Gap Analysis Report

Recognizing that most states lack the expertise to develop and implement successful energy code policies and programs that will achieve 90 percent compliance by 2017, DOE/NETL funded BCAP to implement an 18-month project to provide Compliance Planning Assistance to a limited number of states. In the first phase of the project, the Gap Analysis, the BCAP team gathered extensive information on nearly twenty states and performed a comprehensive evaluation of each state’s energy codes program and identified strengths and weaknesses. BCAP examined and assessed the status and support available for code adoption, implementation, and enforcement in each state. The data gathered for each state included:

gap analysis report`

  • Status of energy codes and related policies
  • Code enforcement infrastructure, including but not limited to:
    • Presence or lack of infrastructure (e.g. small communities, rural areas)
    • Certification requirements for members of the construction industry
    • Certification requirements for code enforcement officials
    • Training requirements, content, and materials for all audiences, and
    • Related programs and protocols
  • Efforts to track and measure energy code implementation and compliance

Weaknesses or gaps identified highlight areas/issues where it was deemed essential for the state to apply a new approach or devote additional resources to its current efforts. In addition, BCAP identified funding and/or technical assistance available from relevant organizations and stakeholders and linked those opportunities to the applicable gaps.

State participation in the project was entirely voluntary. The states selected for this project were:

  • Active and engaged participants
  • Identified by key stakeholders as likely to follow through on the assessment and recommendations, and
  • Interested in implementing program changes and/or new programs to increase the efficacy of building energy codes

To present our findings, BCAP prepared reports for each participating state that provided a comprehensive overview of the strengths and shortcomings of energy code efforts, identified specific strategies for improvement, and made general recommendations as appropriate.

Depending on availability, BCAP collected information in the following areas:


  • Construction – permits, projected construction rates
  • Energy – production, consumption, pricing
  • Code Adoption – state agency responsibility, activity, and level of code support; state advocates and opponents
  • State Policy – restrictive and supportive legislative language; pending legislation; support for above-code activities; technical code requirements; strengthening and weakening amendments
  • Local Policy – population centers and percentage of construction covered by an energy code; adoption of IBC, IRC, and IECC; local climate or green initiatives


  • Community Standards – rural and urban enforcement strategies including third party; available enforcement resources; evaluation measures in place
  • Enforcement Issues – energy code prioritization; code officials’ familiarity with energy provisions; persistent compliance issues
  • Certification Process – certification requirement and/or standard process; continuing education requirements
  • Products, Manufacturers, Services – effects of codes in jobs; available products and services

Education and Training

  • Code Inspectors – materials/resources utilized; CEU hours; permitting fees/funding for inspectors
  • Building Professionals – available training/education; building/architect association/certification board; existing in participant tracking
  • Content – scope and detail; incorporation of state compliance issues