Notice2026-08646
Updating and Improving the Methodology for Assessing Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy Codes
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 4, 2026
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
Building energy codes have significantly increased the costs of building a home and extended average consumer payback periods. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prioritized affordability in housing and new construction across the U.S., including taking swift action via building codes to lower construction costs and deliver greater value to American households and businesses. As part of this effort, DOE is seeking input on its methodology for assessing consumer impacts associated with residential and commercial building energy codes, toward the objective of ensuring transparency in building energy code evaluations. As directed by statute, DOE conducts technical analysis to quantify consumer cost increases associated with building energy codes, as well as the related savings. DOE requests feedback on its analysis methodology, data sources, and assumptions. In addition, DOE welcomes a critical examination of how to broadly reduce the cost of new construction and reduce regulatory burden to improve housing affordability and consumer choice.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 85 (Monday, May 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23982-23987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08646]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[EERE-2026-BT-BC-0034]
Updating and Improving the Methodology for Assessing
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy Codes
AGENCY: Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department
of Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Building energy codes have significantly increased the costs
of building a home and extended average consumer payback periods. The
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prioritized affordability in
housing and new construction across the U.S., including taking swift
action via building codes to lower construction costs and deliver
greater value to American households and businesses. As part of this
effort, DOE is seeking input on its methodology for assessing consumer
impacts associated with residential and commercial building energy
codes, toward the objective of ensuring transparency in building energy
code evaluations. As directed by statute, DOE conducts technical
analysis to quantify consumer cost increases associated with building
energy codes, as well as the related savings. DOE requests feedback on
its analysis methodology, data sources, and assumptions. In addition,
DOE welcomes a critical examination of how to broadly reduce the cost
of new construction and reduce regulatory burden to improve housing
affordability and consumer choice.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE may hold stakeholder workshop(s) associated with this
request for information. See section IV, ``Public Participation,'' for
registration information and participant instructions.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested by August
3, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE-2026-BT-BC-0034, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c4e60686b4962697e6b754f6368697f4169786463686360636b753e3c3e3a4e4f3c3c3f384c696922686369226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a18363e3d1f343f283d2319353e3f29173f2e32353e3536353d23686a686c18196a6a696e1a3f3f743e353f743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>. Include
EERE-2026-BT-BC-0034 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies
Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items
on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section IV of this document.
Public Docket: The docket, which includes notices published in the
Federal Register and public comments received, is available for review
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information exempt from public disclosure, may
not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2026-BT-BC-0034">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2026-BT-BC-0034</a>. The docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremy Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI), Building
[[Page 23983]]
Technologies Office CM-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585; Phone: (202) 287-1941, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5afa0b7a0a8bcebb2aca9a9aca4a8b685a0a0eba1aaa0eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b212e392e2632653c222727222a26380b2e2e652f242e652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.
For legal matters, contact: Laura Zuber; U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (240) 306-7651, Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3458554146551a4e41565146745c451a505b511a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9df1fce8effcb3e7e8fff8efddf5ecb3f9f2f8b3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. DOE Methodology for Evaluating Building Energy Codes Cost
Savings
III. Issues on Which DOE Is Seeking Feedback
IV. Public Participation
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Section 307(b) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act
(ECPA), as amended, directs DOE to periodically review the technical
and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes, and to
participate in industry processes for their review and modification
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6836(b)). DOE establishes robust technical
methods and makes its analysis available to the public to ensure
transparency to industry consensus bodies--the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) \1\ and ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,\2\
respectively--as well as states and local jurisdictions who are
ultimately responsible for adopting and implementing building codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As administered by the International Code Council (ICC).
\2\ As administered by the American Society for Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in cooperation
with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This request for information (RFI) seeks public input on DOE's
methodology for assessing the consumer impacts of building energy
codes, increasing transparency, and improving affordability of new
construction. This notice is intended to solicit feedback on the
overall methodology and on several specific questions outlined later in
this document.
This RFI directly supports federal efforts to reduce regulatory
burden and increase housing affordability for American homes and
businesses. President Trump recently issued an Executive order aimed at
making housing more affordable for Americans, stating, ``[l]ayers of
unnecessary regulatory barriers, slow permitting processes, and onerous
mandates at all levels of government have delayed construction,
restricted development, and driven up the costs of new housing.''
Executive Order 14394 of March 13, 2026, Removing Regulatory Barriers
to Affordable Home Construction, 91 FR 13207 (Mar. 18, 2026). In
addition, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently
issued an RFI seeking to identify ideas for deregulation across the
U.S., including inviting comments on any regulations currently in
effect. 90 FR 15481 (Apr. 11, 2025). As part of that OMB effort,
stakeholders identified DOE's cost methodology and analysis as an
opportunity to improve transparency and foster consumer affordability
through building codes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2025-0003-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2025-0003-0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has previously requested similar input on its methodology
through related RFIs. See 78 FR 47677 (Aug. 6, 2013; 79 FR 27778 (May
15, 2014); and 80 FR 59757 (Oct. 2, 2015). Since establishing its
methodology, DOE has continued to update it by collaborating with the
IECC and Standard 90.1 technical committees, and by seeking continued
input. DOE intends to continue to use its methodology to evaluate
updated model building energy codes, particularly the IECC and Standard
90.1, as well as updated state and local building codes.
II. DOE Methodology for Evaluating Building Energy Codes Costs and
Savings
This section provides an overview of DOE methodology and technical
analysis. DOE defines residential buildings in a manner consistent with
the IECC \4\--one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise
(three stories or less above grade) multifamily residential buildings--
and, similarly, DOE defines commercial buildings in a manner consistent
with both ASHRAE Standard 90.1 \5\ and the commercial provisions of the
IECC \6\--buildings except one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses,
and low-rise (three stories or less above grade) multifamily
residential buildings. DOE's methodology centers on the perspective of
American households and businesses. DOE relies on key metrics
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ International Code Council. 2024 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC). Available at: <a href="https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2024P1/index">https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2024P1/index</a>.
\5\ American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2022: Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
Available at: <a href="https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-90-1">https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-90-1</a>.
\6\ International Code Council. 2024 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC). Available at: <a href="https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2024P1/index">https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2024P1/index</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Incremental consumer costs ($)--net increase in initial
capital costs associated with energy efficiency, such as equipment
upgrades or additional energy efficiency measures (e.g., wall
insulation).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Incremental consumer costs are also often referenced as
``first costs'' or ``upfront costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Annual energy cost savings ($)--energy cost savings
experienced by the consumer on an annual basis, such as through
increased energy efficiency and an associated reduction in household
utility bills.
<bullet> Payback period (years)--a straightforward calculation of
incremental consumer costs divided by annual energy cost savings.
<bullet> Life-cycle cost analysis ($)--a more comprehensive
accounting of net cost savings, typically over a 30-year period,\8\
that considers energy savings and capital investments as financed
through a typical mortgage.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Commensurate with the typical homeowner mortgage period.
\9\ Life-cycle cost analysis provides a more comprehensive
accounting of costs experienced by the consumer, such as increased
mortgage costs, tax impacts, residual values, maintenance and
replacement costs, and other parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also conducts cash flow analysis that evaluates net annual cost
outlays (e.g., the difference between annual energy cost savings and
increased annual costs for mortgage payments). This analysis helps
identify years to positive cash flow, which is of primary interest to
households and businesses as they consider energy efficiency upgrades
and related capital investments.
DOE's approach to evaluating the net costs of energy efficiency
measures involves discounting future savings and costs to a present
value. This multistep process entails: (1) estimating the initial
investments or incremental consumer costs of the changed provision(s);
\10\ (2) estimating the energy savings of the changed code
provision(s); and (3) calculating the corresponding economic impacts of
the changed provision(s), including net consumer cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Often referenced as the ``upfront costs'' or ``first
costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current methodology, as applied to residential and commercial
building energy codes, is available for review at <a href="http://www.energycodes.gov/methodology">www.energycodes.gov/methodology</a>.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/residential_methodology_2024.pdf">https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/residential_methodology_2024.pdf</a> for residential buildings and
<a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/Commercial_Cost_Effective_Method_2024.pdf">https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/Commercial_Cost_Effective_Method_2024.pdf</a> for commercial buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23984]]
III. Issues on Which DOE Is Seeking Feedback
This section outlines several areas of opportunity and specific
issues on which DOE is seeking input.
A. Issues Related to Estimating Costs of Code Updates
1. Costs to Consumers
DOE is seeking input to ensure consumer costs are accurately
reflected in analysis. Historically, to estimate incremental costs, DOE
has relied on prominent and publicly available sources like RS
Means,\12\ online catalogues, retail home improvement stores, journal
articles, ENERGY STAR[supreg] cost summaries, and published research
studies, as well as data produced by professional cost estimating
firms. DOE considers different aspects when estimating these costs,
including unit measurement, quantity, material cost, labor cost,
overhead and profit, additional engineering and design, and additional
considerations for unique measures, such as building and systems
commissioning. However, obtaining costs from disparate sources can lead
to inconsistencies. For instance, some sources may more closely reflect
a wholesale cost to a builder rather than the final cost paid by the
consumer. DOE is seeking suggestions for cost data and other
considerations to more accurately reflect the real market costs paid by
consumers (Topic Q01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ RS Means is a prominently relied upon source of cost data
containing traditional estimates of material, labor, and equipment
costs, plus regional adjustment factors accounting for volatility of
pricing in markets across the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cost Database
While DOE develops its own cost estimates, industry stakeholders
and code development committees typically are limited to publicly
available data to develop cost estimates for potential code changes. No
centralized cost estimate database for code measures currently exists;
however, such a resource could potentially help increase transparency
of cost data sources, streamline cost analyses throughout the industry,
and ultimately lead to data that is more reflective of the costs paid
by consumers. DOE has previously received feedback that such a database
would benefit the industry and would better capture and create
uniformity around building energy efficiency expenditures faced by
households and businesses. DOE is seeking feedback on the need for a
publicly available database that estimates real market costs to
consumers from building energy code measures (Topic Q02).
3. Regional Differences
Regional differences, such as builder construction practices and
weather conditions, can also create a barrier to developing incremental
cost data that applies to the entire country. For instance, certain
materials that may be common and comparatively cheap in the Midwest may
be rarely used or require additional transportation expenses in the
Southeast. Further, labor markets differ across the U.S., particularly
in terms of construction volume and access to skilled labor, which has
a significant impact on construction cost. DOE is seeking feedback on
how to better consider and incorporate regional differences when
evaluating real market costs to consumers, and suggestions for data
that demonstrate those regional differences (Topic Q03).
B. Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code Updates
1. Economic Benefits to Consumers
Estimating energy savings associated with energy efficiency
measures typically requires the use of energy modeling simulation
software. This approach is also used when evaluating a combination of
energy measures, such as an entire code update, because the measures
may have interactive effects (e.g., increased insulation and more
efficient lighting reduce heating loads which may reduce overall HVAC
system size). However, there are some instances where it is not
possible to model a measure, typically when it is either not a
technology or material that has been added to the modeling software or
if the measure does not provide direct energy efficiency cost savings
but, rather, other benefits, such as energy demand cost savings. In
addition, stakeholders commonly express the desire to evaluate
additional benefits to consumers, such as increased durability,
comfort, productivity, and disaster resistance, and building code
requirements are often proposed upon an assumption of such benefits.
However, standardized and uniform methods for evaluating such impacts--
and quantifying related consumer costs--are not well established or
accepted across the industry. DOE is seeking suggestions for data and
analysis approaches that more accurately reflect economic benefits to
consumers (Topic Q04).
2. Utility Costs and Energy Metrics
When evaluating building codes or individual measures at the
national level, industry and technical committees typically attempt to
identify costs that most closely represent the average cost paid by
consumers across the country or a given region. Historically, for
national-level analyses DOE used average blended energy costs that are
based on the most recent full-year, publicly available data from the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), whereas state-level
analysis uses state-specific average blended energy costs from the most
recent full-year data from EIA. While state-specific analyses can more
closely reflect regional variability in utility costs, the national-
level analyses do not capture this variation, which could lead to an
overgeneralization of energy cost savings since utility costs vary
dramatically across the country. DOE is considering evaluating
additional metrics beyond energy costs, site energy, and source energy,
and plans to add full fuel cycle energy. Additionally, DOE is
particularly interested in better reflecting consumer costs for single-
family homes and plans to more clearly delineate impacts between
single-family and multifamily buildings in its analysis. DOE is seeking
suggestions for data and metrics that could more accurately reflect
energy costs to consumers and the appropriateness of considering
regional differences in energy costs (Topic Q05).
3. Prototype Models
DOE develops a set of prototype building models that are used to
assess the energy- and cost-savings from residential and commercial
codes and code changes. These prototype models are intended to be
representative of the U.S. building stock across all U.S. regions based
on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The single-family home prototype
is a two-story 2,376 ft\2\ building based on recent average home size
for single-family construction. DOE maintains a similar prototype for
multifamily construction and is considering adding additional options
to its suite of residential prototypes, such as a smaller single-family
home that could help better represent the range of housing options.
Commercial prototypes encompass a larger variety of buildings--from
small, medium, and large offices to outpatient healthcare to non-
refrigerated warehouses--that cover approximately 75 percent of new
construction commercial building floor area in the United States. Given
the plan to rapidly expand data center construction in the U.S.,\13\
DOE is considering adding a data center
[[Page 23985]]
prototype, as well as other commercial building types that could aid
the industry in evaluating construction costs. DOE is seeking
suggestions for adding new or reconfiguring existing prototype
buildings to better evaluate affordability and reflect the makeup of
the residential and commercial buildings market (Topic Q06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ``Winning the Race, America's AI Action Plan (July
2025); available at <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Affordability of Code
Changes
1. Affordability Metrics
Consumer costs are a primary consideration for DOE to improve
analyses on consumer affordability, choice, and purchasing power.
Metrics could focus on upfront affordability, ongoing monthly
affordability, long-term affordability, affordability relative to
changing residential energy costs, and the ability to make use of
abundant available energy sources while safeguarding consumer choice.
For example, expanded analysis could include affordability impacts on
first-time homeowners, new businesses, and average household economics,
or the effect of energy price and utility bill volatility on consumer
affordability. Similar metrics could be applied to commercial buildings
to evaluate affordability for business owners. DOE is seeking feedback
on the appropriateness of considering additional metrics that better
demonstrate expanded impacts on consumer affordability, consumer
choice, and purchasing power (Topic Q07).
2. Cost-Effectiveness Approach
The industry technical committees that develop building energy
codes rely upon a number of different approaches and metrics for
calculating consumer costs and evaluating affordability impacts. For
instance, some approaches for evaluating proposed code updates are
based on a simple payback period, or establish a payback threshold
(e.g., 5-year payback). The ASHRAE Standard 90.1 technical committee
uses the ``scalar ratio'' method,\14\ which is a ratio of savings to
investment and is typically applied to commercial investment scenarios.
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) considers the time value of money and
includes a discount rate (i.e., discounts the value of future energy
cost savings). Federal cost-analysis principles specify a life-cycle
costing method, outlined in OMB Circular A-94, which accounts for
incremental costs and savings and present values, and discounts the
value of future savings. DOE's cost analyses have historically included
all the methods listed above and, in addition to discount rate, DOE's
approach factors in parameters such as energy price escalation rates,
income tax, and mortgage rates, among others. DOE is seeking input on
appropriate discount rates and payback periods, including potential
thresholds for payback periods. While DOE favors including all the
calculations above to remain responsive to the full range of federal,
state, and local laws and requirements, the Department seeks feedback
on this topic and the potential for new approaches (Topic Q08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ McBride, Development of Economic Scalar Ratios for ASHRAE
Standards 90.1 (year), available at <a href="https://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/2010-Florida-Energy-Code/901_Scalar_Ratio_Development.pdf">https://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/2010-Florida-Energy-Code/901_Scalar_Ratio_Development.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Evaluation Period
Individual code change proposals are typically evaluated according
to their expected measure-life, or how long they are expected to last
before needing to be replaced, and based on the costs and benefits to
the consumer. For commercial buildings, ASHRAE 90.1's Scalar Ratio
method considers equipment like rooftop air conditioners on an 18-year
time horizon,\15\ whereas building envelope upgrades like insulation or
windows are more likely to be viewed on a 30- or 40-year time horizon
based on the accepted longevity of the respective measures. When
conducting life-cycle cost assessments of residential building energy
codes, DOE has traditionally evaluated the economic impact over 30
years, which matches the perspective of a typical home buyer, and
allows for an understanding of cashflows over a traditional 30-year
mortgage. Similarly, DOE evaluates the economic impact of commercial
buildings over 30 years, which is consistent with recommendations and
data from the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) and
OMB. Note that these 30-year timeframes represent the overall period of
analysis (or ``study period''), with individual measures purchased,
amortized, and often replaced within that period, with residual values,
as applicable (as opposed to a 30-year payback period). However, DOE
also recognizes that homeowners often make investment decisions on
shorter timeframes, and that typical homeowners own their home for an
average of 12 years, although tenures vary widely across the U.S.\16\
DOE is seeking suggestions for data and studies that demonstrate the
appropriate length of time that is applicable to energy efficiency
measures, and better methods of evaluating benefits to consumers (Topic
Q09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Sample ASHRAE Equipment Life Expectancy Chart, available at
<a href="https://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infhvac/ASHRAE_Chart_HVAC_Life_Expectancy.pdf">https://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infhvac/ASHRAE_Chart_HVAC_Life_Expectancy.pdf</a>.
\16\ Press Release, Redfin, The Typical U.S. Homeowner Hangs
Onto Their House for 12 Years. In Los Angeles, It's 20 Years (Mar.
6, 2026), available at <a href="https://www.redfin.com/news/press-releases/the-typical-u-s-homeowner-hangs-onto-their-house-for-12-years-in-los-angeles-its-20-years/">https://www.redfin.com/news/press-releases/the-typical-u-s-homeowner-hangs-onto-their-house-for-12-years-in-los-angeles-its-20-years/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Broader Issues Affecting Consumer Costs and Regulatory Burden
1. Transparency in Industry Consensus Processes
Industry consensus-based processes for reviewing and updating
building energy codes, including the IECC and Standard 90.1, are open
to the public and any party may participate and submit code change
proposals. However, in practice, processes to develop building codes
and standards are technical and time-intensive in nature, requiring a
level of effort beyond what would be reasonable for a typical consumer
or interested member of the public. In addition, codes and standards
development processes have certain restrictions regarding copyrights,
proprietary data, competition, and access to information that can be
prohibitive to consumer representation. Stakeholders have also
expressed concerns related to procedure, committee composition, and
access to transparent data and technical information surrounding the
development of building energy codes. DOE is seeking feedback regarding
how to enable greater data transparency and consumer representation
within building energy code review and consensus processes. DOE is
interested in approaches such as consumer-oriented surveys, consumer
participation in code development processes, and working groups or
similar efforts that can better identify and represent consumer
interests and needs and that can help better inform building energy
code review and update processes. In addition, DOE is seeking feedback
on potential alternatives to the IECC and Standard 90.1 that can better
represent consumer interests and better meet the objectives of
safeguarding affordability and consumer choice (Topic Q10).
2. Permitting Delays and Localized Regulatory Costs
Consumers and industry stakeholders are faced with a wide range of
costs associated with building construction
[[Page 23986]]
regulations beyond meeting the minimum requirements imposed by building
energy codes. Many municipalities exhibit long permitting and approval
timelines that lead to excessive delays that increase costs and are
ultimately paid for by the consumer. Some jurisdictions have
implemented dashboards or other approaches to increase transparency
about these delays and costs. Builders and developers also face
constraints that further increase consumer cost and inhibit the
widespread affordability and availability of housing (e.g., local
zoning and land use requirements, and impact fees). DOE is interested
in feedback on the broader regulatory issues that impede building
construction and increase costs and potential solutions. (Topic Q11).
3. Cost Drivers of New Construction
DOE is interested in feedback on broader drivers of increased cost
in new building construction. These include the ``hard costs'' of
construction, labor costs, land availability, as well as housing supply
and other drivers. DOE is interested in data sources, including with
regional specificity, building types, or building sizes, that can
inform future analysis of the ``baseline'' costs of new construction,
and what portions of those costs can be directly attributable to
materials, equipment, and labor, as well as factors such as financing
models or other contributors to the purchase price of new homes and
commercial buildings. DOE is also seeking input on opportunities to
lower costs through innovative construction methods, both onsite and
offsite methods such as industrialized construction (e.g.,
prefabricated or modular housing solutions). DOE also seeks information
and data on any additional cost drivers, including those not explicitly
mentioned here, that have the potential to significantly reduce
construction costs and that commenters believe DOE should consider when
assessing new construction affordability (Topic Q12).
In addition to the topics outlined above, DOE requests feedback on
broader issues pertaining to its methodology and related technical
analysis for residential and commercial buildings.
E. Summary of Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
Q01. Suggestions for cost data and other considerations that more
accurately reflect the real market costs paid by consumers.
Q02. The appropriateness of developing and maintaining a publicly
available database that estimates real market costs to consumers from
building energy codes.
Q03. The appropriateness of considering regional differences when
evaluating real market costs to consumers and suggestions for data that
demonstrate regional differences.
Q04. Suggestions for data and analysis approaches that more
accurately reflect economic benefits to consumers.
Q05. Suggestions for data and metrics on energy costs that more
accurately reflect costs paid by the consumer and the appropriateness
of considering regional differences in energy costs for national-level
analyses.
Q06. Suggestions for adding new or reconfiguring existing prototype
buildings to better evaluate affordability and reflect the makeup of
the housing and buildings market.
Q07. The appropriateness of considering additional metrics that
better demonstrate expanded impacts on consumer affordability, consumer
choice, and purchasing power.
Q08. Input on appropriate discount rates and potential thresholds
for payback periods and suggestions for updating existing cost analysis
approaches or utilizing new approaches.
Q09. Suggestions for data and studies that demonstrate the
appropriate length of time that is applicable to energy efficiency
measures, and better methods of evaluating benefits to consumers.
Q10. Feedback on transparency and consumer representation in code
development processes.
Q11. Input on broader issues of regulatory burden caused by
permitting delays and localized regulatory costs.
Q12. Suggestions for drivers and data sources for broader costs of
new construction for residential and commercial buildings.
IV. Public Participation
A. Stakeholder Workshop
DOE may hold a stakeholder workshop associated with this request
for information. The workshop would be open to any interested
participant and occur during the public comment period (See public
comment deadline in the DATES section of this document). DOE would use
the workshop to seek additional public participation and feedback, in
addition to written comments, and to allow for a more iterative
discussion of the pertinent issues and questions. More information on
the stakeholder workshop, including registration information and
participant instructions, would be available at: <a href="http://www.energycodes.gov">www.energycodes.gov</a>.
B. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
listed in DATES section of this document, comments and information on
matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's
methodology and related technical analysis for residential and
commercial building energy codes.
Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if
any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is
not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use
this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
[[Page 23987]]
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also
will be posted to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comments or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential business information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of the request for
information.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 28,
2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2026.
Jennifer Hartzell,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2026-08646 Filed 5-1-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 4, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.