n June 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott quietly signed SB 1202 into law. On its face, the bill looks harmless—almost helpful. It allows homeowners to bypass municipal plan review and inspection requirements for home backup power systems under 600 volts by using a licensed third-party inspector or engineer. But beneath the surface, this bill is a loaded weapon pointed directly at the future of code enforcement in Texas. It’s a Trojan horse, and if left unchecked, it will metastasize across all phases of residential construction, ultimately gutting the authority of local building departments and neutering the role of qualified, objective inspectors.
Here’s what SB 1202 really does: it allows a property owner to hire their own inspector to review installation plans and inspect the completed backup power system—without ever submitting those plans to the city or county building department. Once that inspector sends a brief notice to the municipality, the law gives the green light to begin construction immediately. The local authority has just three business days to rubber-stamp the approval and is explicitly prohibited from charging any fees or requiring resubmission unless they’ve pre-published a detailed list of requirements and a fee schedule. If they fail to act in time, the installation is deemed compliant by default. Worse still, the municipality is absolved of all liability if something goes wrong. Only the private inspector bears the risk, assuming they can be located or sued successfully down the road.
Builders and legislators are already calling this a win for homeowners. In reality, it’s a win for developers, vendors, and every contractor who has ever viewed code compliance as an obstacle to profits. It creates a two-tiered inspection system that favors those with deep pockets and connections—those who can afford a $15,000 generator and an engineer to sign off without delay—while leaving everyone else to navigate a shrinking, underfunded, and overworked municipal inspection system. Over time, this will produce a fragmented enforcement landscape, where the quality and integrity of inspections depend not on codes or standards, but on who is paying the inspector’s fee.
The real danger is what happens next. SB 1202 has set a legal precedent that directly undermines the authority of local building officials. If a private inspector can approve a high-voltage electrical installation, why not a foundation, a roof tie-down, or a load-bearing wall? That argument is inevitable—and it will win. The Legislature has now enshrined into law the idea that third-party professionals can override public safety officials and fast-track construction, no matter how complex or high-risk the installation. Cities that already rely heavily on outsourcing—like those contracting with Bureau Veritas, SAFEbuilt, or MetroCode—will find themselves increasingly sidelined. Municipal building departments will shrink, funding will dry up, and oversight will collapse under the weight of deregulation disguised as “efficiency.”
Make no mistake: this bill will result in dangerous installations. Home standby power systems involve fuel supply lines, grounding, transfer switches, and grid interconnection. Without robust oversight, expect backfeeding into utility lines, generator exhausts placed within ignition distance of combustibles, and ungrounded or improperly bonded systems that could electrocute occupants or linemen. When these mistakes happen, there will be no recourse. The city will say, “We didn’t inspect it.” The contractor will say, “The engineer approved it.” And the third-party inspector? Good luck finding them, let alone holding them liable in civil court.
As this model expands—and it will—expect professional inspectors to become disposable. Municipalities won’t need in-house talent. Third-party inspection firms will operate as extensions of the builders they serve. Standards will loosen. Engineering letters will replace field inspections. Code enforcement will evolve into a system of checkbox compliance, with photo documentation replacing real accountability. It will look like oversight, but it won’t be. It will be performance theater. By the time the public realizes that thousands of homes were built under this model with unverified framing, electrical, or life-safety violations, it’ll be too late.
In the end, SB 1202 is not about generators. It’s about who controls the gatekeeping function of building safety in Texas. For now, it’s limited to backup power systems. But this bill is a beachhead—a pilot program in deregulated, builder-driven self-approval. If left unchallenged, it will expand to every critical phase of construction. The result will be more defective homes, more injuries, more lawsuits, and fewer people—if any—willing or able to stand in the way.
Inspectors, attorneys, code officials, and informed homeowners need to sound the alarm. This is not progress. This is a hostile takeover. And if we don’t fight it now, there may soon be nothing left to defend.
And, that’s not the worst of it. Neither do his supervisors or subcontractors. That’s saying a lot when one considers that the building code itself requires them to know the code. From the International Residential Code (IRC), which is the code in 49 states and some foreign countries:
“IRC 105.8 Responsibility. It shall be the duty of every person who performs work for the installation or repair of building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems, for which this code is applicable, to comply with this code.”
How can one possibly comply with regulations one does not know? Not possible.
How does this work? Well, the builders (read: corporations) hire supervisors (read: lackeys) to oversee their building sites. The majority of these folks are not certified in the building codes, never held a hammer or actually built a house. Most of their time is devoted to ordering materials and scheduling subcontractors. They know only what their subcontractors and/or the municipal inspectors tell them. Basically, your “builder” amounts to little more than a construction expediter.
The subcontractors, who are also not code-literate, build everything according to what the municipal inspectors “allow”. Initially, they construct everything in the most expeditious fashion possible, as they are hired on the lowest bidder basis. Then they wait to see what the building official “allows” and make whatever changes the inspector requires.
The problem with all of this is that the municipal inspectors are often themselves not intimately familiar with the codes. Even if they are, they are not allowed the time necessary to thoroughly inspect the houses they are assigned. They look for the low-hanging fruit, and then move to the next house (this is what I refer to as selective code enforcement). Refer to my blog article on the 12.5-Minute Inspection, for a clearer picture.
The municipal inspectors “allow” many things that are blatant code violations because they do not completely comprehend the codes they are entrusted to enforce, or they simply do not have the time to do the job properly. Maybe this has a lot to do with the way they are paid – not much for the amount of work entailed.
Is it any wonder that the houses in Texas are poorly built? On the contrary, the miracle is that they stand for more than a couple of years. But, they do not actually perform their intended function on many levels. The foundations are under-engineered for the expansive soils that prevail here, the materials are often glorified cardboard or glued-together pieces of scrap wood. The windows, doors, appliances, lighting and plumbing fixtures are all “builder’s grade”, which is code for the cheapest available. The houses are basically cobbled together using whatever is on sale and then sold at a premium price (builder materials and systems markups are figured at 300%).
And all of this cobbling is being done by corporations and their employees who have zero verifiable knowledge of the regulations (laws) that govern their profession. The home buyers are then the recipients of the products of a revolting dog-and-pony show euphemistically referred to as Texas custom home building.
While all of this is occurring, Austin (read: Abbott and his dog Paxton) continue to deflect any attempts to actually regulate the Texas home builders. As has always been their motto: big business comes first. Hell yes, the free market will police itself. Such b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t. The same stuff that trickles down on us all from the corporate boys on high.
Reminds me of an old Firesign Theater skit where one guy asks another, “Bend over and roll up your arm. Do you want regular or premium?”
One of the exurbs (a district outside a city, especially a prosperous area beyond the suburbs, dictionary.com), which shall remain unnamed to protect myself, where I inspect in the DFW Metroplex has a person working as Chief Building Official (CBO) who appears to be working against the best interest of the home buying public. Though this person possesses the requisite professional certifications for the job he/she is apparently disseminating false information to the home buyers in his/her district that all should be made aware of.
Among other numerous specious opinions, i.e. interpretations of the building and electrical code that he/she evidently pulled directly out of the terminus of his/her digestive system, rendered by this person during the course of inspections recently on a property there, one in particular stood out. He/she explained to the buyer of a new home that he/she would not be inclined to enforce certain code issues because the builder would “take care of those under the warranty”. Really? Now the builder is the building official and the building official is working for the builder, right? Who knew it was supposed to work that way?
Many, if not all, builder warranties exclude building code related issues and any items you provided on a punch list to your builder that did not get repaired before closing. This means that your builder has no obligation to make repairs to building code defects after closing escrow.
An example can be found in my client’s warranty. Similar wording is to be found in other warranties.
“Exclusions The following are NOT covered under this Limited Warranty:Violation of applicable building codes or ordinances, unless such violation results in a Defect which is otherwise covered under this Limited Warranty. Under such circumstances, the obligation of Builder under this Limited Warranty will only be to repair the defective warranted portion of the Home, but not to restore or bring the Home to conform to code.”
Check your own warranty so that you gain a better understanding of what is and is not covered. Read carefully as these are written to obfuscate the fact that they exclude more than they cover.
Further, it is my understanding that this building official told the buyer at one point in time that he/she was not comfortable fielding questions regarding a house that he/she did not yet own. Fortunately for this buyer he/she had already purchased the lot so the house was in his/her name on the tax roles.
The municipality in question has adopted the 2015 version of the International Residential Code, among others. In that volume it clearly states:
“R104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.
Commentary The duty of the building official is to enforce the code. He or she is the “authority having jurisdiction” for all matters relating to the code and its enforcement. It is the duty of the building official to interpret the code and to determine compliance. Code compliance will not always be easy to determine and will require judgment and expertise, particularly when enforcing the provisions of Sections R104.10 and R104.11. In exercising this authority, however, the building official cannot set aside or ignore any provision of the code.
The building official establishes policies and procedures that will clarify the applications of the code. The development of those policies and procedures should not be simply for the convenience of the jurisdiction’s employees, but should be viewed as a way to effectively communicate to all interested parties involved in the construction process how the department will process applications, review construction documents, make inspections, approve projects, and determine and clarify the application of the code provisions. Properly developed, these policies and procedures can make the code enforcement department more predictable for those who are regulated and will also establish improved code compliance and public relations.
When interpretation of the code is needed, the building official is the one individual of the jurisdiction with the legal authority to interpret the code and determine how the provisions should be applied, in both general and specific cases. Some departments formalize the interpretation process and require the person with a question to submit their question in writing. Departments are encouraged to develop policies for both formal (written) and informal (verbal) requests for code interpretations. Any such interpretations must be in conformance with the intent and letter of the code and may not waive any requirements. It may be necessary in some cases for the building official to write these code interpretations into the permit.”
It is assumed that the reasonable man on the street understands what this says. It is written in English and is required reading for anyone aspiring to become or just simply wakes up one day to find themselves a building official. That said, I question the reasonableness of the code official in question. Folks like this are out there. Buyer beware.
On that note another publication from the authors of the International Residential Code is the Legal Aspects of Code Administration. In Chapter 9 of this volume it states in part, “The Latin term caveat emptor, means “let the buyer beware.” Thus, it is up to the purchaser to determine the soundness of the building prior to the finalization of the purchase or to hire a professional inspector”, (italics are mine).
In Texas where big business reigns supreme, and don’t kid yourself homebuilding is BIG BUSINESS, developers and home builders are at the wheel. They apparently have the legislators and municipal officials under thumb. If you are not looking to get thoroughly screwed you had better hire a competent independent inspector to inspect your house from the ground up in order to avoid being taken advantage of by this good ole’ boy system that includes the CBO in question.
Aaron, Thank you for going above and beyond! Your passion shows in your approach and am glad that I chose to work with you. I understand your and the... Read More » View All Testimonials →
