The Danger of Over Simplified Building Rules

October 12, 2026 Sofia Feeney

Before banning net-zero codes, protect builder choice

For years, builders have pushed back on net-zero mandates added to local codes with too little regard for cost or feasibility. That frustration is legitimate. But a new model policy from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) offers a solution too simple for how buildings get financed, approved and built.

ALEC’s “Local Government Net Zero Policy Prohibition Act” aims to stop cities and counties from imposing net-zero targets, carbon pricing and emissions mandates. That objective is understandable. But the proposal does not stop at mandates. Its definitions reach programs that “create incentives toward” emissions reductions or “encourage or create preferences” based on greenhouse gas performance.

That’s a much bigger target.

It could prohibit density bonuses, expedited permitting, fee waivers, financing programs and public funding preferences tied to verified building performance. Those aren’t all mandates.

A mandate tells every builder what to do, whether it fits project economics or not. A voluntary incentive offers value if a builder chooses higher performance: more density, a faster permit, lower fees or financing access. Builders decide whether the trade is worthwhile.

Developers underwrite projects years before completion, assembling land, financing, entitlements, tax credits and incentives into a financial structure that has to pencil. A voluntary incentive may be one piece, but sometimes it closes a financing gap. Changing the rules after those assumptions are built into a project can impose costs.

Programs like NGBS Green, built on the ICC 700 National Green Building Standard, operate extensively in that world. Developers pursue certification for several reasons. A jurisdiction may reward it, a lender or investor may request it, affordable housing funding may require it or an owner may value verified performance.

There’s another category that gets lost when we reduce this debate to mandates versus freedom: accountability.

Government spends public money to achieve specific outcomes in housing and development. If those dollars are intended to produce more efficient, resilient or otherwise higher-performing buildings, taxpayers should have some assurance they actually got what they paid for with their public funding.

That’s why credible third-party certification exists. Certification requires documentation, independent on-site verification and quality assurance. Remove that accountability and public spending may remain while the mechanism ensuring government gets what it paid for disappears.

This doesn’t mean every mandate is good policy. Some are adopted without enough consideration of construction cost, feasibility, housing affordability or whether benefits justify the expense. Builders are right to challenge them.

But the opposite assumption is too simple, too. Eliminating anything connected to an emissions goal does not automatically reduce regulatory burden or save builders money.

A developer may willingly spend more on performance because a density bonus makes the economics work. Another may pursue certification because expedited permitting reduces carrying costs. Another may need it to qualify for financing. Remove those options and you haven’t necessarily made development cheaper. You may have removed something making the project possible.

There is also a practical difference between limiting what government can require and what it can offer. Policymakers may decide a local government should not force every project to achieve a particular emissions target. It does not follow that the government should be prohibited from offering builders an optional economic benefit for achieving one.

The ALEC proposal also voids existing policies and puts significant enforcement pressure on local governments. Faced with broad language covering programs that “create incentives” or “create preferences,” some jurisdictions may simply eliminate voluntary programs rather than risk testing where the legal line falls.

A patchwork of local climate mandates creates real complexity for builders and developers and policymakers should scrutinize requirements that increase construction costs. But building policy isn’t binary. A mandate imposed on every project is not the same as an incentive a developer voluntarily chooses. Neither is the same as verification attached to public funding to make sure taxpayers receive what they paid for.

Those are different policy tools doing different jobs.

Builders and developers should make sure legislators understand the difference before supporting policies like this. Does the language distinguish mandates from voluntary incentives? Does it preserve third-party verification when public money is paying for performance? Does it protect projects already financed and designed around programs currently in place?

If not, speak up before model language becomes state law. Getting rid of bad mandates is one thing. Getting rid of useful choices, valuable incentives and accountability along with them isn’t regulatory relief. It’s just bad policy in the other direction.

By Michelle Foster. She is the Vice President of Home Innovation Research Labs, NGBS Green Certification Program. She may be reached at mfoster@homeinnovation.com