
The Real Estate Roundtable submitted comments this week in response to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) request for information on its methodology for evaluating the consumer costs and benefits of residential and commercial building energy codes. (Letter, July 31)
Building Codes and Affordability
- Under federal law, DOE is required to assess the cost-effectiveness of recurring updates to “model” building energy codes – such as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for new commercial construction and major renovations. Each update to the standard brings requirements for more stringent efficiency levels – with higher costs.
- DOE’s current methodology considers codes’ cost effectiveness over 30-year and 40-year horizons for the “lifecycle” of equipment and buildings. (Methodology for Evaluating Commercial Energy Code Updates, Dec. 2024)
- RER’s comments recognize the important role energy codes play in improving building efficiency, resilience and occupant comfort. (Letter, July 31)
- The comments also encourage DOE to put more emphasis on consumer “affordability” because its decades-long analysis periods obscure more direct and immediate costs of compliance—borne by families and businesses—with ever more stringent energy codes.
Why It Matters
- Commercial owners, developers, and investors pay upfront costs for code compliance when a building is constructed. Yet, projected utility savings may accrue decades later—often to future owners or tenants, not to the businesses making initial investments.
- RER’s recommendations would provide a more accurate picture of how code requirements affect project feasibility, housing affordability and investment decisions across markets and property types.
RER’s Recommendations

- Realistic payback periods: DOE’s current 30- and 40-year lifecycle method makes code updates appear cost-effective, because energy savings are stretched over very long periods. RER recommends that DOE also publish results over 3-, 5-, 10-, 15- and 20-year periods—to reflect common practices in commercial ownership duration, loan maturity terms, and building capital expenditure budgeting. (Letter, July 31)
- Market-based financing assumptions: The letter urges DOE to use multiple discount rates reflecting the different costs of construction loans, permanent mortgages, mezzanine debt and equity—not a single, “one-size-fits-all” rate.
- Upfront and regional costs: DOE should account for lengthy federal depreciation periods, as well as regional differences in labor, materials, permitting expenses and energy prices that can significantly affect whether a project remains financially viable.
- Greater transparency: RER recommends a publicly available database detailing the market costs, data sources, electricity-price forecasts and assumptions used in DOE’s analyses. The agency should also test modeled energy savings against actual building data from ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and DOE’s Building Performance Database.
- Cumulative regulatory burdens: DOE should consider how other regulations, including rent restrictions, can limit multifamily owners’ ability to finance and recover the costs of energy-efficiency investments.
- Consistent treatment of building standards: DOE should apply the same affordability and cost-effectiveness methodology to state, local, and model Building Performance Standards that receive federal funding or technical support.
The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) and its Sustainability Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC) will continue working with DOE and industry stakeholders to ensure building energy code analyses reflect real-world costs, financing practices and affordability impacts for commercial and multifamily buildings.


















