Washington State Energy Code commercial Technical Advisory Group members voted on March 20 to move a proposed C406 compliance credit for induction cooktops forward with direction for further refinements, approved several separate efficiency and testing measures aimed at lowering peak heating/cooling loads and improving building envelopes, and postponed more sweeping rewrites of the energy-credit tables for additional analysis.

The most contentious item was proposal 153 ("induction cooktops"): the proponent described the measure as "advocating a C406 credit for induction cooktops" and proposed a credit table that would prorate points by the share of induction cooktops in a project. TAG members debated whether the credit should require 100% induction (many argued that a high minimum threshold—90–95%—would be simpler and easier to inspect) or be prorated by number or connected capacity. Concerns included inspection burden in large multifamily projects and whether the credit’s value should vary by the building’s primary space- and water-heating fuel. After discussion the TAG adopted a motion to advance the proposal with a prorated method (number of induction cooktops ÷ total cooktops), and directed PNNL to recalculate point values and to check whether a gas-range pathway would merit any credit under the council’s site-vs-source energy decision. The motion passed in a roll-call vote: motion carries 9–6 with 1 abstention.

The TAG recorded the roll call for that motion as follows (as announced from the transcript): Margaret Montgomery — No; Tim Barker — No; Dwayne Johnlin — Yes; Eric Goodell — No; Sean Vigg — No; Greg Johnson — Yes; Nathan Miller — Yes; (Irina Respetnis asked for the motion to be repeated and later abstained); Kevin Duall — Yes; Poppy Storm — Yes; Larry Andrews — Yes; (Irina Sasserova’s alternate voted No); Brett Conway — No; Luke Howard — Yes; Marcus Verta — Yes; Alessandra De La Torre — Yes. The chair announced the final count as "motion carries 9 to 6 with 1 abstention." The TAG instructed staff to include the resulting credit in the package for the Council packet (to proceed to the next stage). The proponent asked that PNNL recalculate credits based on the final site-vs-source policy when available; the TAG accepted that direction.

Other actions and discussion highlights
- Semi‑heated spaces (proposal 178): The TAG approved a proposal to create an option for Group S and Group F occupancies that are semi‑heated to use a reduced set of C406 credits (lighting and renewable energy focused) and added an exception limiting load-management requirements for small semi‑heated F occupancies under 25,000 sq ft. The motion passed after a friendly amendment to make the language explicitly reference semi‑heated spaces and clarify the treatment of load‑management credits for smaller F occupancies.

- Peak heating/cooling limit credit (proposal 237): The TAG approved a new optional credit that measures the building-level sum of peak heating and peak cooling and sets a target ceiling (the proposal used 8 BTU/h·ft² as the illustrative threshold). TAG members asked that the credit be written to avoid double‑counting with existing C406 measures and that it explicitly tie equipment sizing to the modeled peak (so owners cannot oversize equipment and circumvent the intent). The motion to accept the proposal as modified passed by voice vote.

- Building-envelope thermal imaging credit (proposal 170): The group approved an optional C406 credit that awards points to projects that commission thermal imaging of the complete thermal envelope and document identified defects and corrective actions. TAG discussion focused on practical testing windows (temperature differential required), how owners would schedule imaging during construction to allow corrections, and industry capacity for qualified thermographers; the TAG kept the measure as an elective credit and noted follow‑up guidance would be useful for code officials and project teams.

- Larger structural proposals postponed: Two of the largest items were postponed for additional work and recalculation:
- Proposal 182 (replacement of C406 with IECC tables and related gas‑heat‑pump credit language): TAG members voted to postpone the section that would wholesale-replace the Washington C406 tables with the 2024 IECC tables and asked the proponent to resubmit with full language and an audit that preserves the state‑specific custom credits already adopted. The portion adding credit language for gas‑fired heat pumps was also postponed to allow more modeling and formula review.
- Proposal 183/other credit‑recalculation requests: TAG members agreed there should be a single, documented recalculation process (PNNL or equivalent) and postponed some stand‑alone requests pending development of that consistent approach.

- Administrative and editorial clarifications: Several smaller clarifications were approved, including corrected language for economizer/ERV exceptions, clarifications about activation of garage ventilation (gas sensors must drive the required ventilation rate per the IMC reference), and other wording fixes submitted by TAG members and Seattle staff.

Why these actions matter
The TAG’s votes reflect two patterns: (1) an appetite to add targeted, performance‑oriented credits that reward specific low‑carbon or resilient design choices (induction cooking, thermal imaging, peak‑demand reduction) and (2) caution about large, blunt changes to the C406 credit tables without visible, auditable recalculations. Several TAG members emphasized that credits should be traceable to energy‑savings or grid‑benefit models (PNNL was repeatedly asked to recalculate and publish spreadsheets), and that code language should be practical to inspect and implement.

What’s next
Most approved measures will be packaged for the Council packet and the integrated draft; items the TAG postponed will return after the proponents provide updated language and/or PNNL recalculation work. Staff will publish the TAG’s recommendations and the updated proposal language ahead of the next meeting.

Ending
The TAG concluded the session with direction to staff to capture the motions and changes, and to ask PNNL to run recalculations where requested. Several postponed items were identified as candidates for more detailed off‑line modeling and follow‑up by proponents and technical volunteers.