[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6198933,"mediaKeyId","3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01","parentId",3840918,"title","Tag postpones proposal to let low‑rise multiplexes choose residential or commercial energy code for further drafting","audioSeconds",4625,"startMs",1629000,"endMs",6254000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01&start=1629&end=6254","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01/thumbnail_1629000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6198933/Washington/Tag-postpones-proposal-to-let-lowrise-multiplexes-choose-residential-or-commercial-energy-code-for-further-drafting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198933-4eeaf56e94f65a37e8d41decf473b592/orig.mp4?Expires=1770550827&Signature=aic4BzRdr6JygFZoLQTTsxn4JI4mUUZy~8m3IlFmVle3APoq8~hf2qV1V-vf1jIYbN6rlDVudm55Lhz7~Z2gPvsSn5Rg3O1L0eLJwYf46uWwsVgpFFvSz2ZST1AtImBmIskvhwFEzKlF3seKZI22VHySTb9kfcEUw2WK1jCCdFubNjWGhRp3TinFMSunTzjWGcu~ItB~sniYYBPtayAc1B5da2Q3v8kH45qOOYlEgDFoV8nizNiu5U9Y5uwUXykcb8ARca1AEL2RRsxMn-GtNEN-wtszLov7LUcjsNE0QNp9ByhCSjGbNC7eBpybiEiNpa~V4OrhiH2X0h4lGZewUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Building Code Council","date","2025-06-16T17:06:39.987Z","article","The residential energy code tag postponed consideration of a proposal (048) that would let certain low‑rise multiplexes — buildings up to three stories and up to six dwelling units accessed from interior circulation — choose to comply with either the residential or commercial energy code.

Proponent Sherry Newbold said the amendment’s goal is to “align the possibility for the missing middle structures” and to allow builders of small multiplexes an option to use the residential energy code where appropriate. Newbold said the intent is to reduce cost and complexity barriers for small multifamily projects, particularly those intended to support affordable housing.

Speakers were split. Architect Alexis Suggs and others supported the choice as a tool to reduce the cost and administrative burden of following commercial requirements for compact, low‑rise multifamily. “This is a common complaint ... it really prohibits people from pursuing this type of project,” Suggs said, describing practitioners’ concerns that interior‑access triggers commercial energy code requirements that complicate design and add cost.

Opponents said the proposal needs clearer scoping language. Dwayne Johnlin said the proposal appears to create a narrow carve‑out for a particular configuration and observed there was not clear evidence that residential compliance would always be less expensive. Several members noted scoping language belongs in the code scope (R101.2) rather than buried in a definition; Shane Nillis recommended replacing “can choose” with permissive scoping language such as “permitted to comply” and shifting the choice into the code’s scope paragraph.

Because the change affects code scope and could interact with other council work on multiplex/RCW definitions, the tag moved to postpone the item and asked the proponent to prepare revised language that places the option in the scope section (R101.2) and clarifies whether the choice applies to entire code chapters rather than specific provisions. The motion to postpone carried; staff will re‑post the refined language for the next meeting.

No vote on final adoption was taken. Tag members emphasized that the goal is to avoid unintended conflicts and to ensure a clear statement of when the choice applies (whole‑building code selection vs. cherry‑picking provisions). Proponents said the change is intended to help affordable housing development and to align with other council efforts on multiplex definitions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","WSEC-R TAG Meeting - June 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A proposal that would permit up to six‑unit, three‑story interior‑access multiplexes to elect to comply with either the residential or commercial energy code was postponed so proponents can refine scope and scoping language for the code’s jurisdictional sections.","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},6198938,"Tag disapproves proposal on continuous wall fastening; members say existing code already covers inspection",409,4984000,5393000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01&start=4984&end=5393","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01/thumbnail_4984000.jpg","/articles/6198938/Washington/Tag-disapproves-proposal-on-continuous-wall-fastening-members-say-existing-code-already-covers-inspection","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198938-e67cd212173db5a1028da572b86e80a6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770550827&Signature=YhM9NmGEIv3u25FU8o6kudPnFhRa~BRrtU1RM5~q1VZwVezjbR0Ie2lB8ojTnCTlgMRLwNYbnEpPGgJZ~NHl4LmO7UaADn-7V9B1qM5RrTY6~iQCU49UG9KRHSxuZbtlHrRL0pXIg8SCq98VnMPRU2s-S7xVLOpYl9hz5FZJ20GAlf1rYEeFgagm8HZbnHBQc7UomozWzuTdGUc3g1eoR~~GHo1Z2LqTRYmhi9BhadUny9XmZxg~U8q97LCsGYhAkViNqzLVKLreWnTFSRhRo6YMR7Q~a~JrgQjWqhaXq9tRDPc6vpi4FiJ2Vc9ScjdhcSeILJHgB8lcEtfPGUjy4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The tag voted to disapprove a proposal that would have added prescriptive language requiring continuous wall‑installation inspection and specific fastening schedules for continuous insulation (CI). The motion to disapprove passed after tag members said inspection requirements are already addressed elsewhere in the code.

Shane Nillis and others argued the matters the proposal sought to address — continuous installation and inspection prior to exterior finish — are covered by existing code sections. “We identified last meeting that in [existing code] it already recognizes that you have to inspect it prior to application of the exterior finish,” Nillis said, and added that duplicating language risks inconsistency.

Proponents had sought clarity that continuous installation be inspected and that a manufacturer or a registered design professional could supply fastening schedules. Kim Barker, a code official, said the proposal provided useful clarity for continuous wall installations but recognized that manufacturers or a registered design professional can already provide alternate fastening schedules. Several members noted that some building assemblies place the air/weather barrier in different locations, and a single prescriptive requirement could unintentionally exclude valid assembly types.

After brief discussion the tag chair called for a motion to disapprove; the motion passed on a voice/roll call vote. Tag members who opposed the proposal said the code already contains inspection and continuous‑installation guidance (for example, provisions requiring inspection prior to application of exterior finish and installed density references); proponents were encouraged to rework text if they want narrower, non‑duplicative language that accounts for different wall assembly approaches.

The decision means the proposed modification will not advance from the tag. Proponents may refile a revised proposal that reflects the tag’s technical concerns and aligns with existing code sections before bringing it back to the group.","The residential energy code tag disapproved a proposal (O11) that would have added explicit continuous wall fastening and continuous installation inspection language, concluding current code provisions already provide inspection pathways and the draft could conflict with varied construction approaches.",{"_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},6198943,"Tag tables proposal to require on‑site density testing for blown‑in blanket insulation; proponents to redraft language",1441,3516000,4957000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01&start=3516&end=4957","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01/thumbnail_3516000.jpg","/articles/6198943/Washington/Tag-tables-proposal-to-require-onsite-density-testing-for-blownin-blanket-insulation-proponents-to-redraft-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198943-71d9aeebf021387114766bddc986251d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770550827&Signature=iMFWgTOOgCFANn~-FdIRtDA9ZKiqyISFq8xqFUT3ker2fH4U6qQ3AbuUTpQkwe4daxt5BnOMPPDxZ~4MyIXQD8HkpTRRzPycAC2bwcEeKA7AEWx9nVURxU2oiDfNz18a4ilBUzSGq82LNSWeRpw9Rq3ZIJuNWSpTV11AATiZtPgBvz4glVyK3~eIhagUXYpeCGQ53ippZXAY2YLp7wJzWfPi2Lpno7DW8znH1TB2zeDez44fDgwGybtjdSk0HNV9WqPN7KiIeVzvLTqoxIJelIetYjoH1mypxVnKGf7mgFjU1XH~N6Fjv9809acvK6byPPQt3syYUVRoNR2ITur2Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The residential energy code tag tabled a proposal to add an explicit requirement for on‑site density verification of blown‑in blanket (dense‑pack) wall insulation, asking the proponent and volunteers to rewrite the text so it clearly prescribes sampling method and reporting.

Rick Blumenthal, the proponent, said the current code lacks a clear method to verify density for dense‑pack wall systems and recommended a simple weigh‑and‑record approach. “The only way to verify the density and that's the only way to do it,” Blumenthal said. He described the method as taking a small cavity sample, sealing it in a bag, and weighing it on a scale to confirm pounds per cubic foot.

Several participants noted the intent but flagged implementation issues. Tom Balderson said density testing “takes more than a few minutes,” citing the need for a scale, measured sample size and calculation of cavity volume. He asked whether testing would be required one place or multiple places in a dwelling and raised training needs for inspectors. Patrick Hanks and others said they understood the intent but worried the cumulative time could be significant at scale: Hanks observed that “even if it only takes 20 minutes per weighing, you have to do that 3 times per house. If you have a 50 unit development, you're adding 50 hours of extra time.”

Blumenthal proposed a pragmatic sampling frequency — roughly one test per 500–600 square feet of insulated wall area — and said installers would perform the sampling and document the results rather than waiting for building inspectors. “You measure as you go,” he told the tag, describing three checks on a typical house as sufficient and saying the installer should record sample weights and dates on the job record.

The tag’s technical commenters recommended bringing the proposal into alignment with existing code sections that reference installed density (notably section 303.1.x was discussed) rather than adding new, duplicate language without clear test standards. Several members suggested revising the proposal to add explicit test frequency, sampling protocol and a short installer reporting form for the inspection record.

After discussion the tag voted to table the proposal and asked Blumenthal to work with Greg Davenport and Tom Balderson on redrafting the text. The motion to table carried; staff will post revised code language for the tag to review at a future meeting.

No formal code change was adopted at this meeting; the item will return after the proponent supplies clearer code text and test/recording details. The tag requested that any revised proposal specify whether testing is installer‑performed with documentation provided at inspection or requires an inspector‑witnessed test, and to quantify sampling frequency per square footage or per unit so jurisdictions can estimate labor impact.","Tag member Rick Blumenthal proposed requiring on‑site density verification for blown‑in blanket (BIB/dense‑pack) wall systems; after technical discussion about sampling method, installer certification and administrative burden, the tag voted to table the proposal so the proponent can supply clearer code language and testing frequency.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6198948,"Residential energy tag approves narrowing of solar‑ready permit details, after debate on electrical inspections",2251,1242000,3493000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01&start=1242&end=3493","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3840918-5846af971b8d12b4a7c0d1b8de29bf01/thumbnail_1242000.jpg","/articles/6198948/Washington/Residential-energy-tag-approves-narrowing-of-solarready-permit-details-after-debate-on-electrical-inspections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198948-658015ef452f3c1a259ef413368ceba4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770550827&Signature=PBIoU1Zhw8hIM~Q0zgszLBL6AqeweR2O0lCxAJR1gPSHjhv0vo3ji6BHAjw2gtjk3-qawoqZ9DKcxMcmm9qnpfDTxwyN4mnnOxIGXkPCstc1PHe~36D9oRsMCxSyCK57fRaPFSXG1yP1eokS0uRPTiHKazwmD-WtCuz2OEXGqlBMeCkjtY8tWrpQ2CzmAIlw86X5DzBSSmZLGABTYsqSNdNu3WmPHUFcoq1eARV5ukg-xMZrglI2hlpFpOafA28U2lf9A67T9M~qIEeooF~mYZ3u6ES6nHByXD~bcWv0K5TtADZ9HDrqO2Y5H0BBAweJl5FxgUf38G0l03CjHWIMJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Building Code Council residential energy code tag approved a modification to the solar‑ready roof provisions that removes a requirement to show detailed electrical conduit/rough‑in on building‑permit plans but leaves inspection responsibility with electrical authorities.

The change, proposed by tag member Patrick Hanks, was intended “to save time in the process of not having to put unnecessary information in the building plans that the building official won't necessarily be reviewing,” Hanks said. The motion to approve the proposal with minor edits carried 8–7, with Shane Nillis moving and Larry Andrews seconding the motion.

The tag’s proponents said the edit is a paperwork and permitting‑process cleanup rather than a rollback of safety or performance requirements. “We're not changing the underlying requirements for solar ready zones,” Hanks said. He told the group that electrical work (conduit and wiring) would still be inspected by electrical authorities even if those details are not placed on the building‑permit set of plans.

Opponents—including Dwayne Johnlin and others—raised concerns that removing plan detail could reduce enforceability or cause field confusion. “I'm not in favor of rolling things back and making it weaker and making it harder for a jurisdiction to enforce the code,” Johnlin said. Greg Johnson, who identified himself as an electrical engineer working at a utility, said alternate connection methods (meter taps, outdoor disconnects) can make retrofit solar easier and argued that striking the detailed plan requirement would not prevent later installation. “If someone were to miss that conduit requirement during inspection, it's not a big deal,” Johnson said, describing surface conduit or meter‑side connections as common retrofit solutions.

Several tag members noted limits on state oversight of electrical work: the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (LNI) does not inspect energy‑code compliance and many jurisdictions use local electrical inspectors. “LNI does not inspect for energy code at all,” a participant said. Tag members agreed to adjust the proposal language so references to structural loads would apply specifically to the solar‑ready zone rather than the entire roof assembly, addressing a drafting error flagged during discussion.

The final vote approved proposal 026 (as presented on screen with modifications) 8–7. The tag recorded a roll‑call tally and asked staff to prepare the amended text for the next steps in the code process. The tag also discussed outreach to electrical‑inspection stakeholders; some members recommended circulating the revised language to LNI and to major city electrical inspectors for review before the MVPE committee and full council consideration.

The action changes permit documentation requirements; it does not remove electrical inspections or the underlying safety requirements enforced by electrical authorities.

The tag debated procedural next steps and whether the change should be run past electrical‑inspection representatives. Larry Andrews and others asked staff to invite LNI or local electrical‑inspection representatives to a future meeting for review; proponents said they would coordinate outreach.

The recommendation now proceeds toward MVPE committee review and possible council action, with staff instructed to post the revised language and track any comments from electrical‑inspection stakeholders.

Affected jurisdictions and stakeholders include municipal building departments, electrical contractors, utilities, and builders working on new residential construction and solar‑ready designs. Funding or budget implications were not discussed during the vote.

","The Washington Building Code Council residential energy code tag approved a proposal to remove certain electrical rough‑in details from required building‑permit drawings for solar‑ready roofs while keeping electrical inspections under electrical authorities, voting 8–7 after debate and amendments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tag postpones proposal to let low‑rise multiplexes choose residential or commercial energy code for further drafting

Tag disapproves proposal on continuous wall fastening; members say existing code already covers inspection

Tag tables proposal to require on‑site density testing for blown‑in blanket insulation; proponents to redraft language

Residential energy tag approves narrowing of solar‑ready permit details, after debate on electrical inspections