Tools > Incremental Cost Analysis: 2009 IECC

One of the major barriers to energy code adoption is the concern that the cost of upgrading to the latest model energy code would be prohibitive. To address this issue, BCAP undertook a study to quantify the incremental construction cost of upgrading to the 2009 IECC in each state where such an analysis was feasible.

Please also see the 2012 IECC Incremental Cost Analysis.

The True Cost of Building a New Home

Moving from current practice to the 2009 IECC for new homes would result in a weighted average incremental cost of $840.77 per new home. The annual energy savings per home would be $243.37 on average, meaning the simple payback for homeowners would occur in an average of 3.45 years.

When amortized over a thirty year, 20 percent down payment loan, and including energy savings, the average homeowner would realize net savings within the first year. For examples of how the cost is rolled into a mortgage, please see one of BCAP’s Incremental Cost Fact Sheets.

To access an individual fact sheet, click one of the states listed below:

State Weighted Avg.
Incremental Cost ($)
Median Annual
Energy Savings ($)
Payback
(months)
Alabama 668.76 205.00 10
Arizona 570.38 217.00 8
Colorado 922.73 239.50 12
Connecticut 897.42 235.00 12
Georgia 675.36 206.00 10
Idaho 872.81 235.50 11
Iowa 863.69 260.50 10
Kansas 1,403.96 468.50 9
Kentucky 773.92 336.00 7
Louisiana 572.43 188.50 9
Massachusetts 910.99 200.50 10
Mississippi 699.54 211.50 10
Michigan 965.19 274.00 11
Minnesota 1,873.00 315.00 21
Missouri | CZ 4 | CZ 5 1,607.74 459.00 11
Nebraska 400.00 236.00 5
Nevada 777.15 228.50 10
New Mexico 619.18 233.50 8
New York 835.82 259.00 10
North Carolina 1,129.93 221.50 17
North Dakota 903.79 343.00 8
Ohio 803.04 229.00 11
Pennsylvania 697.79 240.50 9
South Carolina 546.37 207.00 8
South Dakota 1,331.27 405.00 10
Utah 825.20 242.00 10
Virginia 582.07 225.00 8
Wisconsin 556.18 220.00 7
Wyoming 1,288.23 391.00 10
Overall Averages 840.77 243.37 10.25

We believe these cost estimates are conservative and represent an upper bound on incremental cost, as they utilize only traditional building techniques and do not take advantage of certain technologies or performance trade-offs that would lower these costs further and improve energy performance.

For more detailed cost data on all of the states listed above, as well as information on the methodology used, please review BCAP’s complete incremental cost analysis model and report.


Similar Incremental Cost Analyses

Washington State – The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) has conducted a similar analysis of cost and savings estimates to update to the 2009 Washington State Energy Code (click here to read the residential and commercial reports).

Originally published on: 

This page was last modified on: August 16, 2016