The Residential Energy Code Technical Advisory Group spent much of its May 30 meeting debating a proposal to adopt the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as Washington’s base residential energy code, rather than continuing to maintain a distinct Washington State Energy Code.

Proponents, including Greg Johnson, said adopting the IECC would simplify code use for builders and inspectors who work across state lines and tap a larger national body of technical resources. “The intent is not to make it any less stringent,” Johnson said, and he urged formation of a work group to map Washington amendments onto the IECC structure.

Opponents cautioned that a straight move to the IECC 2024 could reduce Washington’s built-in efficiency gains. Several TAG members, including Dwayne Johnlin and Anne Anderson, said that the Washington code has historically been more ambitious than the IECC and that restoring that level of performance would require a large effort to add state‑specific credits or amendments.

Speakers on both sides also raised schedule and capacity concerns. Several TAG members said they lack time and staff resources to rework credits, prescriptive requirements and compliance tools before the current code cycle’s deadlines. Krista, staff support, confirmed the TAG will not take final votes until proposals are officially referred and that several follow‑up meetings are planned.

The TAG took an informal temperature check and a minority favored forming an immediate work group to build a business case for wholesale adoption; a majority indicated they preferred to defer major structural change until a later code cycle. Greg Johnson and several volunteers agreed to work informally on a business‑case and comparison analysis for members to review before a formal proposal is scheduled for a vote.

Why it matters: moving to a national model code would change how builders, plan reviewers and energy raters comply with state requirements and could affect training, software tools and enforcement. TAG members asked staff and potential volunteers to develop a more explicit, data‑driven comparison before recommending a formal code change.