[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6149913,"mediaKeyId","5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c","parentId",5509896,"title","Commercial energy code package sent for public comment after MVPE review","audioSeconds",913,"startMs",3145000,"endMs",4058000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c&start=3145&end=4058","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c/thumbnail_3145000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6149913/Washington/Commercial-energy-code-package-sent-for-public-comment-after-MVPE-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149913-e3ba979b00af9a74d233071c902a5adb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501442&Signature=A8V75xtEwljAu46rU4hDQBi0aDtJw8lNHwlu1QloaPbP7eyfyIRugYXsu4qE0OIY~J~wbs3UHcBGoPGS0U2ZdixjXsf11UsWkzuPJtE362HiwPY3y1ZGGaTpBJAxLDLRTfh6~WXcnMFxxElBZ1h3rtpPR5BQkNnGyo6RVvS6i941lM9gzf3LYmikVweOqZgIFrQ7smvTS8NAkJR6P6k8YKliJBcwbdNEXVQFtuUPss2RyBx-vbrGB-K1o-B3fREp2QcUa4gzjk3-RQbnuK6GK9AQ00Ad8PrzFHXQ~s7lM8kX9dzGstunXjSeiYU-E~b2PjqYlMBxQI17fyJQhn5wMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Building Code Council","date","2025-07-31T00:20:14.643Z","article","The State Building Code Council on July 25 directed staff to publish the commercial energy code recommendations produced by the Mechanical, Ventilation, Plumbing and Energy (MVPE) committee and the commercial energy tag for formal public comment.

Why it matters: The package contains a reworked prescriptive pathway (C406), changes to glazing and envelope requirements, updates to mechanical system pathways and heat‑pump treatments, and modeling work intended to keep Washington on the statutory energy‑savings trajectory to 2031.

Kjell Anderson, chairing the discussion for the commercial energy tag, summarized the work that produced the package. “We had over 14 meetings and about 85 hours of awesome technical discussions on these things through a 163 proposals,” Kjell said, and noted the tag passed 123 proposals while 21 failed and 19 were withdrawn. He described the most notable technical changes: an overhaul of the C406 credit table to put fossil and heat‑pump paths on the same footing; new sub‑tables and credits; a proposed minimum of triple‑glazed windows for a portion of glazing in many buildings; and revised credits for thermal energy networks and load management.

The package also reflects modeling work PNNL is performing for the state. Kjell told the council, “NIEA has funded PNNL to update the total credits required and the amount of credit that each option receives,” and that the modeling will be posted for review on the SBCC website.

Action taken: Council member Angela Haft moved that staff prepare and file a CR-102 to release the commercial energy code recommendations for public comment; Tom Young seconded. The motion carried by voice vote.

What’s next: The CR-102 public comment period will let utilities, builders, designers, local governments and other stakeholders review the proposed changes and submit comments. PNNL’s final modeling results will be made available during the public‑comment window and considered by the council during final adoption.

Ending: Council members thanked the tag and MVPE volunteers for extensive technical work. The council will consider final decisions after the CR-102 comment period and associated modeling and economic analyses.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SBCC Council Meeting - July 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The State Building Code Council on July 25 directed staff to publish the commercial energy code recommendations produced by the MVPE committee and the commercial energy tag for public comment.","taxTitle","Building Code Council, Governor's Office - Boards & Commissions, Executive, Washington","taxId",24233,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149918,"State building code council asks standing committee to study fire marshals' emergency rule request on building separation",2010,796000,2806000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c&start=796&end=2806","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c/thumbnail_796000.jpg","/articles/6149918/Washington/State-building-code-council-asks-standing-committee-to-study-fire-marshals-emergency-rule-request-on-building-separation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149918-79d973418f266ad995b9da728bb0bab9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501442&Signature=Y8GZYfWCKftmKOGOoPsQ-E1XBPRvN-rkoa2ADrPE1yQmkO4Ip9jk6rPDZLARjfRlM~qbb1r6K5sk6pMU79w2084pW~D7ToktzlwnC-y9IYxlX7yEKRoZiBxD7shyEoHN45uEhOTo4hh5WwoG~aH~G3Yb8OwIp55fRwTQBFymCI~83gjyBoxDcd0LspJSPoI2ZPe~3XMqWqit4mnQ9p7Hju5Cxscf-qIJOY7Y8ts8FWQdK71YJxx-kHM0555wZ4yG55lhm49FEnb9nVZAWnmie2gsG8EJX5pNxvN5euYBib2IzOLcKvn3mPJnuDdXKf-wkWT6jpZTY1m24JIk0w~NLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Building Code Council Vice Chair Jay Arnold opened the council’s July 25 meeting with the introduction of an emergency rule request from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals and asked staff for background. Staff member Dustin (last name not specified) told the council it was an introduction only and “the council is not allowed to take action on an emergency rule request at the meeting where it's introduced.”

Why it matters: The petition would raise minimum exterior separation in some backyard dwelling situations that local jurisdictions and developers say could force redesign of already‑platted lots and reduce the number of units that can be built, while fire officials say the change is needed to ensure safe access for gurneys and ground‑ladder rescue operations.

The petition asks for an emergency rule under RCW 19.270.032. Representative Suzanne Schmidt and several council members said city planning offices and developers had raised concerns that increasing separation from 3 feet to 5 feet could require projects to be redesigned. “If a house has already been platted and this emergency rule takes place, they would have to go back to the drawing board because they’re gonna go from 3 feet to 5 feet,” Representative Suzanne Schmidt said during the public discussion.

Fire officials and private consultants argued the change addresses access problems for rescue operations. Ken Burlet, representing Fire Code Consultant LLC (and formerly of the Seattle Fire Department), cited existing fire code language on required access walkways: “What 504.1 says in the fire code ... is exterior doors and openings required by this code pertaining to the fire code or the International Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access,” Burlet said. He described situations where ladders and gurneys cannot be used safely if structures are too close to property lines or each other.

The council discussed process and authority. Assistant Attorney General Derek Meyer Bachtel cautioned members about the new legislative requirement that petitions not be acted on in the meeting where they are introduced; members and counsel debated whether the council could or should refer the matter immediately to a tag or standing committee for additional stakeholder work. Several council members — including Kjell Anderson, Roger (last name in transcript: Haringa) and Dan Young — said more stakeholdering was needed so that both fire‑safety and land‑use consequences could be considered.

Action taken: Rather than make a finding on whether an emergency exists, the council voted to ask the Building, Fire, Residential and WUI (BFRW) standing committee to review the petition, gather additional stakeholder input, and provide the council with a recommendation. The motion to ask the BFRW committee to study the petition was seconded and carried by voice vote.

What’s next: The BFRW committee will review the petition, collect written and oral stakeholder input and report back to the full council at a future meeting. Council members asked that stakeholders, including city planning divisions that have raised concerns, forward written information to staff for distribution to members before the next meeting.

Ending: The council took no emergency action at the July 25 meeting and directed the BFRW committee to study the proposal and return findings and recommendations to the full council before any determination on emergency rulemaking is made.","State Building Code Council Vice Chair Jay Arnold opened the council’s July 25 meeting with the introduction of an emergency rule request from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals and asked staff for background.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149907,"Residential energy code proposals cleared for public comment after tag and MVPE review",1324,4122000,5446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c&start=4122&end=5446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c/thumbnail_4122000.jpg","/articles/6149907/Washington/Residential-energy-code-proposals-cleared-for-public-comment-after-tag-and-MVPE-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149907-35c633154677682b7143f4ca1547d1dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501442&Signature=Sv1uN6qAsNvTChEsgz8wcyNmUmbo0PaFADm~qIVvJlBV6x4oFqDAqk7-FdOcTtk3oIT1lx1prDgJjuSC7lLbBgd~oPNkapdbJQTI9iLIPccUQ1KFdoI1-CW2q0MrOEPfPExUyBbVYSTQ1dndd11C1~s~~07tq5bLWFe5GIlFfxr6RdzXPfxGT5Oyh-tl7WQEbWcbvSqzMaCxcTsIBibVVVM0ZsIkV9q5wi8UmfGNO-n9jCsg1QRUkc2TRFlp7FWKBAC3WBoM0Dm~4aheyntowKVOzRKb6ol8FZaifxJo25W7XAXj68avIOratpE2TYn3hEC7j3eNgTeFNQLgmhTmLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Building Code Council on July 25 directed staff to prepare a CR‑102 to release proposed residential energy code updates for public comment.

Why it matters: The residential package changes the structure and gradation of the R406 credit table, adds an ERI (Energy Rating Index) pathway as an alternative compliance path, tightens fenestration U‑values, moves toward a 3 ACH‑50 airtightness requirement and requires energy recovery ventilation (HRV/ERV) in Climate Zone 5B (eastern Washington). The changes are intended to move the state toward its statutory energy targets while providing multiple routes for compliance.

Kjell Anderson, chair of the residential energy tag, summarized the tag’s work: “We met 7 times for about 40 hours to complete the integrated draft and review the code proposals. There were only 48 proposals ... We passed 21, we did not pass 26, and 1 was withdrawn.” The tag adopted an ERI pathway and smoothed the R406 credit gradation so required credits increase gradually with home size rather than in a single jump for certain square‑footage thresholds.

The package also includes updated U‑values for fenestration that align with the R‑value targets and a requirement for energy recovery ventilation in Zone 5B. A proposal to allow a PV plus battery credit was adopted by the MVPE committee, increasing the potential credit for on‑site renewables and storage.

Action taken: Council member Kjell Anderson moved and Katie Sheehan seconded that staff prepare and file a CR‑102 to release the residential energy code recommendations for public comment. The motion carried by voice vote.

What’s next: The CR‑102 public comment period will collect input on the ERI pathway, the revised credit table, and the other proposed changes. Council staff and tags will consider comments, PNNL modeling inputs and economic analyses prior to final decisions.

Ending: Council members thanked the residential tag and MVPE committee for months of technical work. The council will evaluate public comments and the accompanying cost/benefit analyses before any final amendments are adopted.","The State Building Code Council on July 25 directed staff to prepare a CR‑102 to release proposed residential energy code updates for public comment.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149902,"Council approves BFRW’s EV‑charging table changes for public comment amid debate over readiness and grid capacity",3018,5688000,8706000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c&start=5688&end=8706","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c/thumbnail_5688000.jpg","/articles/6149902/Washington/Council-approves-BFRWs-EVcharging-table-changes-for-public-comment-amid-debate-over-readiness-and-grid-capacity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149902-c048c0253e78056e283bd3b0bdb93608/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501442&Signature=gaX720ripqs0uC9fMmg9amKiAb~UEZ08wtwBA7EcK-0LTawBGfjqkzGqTA8GoDwpaZhuOwA61Q6ihXNjUPSTpwVwr2MIXStoGoVeJS6O9vN1pI0CsqmO0dGQeE0mRyjW826qUMdEa~ZakI0ETd885ykpE7rjAI4G0OVsBZSiK7jSpz2eJG4d86i4vgY1~JSebNSJffAKmCFNiIjuCjYL~uy8eM-fBxllTwv6k5VfqvzIzx1E-4xM6GzcOXq~LRL9fUsV3AkEfQJvTPIC9PwIx9LFTMlSf~WxoEhe87xJExziuuS4M3qBCieUxoB3IPtvzHsnA~k-mEPATzYKhqAm8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Building Code Council voted July 25 to send a revised IBC proposal on electric‑vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure to CR‑102 public comment after several hours of discussion and public testimony.

Why it matters: The proposal revises definitions of EV charger, EV‑ready and EV‑capable and changes percentage requirements in Table 429.2 for Group R occupancies. It reduces immediate EV‑ready stall counts and increases EV‑capable conduit provisions. Advocates say the approach balances upfront cost and long‑term deployment; critics say lowering EV‑ready requirements is a step backward and that the council should wait for updated regional modeling.

Roger (council member and BFRW committee lead) summarized the technical work: “There are 3 main areas that we ended up addressing. Number 1 is the definitions ... the EV capable includes raceway and conduit, but not the wire.” He explained the committee used Northwest Power and Conservation Council projections to align percent‑of‑spaces targets with expected EV stock in 2030 and 2045.

Public testimony was mixed. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington supported the BFRW approach and said it reduces initial electrical service sizing costs: “One thing that this proposal does is it's removing EV capable from the sizing requirements for the electrical panels ... the most expensive cost ... is often the panel sizing and the electrical load, that's gonna go down to just the 10% for the charging stations and the 10% for EV ready.”

King County EV program manager Ross Freeman urged more analysis before publishing: “King County doesn't support the proposal as written, and we don't recommend that it's ready for public comment,” he said, suggesting the council wait for updated modeling from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the state transportation electrification plan.

Action taken: Council member Tom Handy moved and Katie Sheehan seconded that staff file a CR‑102 and release the BFRW EV charging proposal for public comment. The motion passed by voice vote with one council member recorded as opposed.

What’s next: The CR‑102 comment period will gather input on definitions, the percentage mix of EV charging/ready/capable stalls, and the approach to counting provided vs. required parking. The BFRW committee and staff will consider public comments and updated regional modeling in preparing any final recommendations for adoption.

Ending: The proposal will go to a public comment process; council members noted the subject will require ongoing coordination with utilities and planners as electrification and grid capacity evolve.","The State Building Code Council voted July 25 to send a revised IBC EV‑charging proposal to CR‑102 public comment after BFRW committee work and mixed public testimony.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6149898,"Council advances two embodied‑carbon code proposals to public comment amid split views",6136,8857000,14993000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c&start=8857&end=14993","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509896-d9b5459c005c97bc544ccb5d1ec3af9c/thumbnail_8857000.jpg","/articles/6149898/Washington/Council-advances-two-embodiedcarbon-code-proposals-to-public-comment-amid-split-views","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6149898-4deee699d70bf2ac05b8b72b48ea03f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501442&Signature=i4kvQnV4k0w1euvU4rTbLYFg5p7ozrzej8AbG8dB7TxyM1aZSyVW2uKvMWeOaGeoufDv6CsNlAP1NbhMXB8KGmYi0pnKB5xwuiC65CvJk-uSnFXQ35aB3yxukAOxwYYDhW4FBy1V2gz8b2Gk6vJcKadpKJsbjgSBeJCGSdV96lx1v~080wpvlBWy80gFdp0wsAKKohoBQJ7VbZIY8MoYY8jKlidWw3q~274Ql0Pb1T8i5t8521zXkuvgNUFBeF50dYGDRTNNNk5Vvt1WKr58xoadNWxE2rqAwNA3X0J963UR-vAdmk4ITdcNYkDJL9Z9giCaf8Cx0w4Om8MHT9ZViw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Building Code Council voted on July 25 to publish for public comment two alternative proposals addressing embodied carbon in buildings: (1) the BFRW committee’s materials‑focused appendix (with product compliance, whole‑building LCA and building‑reuse options) and (2) a whole‑building life‑cycle assessment (LCA) pathway option advanced in revised form by council member Kjell Anderson.

Why it matters: Embodied carbon — the greenhouse‑gas emissions from manufacturing, transporting and assembling building materials — accounts for a substantial share of a building’s lifetime emissions. The legislature and several stakeholders have urged a standard approach so local jurisdictions that choose to adopt embodied‑carbon measures have consistent tools and definitions.

Proponents from the New Buildings Institute and Carbon Leadership Forum argued the state needs an optional, standardized appendix so jurisdictions without the staff or time to write their own rules have an implementable model. Ariel Brenner of the New Buildings Institute said the draft aimed to “put forward one standardized code framework vetted by the public, that can be used, across the state by jurisdictions on a voluntary basis.” Aurora Jensen of the Carbon Leadership Forum said a whole‑building LCA pathway is a “very strong proposal” because it rewards reuse and procurement choices in a single method.

Opponents, including trade associations and contractors, cautioned that supply‑chain realities, limited availability of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), and the need for robust economic analysis mean the council should delay or limit any mandatory steps. Tim Atterbury of the Associated General Contractors and other industry commenters asked for additional study and legislative coordination.

Representative Alex Ramel (sponsor of related legislation) said the legislative working group established by House Bill 1282 is focused on EPDs and materials, and not whole‑building LCA; he warned against waiting for the working group to finish and urged progress by code channels. “12‑82 is about EPDs and materials. Right? It’s not about whole life cycle,” Rep. Ramel said.

Action taken: Representative Ramel moved and Chell (Kjell) seconded that staff prepare CR‑102 filings for both the BFRW/materials‑pathway proposal and the Whole‑Building LCA pathway modification advanced by Kjell Anderson. The motion carried by roll‑call voice vote after extended discussion.

What’s next: Both proposals will be posted for public comment. Staff will prepare required economic impact statements and append the proposals to CR‑102 filings. The council and tags will consider comments and any new data from the HB 1282 work group and other stakeholders before a final decision.

Ending: The council’s vote moves embodied‑carbon proposals into the public‑comment phase; members said they expect more stakeholder engagement and economic analysis before any adoption decision.","The council advanced two alternative proposals for an optional embodied‑carbon appendix — the BFRW/materials‑pathway package and a whole‑building LCA reporting pathway with stricter thresholds — to CR‑102 public comment. Proponents said an appendix will provide a standardized framework for jurisdictions that wish to adopt embodied‑carbon rules; o","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commercial energy code package sent for public comment after MVPE review

State building code council asks standing committee to study fire marshals' emergency rule request on building separation

Residential energy code proposals cleared for public comment after tag and MVPE review

Council approves BFRW’s EV‑charging table changes for public comment amid debate over readiness and grid capacity

Council advances two embodied‑carbon code proposals to public comment amid split views