Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Energy Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over 2024 IBC/IECC updates pits safety and efficiency proponents against builders fearing higher costs
Summary
The committee’s joint hearing on LB800 and LB801 — to adopt 2024 editions of ICC building and energy codes — drew extensive testimony. Trade groups and engineers argued updated codes improve safety, resilience and long‑term energy bills; builders, developers and chambers warned higher upfront costs could reduce affordable housing supply and urged selective adoption or local flexibility.
Lincoln — A packed hearing before the Urban Affairs Committee laid bare the tension between code modernization advocates and housing‑affordability defenders over LB800 and LB801, twin bills to update Nebraska’s references to the 2024 International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC) and International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).
Sen. Terrell McKinney said the bills aim to keep Nebraska current with national model codes and to avoid bursting costs that would occur if the state fell far behind and then upgraded in a single large step. He acknowledged concerns raised in a March 15, 2024 opinion from the Nebraska Attorney General about the 2024 IECC’s cost and market impacts and said the committee will consider municipal amendment options discussed during testimony.
Richard Haughey, senior regional manager for the International Code Council (ICC), described the ICC’s multiyear, open, governmental consensus process and defended the 2024 updates as performance‑based improvements to safety, resiliency and building practice. He urged timely adoption and noted neighboring states are moving to newer codes with grace periods for enforcement.
Representatives of national trade groups — NEMA and ASHRAE — and local electrical and mechanical professionals told senators modern codes incorporate technology and best practices that reduce energy bills and improve grid resiliency. Jeff McCaslin of ASHRAE directed senators to Department of Energy studies showing payback periods for many measures and said energy‑code updates can increase passive survivability during outages.
But the hearing’s largest contingent of witnesses opposed the bills. Builders, Habitat affiliates, affordable housing developers and chambers of commerce urged caution or rejection, saying the 2024 energy and envelope requirements would materially increase construction costs and reduce the number of homes that can be produced with a fixed capital stack. Wayne Mortensen of Excel Development Group, an affordable‑housing developer, said one multifamily project saw a more than $100,000 sheathing cost increase under newer requirements and that some changes produced payback periods of decades or no net savings.
Builders warned higher R‑value walls, rigid exterior insulation and testing mandates can push small developers and nonprofit builders beyond feasible financing thresholds, reduce the pool of buyers for entry‑level homes, and raise the price of loans. Several speakers urged the Legislature to carve out optional pathways, allow local amendment authority, or pursue a selective adoption that focuses on measures with short paybacks and clear safety benefits.
Committee members pressed proponents for quantitative cost‑benefit comparisons; ICC and ASHRAE representatives offered to provide DOE and model code analysis and payback data to the committee. Chair McKinney said he is open to municipal‑level flexibility in the bills and to working with stakeholders on amendments.
No committee votes were taken during the hearing; senators recorded dozens of in‑person proponent and opponent testimonies and asked staff to forward additional technical cost and payback material.
