OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington State Building Code Council voted Friday to direct the residential and commercial energy code technical advisory groups (tags) to use annual metered site energy — energy measured at the customer meter — as the basis for the 2024 Washington State Energy Code, rejecting a proposal to replace it with a source-energy basis.

The council acted after a public hearing and more than two hours of member discussion. The motion, moved by Kjell Anderson and seconded by Katie Sheehan, passed on a roll-call vote of 10 yes to 2 no.

The vote follows extensive, often sharply divergent testimony during a March 21 public hearing on whether the code should measure building energy performance by site energy (measured at the meter) or source energy (which accounts for upstream generation and transmission losses). Supporters of source energy argued it better reflects total system resource use; supporters of site energy said it aligns with state law, existing baselines and what building owners control.

“BIW supports source energy or energy cost as the basis for the energy code,” said Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington during oral testimony. By contrast, architect Jim Hanford argued, “site energy is the best basis for our energy code.” Gregory Johnson of Avista told the council, “Source energy is the most accurate means to measure and reduce both energy consumption and carbon emissions. . . .” Luke Howard, technical lead at the Department of Commerce, recommended keeping site energy, saying in testimony that “Commerce recommends that the council stick with site energy as the energy evaluation metric for the Washington State Energy Code.”

In debate, council members cited statutory alignment, modeling history and the practical impacts of changing metrics mid-cycle. Several speakers warned that switching to source energy would create new modeling choices — for example, which utility or hourly source factors to use — that could add complexity and uncertainty for designers, code officials and builders. Kjell Anderson, who proposed the motion, said annual metered site energy “is most closely aligned with Washington’s statutory goals and requirements” and noted that the state’s progress toward the 2031 energy goal has been tracked using site-energy measures.

The council’s formal direction instructs both the commercial and residential code tags to use annual metered site energy when drafting the 2024 energy code provisions, explicitly naming several code sections for clarity and letting tags retain discretion on technical implementation. The motion also instructed that on- and off-site renewables be counted at the site and allowed the tags to accept, modify or reject the original proposal that prompted the hearing.

What the council did not do was rewrite the code immediately. Council members and staff said the tags will now continue technical work and receive code-change petitions in the usual way; the tags retain the authority to draft specific language and trade-off tables that will come back to the council for eventual rulemaking.

Votes at a glance
- Direction to tags on energy metric (motion by Kjell Anderson; second Katie Sheehan): Use annual metered site energy for 2024 residential and commercial energy codes; on- and off-site renewables counted at site; tags may accept/modify/reject the original petition. Outcome: Passed, roll call 10 yes, 2 no (Damon Doyle and Tom Handy voted no). The council recorded the tally as “Passes 10 to 2.”
- Acceptance of the 2024 Washington State Energy Code — Residential integrated draft (motion to accept integrated draft as amended by MVPE): Outcome: Passed by roll-call vote 9–2.
- Opened petitions windows: The council voted to open the petition window for the 2024 residential energy code and for the single-exit/multiplex housing item from March 21 to May 19, 2025. Outcome: Approved by voice vote.
- Tag appointments and alternates: Council approved multiple tag member appointments and alternates (residential and commercial energy tags, IFC tag, IFC-site appointments). Outcome: Approved by voice vote.
- Other petition routing: Petitions for the International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) were moved toward CR 102 review as shown on staff materials. Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

Why it matters
The council’s decision preserves continuity with how Washington has measured progress toward the state’s 2031 energy goals (which were measured relative to the 2006 Washington baseline using site metrics) and with federal appliance test procedures and consumer-facing “yellow label” metrics that report site-metered use. Proponents of source energy argued it offers a fuller system-level accounting and is used by many federal and national programs; opponents said it would shift control away from building designers and owners and would introduce new methodological choices for the council to resolve.

What’s next
The tags will resume technical work using site-energy metrics and will consider any outstanding proposals or new petitions that come in during the open window. Proposed code language and trade-off tables will return to the council during the normal rule-making cycle for review, cost-benefit analysis and final decisions.

Speakers (selected)
- Todd Beiruther, Chair, Washington State Building Code Council (hearing officer)
- Dustin Kerr, State Building Code Council staff
- Patrick Hanks, Building Industry Association of Washington (testimony)
- Gregory Johnson, Avista (testimony)
- Luke Howard, Washington State Department of Commerce (testimony)
- Jim Hanford, architect (testimony)
- Poppy Storm, 2050 Institute (testimony)
- Nancy Hirsch, Northwest Energy Coalition (testimony)
- Timothy Atteberry, Associated General Contractors of Washington (public comment)
- Council members (speakers during deliberation): Kjell Anderson; Katie Sheehan; Damon Doyle; Tom Handy; Roger Haringa; Ben O’Mara; Pete Reekie; Dan Young; Jay Arnold; Justin Bergau

Authorities referenced (as stated in hearing/testimony)
- statute: "RCW 19.27A.0160" referenced_by ["Deepa Sivarajan","RMI/RMI witness"]
- statute: "RCW 19.27A.0140" referenced_by ["Deepa Sivarajan"]
- statute: "RCW 19.27A.0200" referenced_by ["Deepa Sivarajan"]
(Note: council and witnesses repeatedly referred to RCW provisions governing the Washington State Energy Code; the article does not add statutory analysis beyond explicit references in testimony.)

Discussion vs. decision
- Discussion points: comparative merits of site vs. source energy; alignment with state statutes and prior baselines; measurement complexity and utility/source-factor choices; potential changes to compliance costs for different fuel pathways; consistency with federal appliance labeling.
- Direction: Council directed tags to use annual metered site energy.
- Decision: Formal vote to send that direction back to the tags (10–2).

Provenance (transcript evidence)
- topicintro: {"block_id":"block_2080.29","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Dustin Kerr: State Building Code Council is holding a public hearing to consider using site energy or source energy as the basis for calculating energy efficiency in the 2024 Washington State Energy Code..."}
- topfinish: {"block_id":"block_7939.645-7947.245","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Vote roll call: Passes 10 to 2. With that action, then the recommendation back to the tag..."}

Clarifying details
- Petition window opened: March 21, 2025 — May 19, 2025 (residential energy code and single-exit/multiplex); council voted to open these windows.
- Hearing date: March 21, 2025; written comments requested by March 14, 2025 (staff posting deadline).
- Vote tally (site vs source motion): 10 yes, 2 no.

Proper_names
[{"name":"Washington State Building Code Council","type":"agency"},{"name":"Building Industry Association of Washington","type":"organization"},{"name":"Avista","type":"business"},{"name":"Department of Commerce","type":"agency"},{"name":"RMI","type":"organization"},{"name":"Northwest Energy Coalition","type":"organization"},{"name":"2050 Institute","type":"organization"}]

salience":{"overall":0.90,"overall_justification":"The decision sets the metric used to measure energy efficiency for the next code cycle and aligns with statutory baselines, affecting code development, compliance, and future policy pathways."}