Maybe they are intending to install LED bulbs in your traditional cans?

There are incandescent in there now.....I thought CFL or LED was required now? For new builds at least?

The various editions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have not been adopted as Code in all US states.

According to the Building Codes Assistance Project, 2015 IECC: R404.1 Lighting equipment (Mandatory)
Not less than 75 percent of the lamps in permanently installed lighting
fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or not less than 75 percent of the
permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only
high-efficacy lamps.

So if you're in Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, etc. you (and your builder) have no obligation to use energy efficient fixtures or lightbulbs.

We are in FL

So the builder has to abide by IECC 2015. But since CFLs and LEDs come in socket bases identical to the old incandescents, all the builder needs to do is change the bulbs.

Ok thanks..so these don't meet those requirements in IECC 2015?

While Colorado may not have a statewide requirement, almost every jurisdiction I work in goes way beyond IECC.

To the OP, my preference is to use traditional cans for the ability to customize the LED color and brightness. Switching out the incandescent for LED would be an acceptable solution to me.

It is for me as well...we just want LED but I'm seeing the above "modified spectrum halogen bulbs" being put in

If LEDs are in your contract your electrician or your contractor are cheaping out. This is more annoying than a serious problem. You can replace them easily and inexpensively once you move in. At the end of the project there are a lot of punch list items. You'll have to decide whether fighting this battle will help or harm the finishing of the home.

Good luck!

The energy code certainly does not require LEDs. It is common to not put in the expensive bulbs until all the painting and major dusty work is done. It is also a general consensus that the type of bulb you show is still better for bathrooms and closets. Bathrooms, because the halogen 3000K 100CRI bulb gives a better light for putting on makeup, and closets because for the brief amount of time they are on, they do not need to warm up like a fluorescent, and actually use less energy than a lot of fluorescents with such short "on" cycles, not to mention the truer color rendering for clothes closets.

As a side note, on strange govt regulations, an old 60 watt bulb produced 850 lumens. 850÷60=14.166 while the new "60W replacement" is 600÷43=13.953 Lumens per watt (relatively the same efficacy as an old standard incandescent).... which means you now need to put in more light fixtures to get the same amount of light...which wastes resources and energy to manufacture, but does not save any energy when the lights are on. You may get some perceived better light going from 2700K to 3000K.

The "modified spectrum halogen bulbs" Do meet the IECC 2015 for the OTHER 25% that do not need to be "high-efficacy".

I'm inputting this in a room lit by a 10 watt A19 LED rated at 800 lumens. Six for C$17.99 (US$14.03).

I'm inputting this in a room with no lights on at all.... what am I missing? ;)

Marisha: Those are not regular old cheap incandescents. They are halogen bulbs that are lower wattage than regular incandescent (but not a lot lower). People who like the look of halogens can meet the energy-saving criteria with those.

The downside of halogens is heat; they give off quite a lot. But they last a very long time (that's the halogen's function).

Builders just put in standard bulbs like these because they don't know what everyone wants. You want LEDs? Dimmable ones? Color changing? WiFi controlled? You'll have to put them in yourself; they have the same bases and sockets. Or maybe pay an upcharge to the builder for them.

inputting this

"Typing" (this post) is dated terminology.

*****

People who like the look of halogens can meet the energy-saving criteria with those.

Not for 75% of fixtures or bulbs, according to the IECC 2015 as explained above by Fred S.

Though, of course, nothing stops you from using whatever you want and can find once inspections are finished.

"Those are not regular old cheap incandescents. They are halogen bulbs that are lower wattage than regular incandescent (but not a lot lower). People who like the look of halogens can meet the energy-saving criteria with those." - Clearly, you did not read my post... I will edit it to shed more light on the subject...

"Does building an efficient new house require efficient lighting..."

Building an efficient new house requires everything to be "efficient"--whatever one's individual term for that may be--else how can it be efficient?

Said differently, an "efficient" new house takes a lot more than efficient lighting...to...be...wait for it...efficient!

Dare I say this? For openers, an efficient new house requires an efficient (dare I say creative) design--site plan, floor plan and exteriors?

Who will know a house is efficient by the lamps (light bulbs) a house uses?

Yes I did read your post. And nothing I said contradicted it.

"People who like the look of halogens can meet the energy-saving criteria with those." - how so? They have no better efficacy than a standard incandescent A19 had 30 years ago. Most people would say that meeting the energy-saving criteria part of the code requires an efficacy of at least 40 Lumens per watt...maybe just semantics.

I'm figuring with the numerous posts by the OP relating to sub standard or just plain wrong construction, for every issue posted here there's a dozen going unnoticed. Another reason for a professional home inspector.

Agree thorough contract review and home inspection is warranted here. Starting out a conversation with "a bunch of random people on the internet think...."

So I Iooked yesterday...and most seem like those home inspectors that come out when buying a home that almost always give it a thumbs up with no major issues. I'm calling the county competency board (?) this morning, but is there a specific type inspector I should look for or just home inspector?

Good move. After all it's probably a healthy six figures of your hard earned money on the line with tough recourse after closing.

The home inspector should be your "hired gun", a professional that's representing you. And the issue of liability should be a motivator for him/her to go over your house with a fine tooth comb and alert you to any deficiencies or code violations, both major and minor. Haven't heard of any automatically passing everything. After all if they miss something the obvious question for you to them is "That's why I hired you!!", so there's liability and a professional responsibility to use "due care" there. Same for me when I size a beam.

I'm an architect and I've hired them for my own homes myself. It gets around the "my opinion vs. your opinion" thing. And you look far more credible with a hired gun writing an official report for you as opposed being armed with a bunch of varying opinions from "random people on the internet" as Jann. noted. It shows your serious about fixing ALL deficiencies both known and unknown to you, and I'm figuring there's a bunch of the latter. After all, all you're asking for is a code compliant house constructed to the terms of your contract and normal construction standards, a perfectly reasonable expectation.