[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6220946,"mediaKeyId","3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70","parentId",3615722,"title","Council allows alternatives to on‑roof PV, including contributions to housing-focused renewable fund","audioSeconds",3157,"startMs",3507000,"endMs",6664000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70&start=3507&end=6664","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70/thumbnail_3507000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6220946/Washington/Council-allows-alternatives-to-onroof-PV-including-contributions-to-housing-focused-renewable-fund","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220946-10eb882805ed8cc7033ab300089d59f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770707362&Signature=KtXHeGlo7Raf70Kl89iv74D5d39M7xya4e6wjL5an~NZjxEEB9k30WuwDYm9QO2VBZPYZeZQ1ObSURAZk8-LRlMFZ2jxspfQQa~gDS0ibT1MQh2ZNnpY3lpaN7vTujepHoINYqhnV0wr0UHf-XiWZB8zk4J20Av4FxsfwB93JgK6gA8BTrnPSfnagJt8E~IT7TQ8KX2jICPHpGGvCR-FkwjI1Z~DflUT8lPvbBK7UzAOyPTYwsU9ZKxFsLyozg7yXhp8Tj3AlsuFueOtb8jg0Dih9lPD2ddFUq4GTxV1TkpvO3U4npgQq8FtU99uMSpLOWsVkqB1R4J0kljP7FxZOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Building Code Council","date","2025-05-29T14:09:48Z","article","The Building Code Council on March 21 approved changes to rooftop solar requirements that add clarity on exemptions and create alternative compliance pathways for projects that cannot reasonably accommodate on‑site PV.

Under the revised language, projects that lack sufficient unshaded, buildable roof area must pursue a prescribed set of alternatives rather than receiving an unconditional exemption. Alternatives include installing PV where feasible, investing in off‑site community solar or owned off‑site systems, or contributing a per‑watt amount to a state-administered affordable‑housing renewable fund managed by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. The approved text also allows for code‑official approved local utility-administered renewable funds where they demonstrably benefit the local service territory’s customers.

Proponents argued the state housing fund option directs in‑lieu payments to projects and communities that most need assistance and provides certainty for transactions. “It ensures additionality and channels funds to affordable housing,” said Marcus Verta (solar industry), who urged prioritizing affordable housing recipients. Some industry commenters urged allowing visibility on pitched roofs (up to an 8:12 slope) for PV in addition to low‑slope flat roofs; the final motion kept a conservative slope allowance but directed staff to consider additional implementation detail later.

The council approved the modified solar alternative language by roll call. Dwayne Johnlin, the proposer, said the change aims to protect affordable housing costs while still requiring solar readiness and equivalent contributions when on‑site PV is not feasible.

The motion passed with a 11–1 roll call tally and 2 abstentions. SBCC staff were asked to coordinate with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission and utilities to confirm administration processes for the renewable investment option and to clarify how contributions will be treated for crediting and additionality.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SBCC WSEC-C TAG - May 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Building Code Council approved language that expands exceptions to rooftop photovoltaic (PV) requirements and permits in‑lieu contributions to a state housing agency fund that will finance solar installations on affordable housing projects.","taxTitle","Building Code Council, Governor's Office - Boards & Commissions, Executive, Washington","taxId",24233,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6220951,"Council trims predictive energy-modeling requirement; requires estimated EUI on construction documents",2195,3369000,5564000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70&start=3369&end=5564","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70/thumbnail_3369000.jpg","/articles/6220951/Washington/Council-trims-predictive-energy-modeling-requirement-requires-estimated-EUI-on-construction-documents","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220951-56ed5cb15d3a2ea8f2d7fd76dbd7983e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770707362&Signature=NmOSmt5FGl37zm5DP8SXyKP9HZqeNmEba6flnCI5xyHDaJvdlpF-~mgrRqopIaQIU1BXB2YVaLkdcZUUxOiB1QKyAK-RcOwaupmlzYK2c7eZ9cLKpE4Y-gxQDStqwU5IRWYIm7woUK91iSZ2agrKUgqKtgM7MaX5dQR6rzQ1f8-u5raZO~zhEqpJxi2iD1tCnaiVOMiNevik8RjiH1OR6WwqYg6vZuxrliXv7k1YcB5JeubXzfg0Nl8JZnY~nmYQujDyHmBKIVrBhkKSshP2nkSwT7n61To8VlP3np3Eg-7fkYL0Uvp7jTWUHnryaS9nrKfuM9Y9z4uDpAka7DZnpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Building Code Council voted on March 21 to remove a mandatory, project-level predictive energy-modeling requirement and replace it with a requirement that building permit submissions include an estimated annual energy-use intensity (EUI) or the jurisdiction’s analogous BPS target on construction documents.

Proponents argued the change protects owners and design teams from the cost and timing impacts of large, late-stage predictive models while still improving designer and owner awareness of a building’s expected performance. Opponents had argued that predictive models—particularly under a performance pathway—produce better design outcomes and should be required for larger projects.

The council’s final motion added a path that allows design teams to provide a documented estimated EUI (derived from benchmarking, engineering calculations, or predictive modeling) on the construction documents as an acceptable alternative to the model mandate. The tag debated several options: limiting modeling to large “tier 1” buildings, allowing estimated EUIs as a fourth option, or retaining the predictive model. After deliberations and multiple amendatory motions, the council approved the approach that keeps most of the original proposal’s documentation requirements but permits an estimated EUI on the construction documents in lieu of submitting a full predictive model.

Supporters described the compromise as a “baby step” forward that preserves many of the proposal’s helpful components — improved metering, commissioning, and project manual requirements — without imposing predictive modeling across the board. Critics said the change might reduce the design-stage evaluation of high-value efficiency measures.

The council approved the motion to substitute the estimated EUI requirement for the predictive model and to strike a proposed separate “energy performance report” requirement; the recorded vote carried 9–3 with two abstentions.","After a long debate about modeling burden and enforcement, the Building Code Council removed a broad predictive energy-modeling mandate and instead required that projects include an estimated energy-use-intensity (EUI) or equivalent performance target on construction documents for buildings subject to the clean buildings performance standard.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6220956,"Council approves humidification controls with higher humidity allowance for some climate zones",1431,1929000,3360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70&start=1929&end=3360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3615722-590114674c0267b9ca6f7dc5379e0a70/thumbnail_1929000.jpg","/articles/6220956/Washington/Council-approves-humidification-controls-with-higher-humidity-allowance-for-some-climate-zones","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6220956-3e54dfeb222fa583e214bf07b344dcb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770707362&Signature=fTSMDXh3UEv0yLepg8vW84E8~yLGWo5h4llTGv43h-emRIRipdcAQMJumNfQIM~YqxQJTseH~Q7zA4jSH04hk3vOXYiKyMsMWE80s41dAVSv1bO~mwNWCApDBlVToQ7N86UsaKR-m8yEZ7F~ApSyHT1b1fs4GH~tFxf--3wBTUKwwWJJifJuK~9pZxkTotfrIO1Phs8x4LUi7oUpL19WE87zLLbnW99-T450ISzACXmtcxs0T6gB03edseFIU0pvuDphcxISnu83cuyBFqVeswhQet~5WbWTn1p3aQviidtVzfjeruNCgdJ5fLIE9-R5I82mkshPnHO8KKSx7IbWtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Building Code Council on March 21 approved a revised humidification and dehumidification proposal that adopts new equipment and control guidance while setting different humidity thresholds by climate zone.

The council’s action approves the proposal as modified to allow up to 67 percent of some existing fossil/electric systems to remain in limited circumstances and — crucially for humidification — sets higher permissible indoor relative-humidity limits for warmer climate zones. Proponents and opponents argued over whether limiting humidification above a 30 percent relative-humidity threshold would harm indoor health outcomes and whether energy-recovery requirements would preserve efficiency.

The approved language folds previously separate system and controls sections into a single, consolidated code section. It calls for adiabatic (direct evaporative) humidification except where enthalpy (energy) recovery is used; in the latter case steam humidification is permitted subject to maximum humidity thresholds. The council adopted a compromise assigning a 50 percent threshold in some warm climate zones and a 30 percent threshold in cooler zones, with a final table of scoping and exceptions captured in the adopted text.

Supporters said the rewrite simplified the code and preserved engineer choice while keeping a performance focus. “We came to a great place,” said Eric Bedell, the proponent, noting the combined section reduced duplication and clarified controls requirements. Several mechanical engineers and manufacturers raised technical concerns about the practicalities and maintenance needs of adiabatic systems; the council’s language keeps existing commissioning, water-treatment, and maintenance expectations in place.

Opponents warned the proposal still imposed equipment constraints and could be difficult for projects with existing mechanical infrastructure. Dwayne Johnlin and others argued the changes would effectively require higher-efficiency systems while restricting some equipment choices for projects under tight budgets.

The council voted to approve the modified humidification proposal. The roll call showed the motion carried; the final tally reported by the council was 10 yes, 5 no and 1 abstention on the final form presented at the meeting.","Building Code Council approved a revised humidification control proposal that keeps adiabatic humidification as the preferred method, allows steam with enthalpy recovery, and raises the upper relative-humidity threshold for certain climate zones after a floor debate about health and efficiency.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council allows alternatives to on‑roof PV, including contributions to housing-focused renewable fund

Council trims predictive energy-modeling requirement; requires estimated EUI on construction documents

Council approves humidification controls with higher humidity allowance for some climate zones