Bill would pause building-code updates for a decade and change the energy-code schedule, splitting builders and safety advocates
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 2,141 would pause state building- and energy-code updates after the 2024 adoption for 10 years with limited safety exceptions, shift the regular update cycle to six years beginning in 2036, and remove the statutory 2031 requirement for a 70% residential energy-use reduction; supporters say the change would reduce cost and uncertainty for builders, while engineers and environmental groups warn it would harm safety, climate goals and long-term costs.
House Bill 2,141, introduced to the House Committee on Local Government and briefed by committee staff, would halt most state building-code updates for a decade following adoption of the 2024 model codes, bar local amendments affecting residential buildings until the 2036 edition is adopted, and then establish a six-year update cycle. The bill would also remove the statutory requirement that the state energy code achieve a 70% reduction in annual net energy consumption by 2031.
Committee staff explained the bill's text and exceptions for emergency amendments, legal compliance, and court orders. "The bill before you is House Bill 2,141, an act relating to building codes," Kellen Wright told the committee in his opening briefing, outlining changes to the state building code council's adoption timeline and the energy-code provisions.
Representative Connors, the bill sponsor, said frequent code changes create administrative burdens and raise construction costs for smaller builders, citing an estimate that code updates since 2009 have added roughly $40,000 to the cost of a home. "Some of the larger builders ... have the opportunity to have staff on board to decipher all these codes ... but for the smaller builders ... it's really hard to keep up to speed," she said.
The bill drew sharply divided testimony. Supporters from county associations, builders' groups and some local officials argued a pause and longer cycle would provide predictability, reduce permitting delays and help projects "pencil" amid labor and cost pressures. "This pause is not stagnation, it is system recovery," a real-estate industry witness said.
Technical and environmental witnesses — including ASHRAE, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the International Code Council, the American Institute of Architects, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association — urged rejection. ASHRAE testified the bill "represents a departure from nationally recognized practices" and warned it would saddle families and businesses with higher utility bills and increase carbon emissions. NRDC said the measure would "derail our climate commitments and betray our promises to improve the safety, comfort, and affordability of new homes." The International Code Council and other technical groups cautioned that skipping regular updates could leave safety and resilience improvements out of state codes for many years.
Witnesses debated trade-offs between near-term construction costs and long-term energy and safety outcomes. Several panelists referenced California legislation (AB 130/AB 306) and noted differences in scope and duration. The committee heard dozens of pro and con witnesses and ran out of time before taking executive action; no vote on HB 2,141 was recorded in this session.