Johnny Coker presented a proposal adopting the IECC electric‑readiness appendix language to require certain conduit, panel capacity and wiring elements that would make future electrification of appliances easier and cheaper.

Proponents said that installing conduit, space on electrical panels and rough wiring at new‑construction time is less costly than retrofitting later, and would lower long‑term conversion costs. “It’s cheaper to put in electric readiness features upfront than to do it later,” Coker said, and noted similar measures already appear in some other state/local stretch codes.

Opponents raised legal and equity concerns. Several TAG members, including Greg Johnson and Anne Anderson, noted prior appeals and board guidance that model‑code appendices that do not directly affect building energy conservation are outside the IECC base scope. Others warned federal law could preclude state requirements that have the practical effect of discouraging or penalizing the use of federally‑covered gas appliances (EPCA was cited). Builders and industry representatives also said adding mandatory electrical capacity or conduit would add up‑front costs for homebuyers who will not change fuels.

Outcome: TAG did not vote. Several attendees recommended alternatives: (1) keep the appendix as an optional statewide appendix that local jurisdictions may adopt; (2) pursue credit‑based incentives in the energy credits table rather than a mandatory readiness requirement; or (3) collect legal guidance on EPCA preemption before moving forward. Johnny Coker and others said they will refine the text; no formal work group was established during the session.

Why it matters: Electric‑readiness requirements would influence construction costs, utility demand profiles and future electrification rates. TAG members asked for clearer legal guidance and estimated installed costs before considering mandatory adoption.