HB3510 amends the Energy Efficient Building Act to require the Illinois Capital Development Board, in consultation with the appropriate state agency and advisory bodies, to create and adopt an Illinois Stretch Energy Code. The stretch code is intended to provide a consistent statewide pathway for municipalities and certain state-funded or Board-authorized projects to exceed the Illinois Energy Conservation Code. It establishes separate residential and commercial components and allows municipalities to adopt the stretch code either jointly or separately.
The bill sets performance-based energy-efficiency targets tied to the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code and phases in increasingly stringent standards over time. For residential buildings, the code must be available for municipal adoption and must progress through specified site energy index thresholds by dates in 2024, 2026, 2029, and 2032. For commercial buildings, similar staged targets are set for 2024, 2026, 2029, and 2032. The bill also allows municipalities to use utility programs to help comply with the stretch code and specifies how utility-related savings may be counted toward annual savings goals.
In practical terms, the bill expands state energy-code policy by creating a new optional local code framework that can replace the standard Illinois Energy Conservation Code within adopting municipalities. It also affects the Capital Development Board, the Illinois Energy Code Advisory Council, municipalities, utilities, and building projects subject to energy conservation requirements. The bill includes deadlines for development and adoption of the code and directs the advisory council to provide technical assistance, recommend rules, and solicit stakeholder input.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive overall, with the bill passing the House 76-38 and the Senate 42-15. Those margins suggest bipartisan support, but not unanimity. The available record does not include committee transcript debate, so the main points of support and opposition must be inferred from the bill’s structure: supporters likely favored stronger energy efficiency standards and a clearer pathway for local adoption, while opponents likely raised concerns about compliance costs, implementation burdens, and the pace of tightening standards.
Notable contention centers on the stringency and timing of the stretch-code benchmarks, especially the staged reductions in site energy index and the possibility of “unanticipated burdens” allowing somewhat less restrictive standards in later years. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s effect on municipalities and builders, since adoption is optional for municipalities but would impose new requirements where adopted, potentially affecting construction costs, design choices, and local code administration.
HB3510 amends the Energy Efficient Building Act, specifically Section 55 (20 ILCS 3125/55), to establish the Illinois Stretch Energy Code and direct the Capital Development Board to develop it. The bill also references coordination with the Illinois Energy Code Advisory Council and interacts with provisions of the Public Utilities Act governing utility energy-efficiency programs and savings accounting. It creates a new optional local code framework that can supersede the Illinois Energy Conservation Code in municipalities that adopt it, while also applying to certain Board-authorized or Board-funded projects.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable consideration, as shown by passage in both chambers with solid margins: 76-38 in the House and 42-15 in the Senate. Those votes indicate meaningful support for the policy goal of stronger building energy efficiency standards, though the opposition votes show that the measure was not broadly unanimous. No committee transcript was provided, so the sentiment can only be inferred from the final vote totals and the bill’s policy design.
The main points of contention likely involved the cost and feasibility of progressively stricter building-efficiency requirements, especially for residential and commercial construction. The bill’s phased performance targets, deadlines, and the possibility of future standards becoming more stringent could raise concerns among builders, municipalities, and other stakeholders about compliance costs and administrative burden. The bill also anticipates this issue by allowing the Board to adopt somewhat less restrictive standards if it identifies unanticipated burdens, suggesting that implementation difficulty was a recognized concern.