SB2491 amends the Energy Efficient Building Act to delay several deadlines for the Illinois Stretch Energy Code. The bill pushes back the date by which the Capital Development Board must create and adopt a residential stretch energy code meeting a site energy index no greater than 40% of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code from December 31, 2025 to December 31, 2026. It also delays the next two residential benchmark dates, moving the 33% standard from 2028 to 2029 and the 25% standard from 2031 to 2032.
The bill does not change the underlying structure of the stretch code program. The code would still be available for municipal adoption, would still replace the Illinois Energy Conservation Code in municipalities that adopt it, and would still apply to certain Board-authorized or Board-funded projects. The bill leaves the commercial stretch code schedule unchanged and does not alter the requirement that the Board develop the code in consultation with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Impact
SB2491 would amend Section 55 of the Energy Efficient Building Act, specifically the provisions governing the Illinois Stretch Energy Code. Its practical effect is to extend the timeline for more stringent residential energy-efficiency standards, giving the Capital Development Board an additional year for the first delayed benchmark and one additional year for each of the later residential benchmarks. Municipalities and projects subject to the code would continue under the same framework, but the pace of tightening energy-performance requirements would slow. The bill does not appear to modify the commercial code schedule or the broader authority of municipalities to adopt the stretch code.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a technical or implementation-timing adjustment rather than a major policy reversal. The overall tone is neutral and administrative, with the legislation framed as a schedule change to existing energy-efficiency requirements. No formal support or opposition is documented in the supplied history, so there is no clear recorded sentiment from committee debate or floor action.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the delay itself: supporters may view the extension as giving the Board and affected builders more time to prepare for stricter residential standards, while critics may see it as slowing progress toward energy efficiency and building decarbonization goals. Another possible issue is the bill’s selective focus on residential deadlines, since the commercial schedule remains unchanged. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, no specific lawmakers, agencies, municipalities, builders, or environmental groups are identified as taking a position in the available materials.