In some ways, I'm almost glad that someone brought up "environmental" issues. While I don't intend to open the entire environmental debate here, you have opened the door to some other 'angles' to the 'code minimum' contradiction.
The first, most obvious point to make is that if we wanted to be 'energy efficient,' we wouldn't have so many square corners. Want greater comfort and lower HVAC bills? Restore vaulted ceilings; they allow for much better convection. Likewise, a lot of mold issues would be prevented with 'better than minimum' bath fans- and a vent in the door!
To return to an example cited earlier, that second light switch might mean more wire - but also means the light won't be left on nearly as often.
More basic, you bring into this discussion the interplay between the various codes. Especially with the introduction of 'energy codes,' knowing only the NEC simply isn't enough. "Bid to print" and you're setting the stage for quite a dispute when the electrical plans cause the HVAC to fail inspection.
I think it comes down to the 'golden rule:' He with the gold writes the rules. I suppose it's no surprise that GC's and developers want as little as possible; they won't be living there! The situation is only made worse by a legal climate that ensures that no reputable contractor will ever get involved in building tract homes.
That last part is critical; something as simple as the route a wire takes can make a huge difference to the ease with which later modifications are made.
