Inspection Practices

The state-mandated Energy Code establishes minimum performance standards that require quantitative verification, not subjective observation.

Compliance is intended to be demonstrated through measurable means such as pressure testing, air and duct leakage measurements, and documented installation criteria. These requirements exist because many aspects of energy performance cannot be confirmed visually and must be verified through testing and documentation.

In San Angelo, the adopted enforcement approach was modified by the City Council to allow Energy Code compliance to be determined solely through visual inspection, eliminating required testing and performance verification.

Following this policy change, inspections no longer required independent testing or third-party verification. Compliance determinations were made based on visual confirmation alone, even for provisions that require measurable performance outcomes under the Energy Code.

This modification shifts Energy Code enforcement away from objective measurement and toward appearance-based approval. While this approach reduces cost and friction for builders during construction, it removes independent verification intended to protect homeowners and ensure long-term performance.

As a result, compliance determinations prioritize ease of approval over measurable performance, leaving homeowners without assurance that Energy Code standards were actually met — despite inspections being approved.

Many Energy Code provisions cannot be confirmed by sight alone. Conditions such as air leakage, duct leakage, thermal bypasses, and envelope performance require testing or measurement to determine compliance. A component may appear complete or properly installed while still failing to meet required performance thresholds.

Energy Code inspections are intended to verify compliance before conditions are concealed and to confirm that required testing has been completed and meets the adopted standard.

In practice, following the City Council modification, inspections no longer required independent testing or documented verification. Compliance determinations were instead made through visual inspection alone, even for provisions that require quantitative measurement.

In the case that led to the creation of Behind the Drywall, Energy Code inspections were approved despite conditions that did not meet the adopted requirements.

Required testing and verification steps were either not documented or not performed, while approvals were still issued based on visual inspection alone.

Note the careful phrasing:

• “not documented or not performed”

• no accusations of intent

When Energy Code inspections rely on visual confirmation alone, approval may reflect the absence of obvious defects rather than verified compliance.

Once insulation, drywall, or finishes are installed, deficiencies may no longer be detectable — even though they directly affect performance, efficiency, and occupant comfort.

Energy Code compliance affects more than utility costs.

It influences indoor air quality, moisture control, building durability, and long-term operating costs.

When verification is reduced to visual inspection, the Energy Code functions as a checklist rather than an enforceable standard.

This case raises a broader question:

If Energy Code provisions that require testing can be approved without verification in a new home, how consistently are these standards being enforced elsewhere?

Behind the Drywall examines this question using documentation, inspection records, and code references.