbursed to States and local-based NGOs, such funding may not be recoverable either.  Regardless, we will never know until we try. A serious effort should be made with equally serious funding to do so.

Significant efforts will also be required ascertaining, to the extent possible, EERE monies contractually spent through National Labs, subcontracting or direct grants to NGOs, etc. Federal Labs chartered missions should also be compared to actual lab activities to determine their true authority to develop Net-Zero technical assets. We expect to find a large discontinuity of mission versus actions and considerable use of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests will likely be necessary to dig out the details.

The new Trump Administration is strongly focused on “America first.” And that means American citizens first whose wallets have been viewed as a collective ATM by and for the administrative state for WAY too long.

The result of our recommendations should be to provide a better understanding of where and how much taxpayer dollars have and are being spent pursuing Net Zero fantasies. Knowing such details should guide funding recovery efforts. The fruits of these labors are expected to significantly assist the achievement of the Trump EOs, discussed above.  

A secondary purpose of this project is to set the stage for a much-needed congressional hearing to investigate Federal funded building energy efficiency codes & standards programs. If nothing else comes of it, at a minimum, we urge that a firewall be erected to separate EE from RE.

Per our opening paragraph, the goals of DOE/EERE have morphed over time and the objectives of saving consumers money and of saving energy are often lost in the dust. As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) strives to improve government efficiency, we urge them to look carefully at the “target-rich environment” of DOE/EERE with respect to both building and appliance energy efficiency standards. To this end we emphasize there are two facets: doing the right thing and doing the thing right. Our discussions are intended to explain these codes “as simply as possible but no simpler.” We offer our historical perspective and expertise to assist DOGE in its endeavors.

Someone once said: “If you’re not at the table, you’re probably on the menu.” In the world of building efficiency codes and performance codes and standards, just being a token guest at the table will not suffice.  The reason is because the majority participants already have reached consensus to pursue Net-Zero. While we strongly support President Trumps EO’s regarding unleashing America’s energy, there is room for improvement. One of those improvements would be to prohibit the use of site-based energy efficiency metrics, or at least those “under the influence’ of all Federal Agencies.

——————————–

Mark Krebs ([email protected]), a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has worked in energy efficiency design and program evaluation for well over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness and/or commenter in scores of State and Federal energy efficiency proceedings and has been an advisor to DOE. Mark, a Principal at MasterResource, has authored dozens of articles on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” policy. Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy, Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services (GAAS) with other veteran energy analysts.

Tom Tanton ([email protected]) is a Director of the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute. Mr. Tanton has 45 years in energy and environmental policy, focused on enabling technology choice and economic development. Mr. Tanton has testified to numerous state Legislatures and Congress as an expert on energy policy. He formerly served as Principal Policy Advisor at the California Energy Commission.

———————-

[1] Executive Order: “Unleashing American Energy” (key excerpts):

These high energy costs devastate American consumers by driving up the cost of transportation, heating, utilities, farming, and manufacturing, while weakening our national security.

(d) to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are grounded in clearly applicable law;

(f)  to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and to promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries;

(h)  to guarantee that all executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide opportunity for public comment and rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis;

Sec. 3.  Immediate Review of All Agency Actions that Potentially Burden the Development of Domestic Energy Resources.  (a)  The heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and any other agency actions (collectively, agency actions) to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources — or that are otherwise inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including restrictions on consumer choice of vehicles and appliances.

(c)  Any assets, funds, or resources allocated to an entity or program abolished by subsection (a) of this section shall be redirected or disposed of in accordance with applicable law. 

(b) The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was established pursuant to Executive Order 13990, is hereby disbanded, and any guidance, instruction, recommendation, or document issued by the IWG is withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy….

Executive Order: “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” Key excerpts:

Moreover, many Americans are unable to purchase homes due to historically high prices, in part due to regulatory requirements that alone account for 25 percent of the cost of constructing a new home according to recent analysis.

I hereby order the heads of all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the American people and increase the prosperity of the American worker.  This shall include pursuing appropriate actions to:  lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply; eliminate unnecessary administrative expenses and rent-seeking practices that increase healthcare costs; eliminate counterproductive requirements that raise the costs of home appliances; create employment opportunities for American workers, including drawing discouraged workers into the labor force; and eliminate harmful, coercive “climate” policies that increase the costs of food and fuel.

[2] Representatives of energy utilities may also serve on committees.  However, such utility representation is usually by electric utilities as most gas utilities have either been acquired by electric utilities and/or lost most of its building code expertise in recent years.

[3] Big buildings are a climate problem. These policies aim to fix that; Does Federal EPCA Trump Colorado Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS)?\; Citizens and Businesses Join Suing Maryland to Halt BEPS