The Capital Budget Committee took testimony on substitute House Bill 14 58 on Feb. 25, a bill that would require the State Building Code Council to adopt rules to reduce embodied carbon in large building projects and to establish public reporting through the Department of Commerce.

Staff told the committee the bill directs the state building code council to develop embodied-carbon reduction standards that apply to new construction, additions and renovations of 50,000 square feet or larger. Projects may comply by reusing part of an existing building, selecting lower-carbon materials, or completing a whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA), staff member Ingrid Lewis said.

The substitute would require design professionals to submit embodied-carbon data on a Commerce-created standard form and database, and would require Commerce to conduct random audits on 3% of products annually. The staff briefing also noted a preliminary fiscal estimate showing capital budget impacts: roughly $951,000 in total funds for the 2025–27 biennium and $1.7 million in bonds for future costs tied to additional oversight staff at the Department of Enterprise Services, according to the bill report.

Sponsor Representative Duerer said the bill “is meant to address the problem of embodied carbon in our largest commercial buildings” and described three compliance pathways, adding that “we have the local innovation and knowledge to take advantage of the growing green economy in Washington.” He told the committee Washington builds about 150 buildings of this size each year.

Supporters including architects, mass-timber manufacturers and environmental groups said the policy is feasible and already in practice in other jurisdictions. Chell Anderson, an architect and State Building Code Council member, said in her experience “we do this on every project. This doesn't add cost to projects.” Todd Byer, representing Mercer Mass Timber, said he supports the bill and described supply-chain and manufacturing benefits for rural Washington.

Opponents raised concerns about product selection, operational carbon tradeoffs and scalability. Troy Nichols of the American Chemistry Council warned that “a single focus look at embodied carbon could lead to improper product selection, limit the availability of certain insulation materials … and negatively impact the operational carbon use of the building.” The Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association also testified in opposition, arguing embodied carbon is not within the primary lane of the State Building Code Council’s life‑and‑safety mission and asking for more time to study scalability and material supply issues.

Environmental advocates and code practitioners disputed the premise that reducing embodied carbon increases costs. Roger Heringa of DCI Engineers said the assumption that reductions raise construction costs “is false,” and described a project where embodied-carbon reductions also saved money. Kate White Tudor of the Natural Resources Defense Council said the bill affects only a small number of state‑owned projects annually and urged revision of the fiscal note to reflect lower costs.

The committee’s staff and the sponsor pointed to existing work under the Buy Clean/Buy Fair efforts and a state code‑cycle timetable that would phase any reduction requirements into future code updates, with reporting beginning Dec. 31, 2028 and incremental code changes in the 2027 and 2030 cycles.

The committee received extensive oral testimony and moved on to the next agenda item after the hearing concluded.