[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6163721,"mediaKeyId","5433332-67ad3d6ee017b608b9e564ef12aa31d7","parentId",5433332,"title","BFRW committee sends IRC existing-amendments and significant-changes reports to IRC tag for technical review","audioSeconds",3138,"startMs",3330000,"endMs",6468000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5433332-67ad3d6ee017b608b9e564ef12aa31d7&start=3330&end=6468","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5433332-67ad3d6ee017b608b9e564ef12aa31d7/thumbnail_3330000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6163721/Washington/BFRW-committee-sends-IRC-existing-amendments-and-significant-changes-reports-to-IRC-tag-for-technical-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163721-d4cf67d5b0470a37982c90682c6c6f3e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628585&Signature=LPqmIW6ICxS1MSYQUtzFZwCd4Ck0LGIX3KKK9q9tDXo9DARZYOeOehPy37HIHrqrmROgkLjZTBjd80Kz4C4PAkjrk2~nFzAqFdczv6WlqDlyXSlxF1gupZJjQT-SR20csMRgheXRQMFVhwGA25chuLdanxrFplGv3nKrOQCzeygZKT5o2CABiKqy02tTHAqF3ej6KKFYMeM35ubevVrLd5YjIjSfFTrbaLrrQ9q6fYo9ZFq41Fso4iNAOaFh~UdN8m1aby5CinkDRN7Z9n9sb9NAGEwSt3aSWq0HkHH4yfFCZYr8GeF-CKl6kW5EGjporW7vRK2X4K5cr5QbigMPhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Building Code Council","date","2025-07-21T08:36:01.76Z","article","The Building, Fire and Residential Work (BFRW) committee voted on July 18 to send two staff-prepared reports — the IRC existing-amendments report and the IRC significant-changes report — down to the IRC tag for technical review and comment before the committee returns the package to the full State Building Code Council.

The reports summarize Washington’s existing amendments to the 2024 International Residential Code (IRC) and identify model-code changes that may have regulatory or cost implications for Washington jurisdictions. Staff recommended editorial updates in many places and highlighted specific sections that need tag-level technical input.

Why it matters: the two reports guide the rulemaking docket for the IRC cycle, flag sections where Washington’s amendments diverge from the 2024 model code and identify parts of the code where model-code changes may increase or decrease construction cost. Sending the reports to the IRC tag gives practitioners and subject-matter volunteers an opportunity to examine staff recommendations and to propose technical edits or alternate approaches before the committee recommends final text to the council.

Staff presentation and committee concerns
Dustin, staff, walked the committee through the existing-amendments report and explained the color coding used in the draft: orange for staff recommendation to repeal a state amendment where the model-code regulatory effect is the same; green for recommended modification to incorporate new model-code language; and blue to retain Washington’s existing amendment.

Staff identified several areas needing tag attention, including:
- Chapter 1 administrative items and scoping language for care facilities, where an earlier interpretation created ambiguity about when certain care facilities trigger sprinkler and other requirements; staff recommended returning to model-code text or updating Washington’s text to align with the interpretation.
- Definitions in chapter 2 where the model code added or altered terms (for example, adding a chapter-24-specific dwelling-unit definition) and where incorporating model-code language would reduce future inconsistencies.
- Multiple chapter 3 fire-resistance and opening-protection items where model-code text changed or consolidated sections; staff suggested many of these amendments be repealed or modified to match the 2024 model text.
- Table and monograph items in the significant-changes report where ICC-accepted proposals list potential cost increases or decreases; staff linked to ICC monographs and flagged proposals that merit technical review for cost impact.

Committee members emphasized timelines and public participation. Patrick King and others asked that staff and the tag be given sufficient time to digest materials; Patrick cited the code-reviser CR102 publication schedule and noted the August 6 CR102 filing deadline needed to support October hearings would be difficult to meet unless the hearing calendar is adjusted. Several committee members thanked staff for the heavy lift of preparing the reports and asked that the tag review be thorough before any council acceptance.

Formal action and next steps
The committee moved and approved a motion to forward the existing-amendments and significant-changes reports to the IRC tag for review and recommendation. Committee members instructed staff to work with the tag to incorporate petition responses and to return to the committee with tag recommendations prior to forwarding final reports to the council.

The committee noted that the published reports are intended to stand alone and that tag comments and any new proposed amendments will likely produce revisions before any council adoption or CR102 filing. Members asked staff to verify cross-references (for example, plumbing code references and UPC/UPC section numbers), to check references to the electrical code authority at L&I, and to prepare monograph links or supporting materials requested by tag members.

Ending: Committee approved the motion and the reports will now undergo technical review by the IRC tag; staff expects to return with tag recommendations and any proposed edits ahead of the council’s action on IRC matters.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SBCC BFRW Meeting - July 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The BFRW committee voted to route the IRC existing-amendments report and the significant-changes report to the IRC tag for detailed, technical review before the committee forwards final recommendations to the State Building Code Council.","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},6163726,"BFRW committee forwards revised EV-charging code language to full council for public comment",2829,465000,3294000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5433332-67ad3d6ee017b608b9e564ef12aa31d7&start=465&end=3294","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5433332-67ad3d6ee017b608b9e564ef12aa31d7/thumbnail_465000.jpg","/articles/6163726/Washington/BFRW-committee-forwards-revised-EV-charging-code-language-to-full-council-for-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6163726-7f6ab592b1f05afa75000f9f36c5fd79/orig.mp4?Expires=1773628585&Signature=LdtmmE8gxUSQYpxH8Y97kkbvhTx8U~yQ4MGa0UkV-qoSQPLKHTIRMt3-lnBGl6xPyLXFNCROB64peWuYSgwxa7TVi2guLPmOgeQKWbtVu2tPUxLFrHO9m3TfH0rMcE~W4gZM9~c7VXu17hhYxngQ12LQiCCnz2DFxKDW~39FmDiiBOD9Njn4daW19pNgu6NFjKUuNtC3-U7whk~0jx7jFIdhVSmXhsb61hC1wL1uYAxRas8KSSvhAZlnGrYJD12QN9rVZnLXDey7KmILjVApcL~0ByO4swF4K-6Li3G8p7aViLEFZ5hy~L9e-D7VpYX-HtL8oduZ7hJVji8HWg8~Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The BFRW committee on July 18 voted to forward revised electric-vehicle charging code language — including edited definitions and table percentages — to the State Building Code Council for publication as a CR102 and public comment.

The move follows several meetings of the committee and stakeholder input focused on refining definitions for terms such as “EV capable,” “EV ready,” “electric vehicle supply equipment” and “raceway,” and on whether the charging requirements in Table 4.29.2 should apply to parking “provided” on-site or to parking that is “required” by other rules. Committee members and stakeholders discussed aligning definitions with the ICC model codes (IBC/IECC) and with the National Electrical Code (NEC) where practical.

Why it matters: the language will determine how many EV-ready stalls or EV charging stations new buildings must include, how local building officials enforce the rule, and how mixed-use developments and jurisdictions with minimal or no zoning-required parking will be treated when the rule is implemented.

Committee discussion and staff work
Dustin, staff presenter, walked the committee through the most recent redlines and said the primary edits were revisions to definitions and restoring the table format with targeted percentage changes. He noted some redlines were editorial and some followed recommendations to align with ICC code definitions.

Stakeholders and committee members debated three core points: which model-code definitions to adopt when the I-Codes and NEC differ; whether to include a standalone raceway definition (and whether to keep NEC text that references the NEC itself); and whether the table’s ratio language should be applied to parking “provided” or parking “required.” Patrick King, representing the Building Industry Association of Washington, and committee members repeatedly urged clarity for mixed-use and jurisdictions that do not require parking.

On definitions, the committee leaned toward using I-Code (ICC) language where the model codes differ, with participants saying that electrical inspectors will understand the aligned definitions. The committee resolved to keep the word “personal” (as in “personal protective equipment”) rather than “personnel” in the definition of electrical vehicle supply equipment because “personal protective equipment” is standard usage.

On the raceway definition, members discussed deleting extraneous phrases (for example, “metal or nonmetallic materials”) and removing cross-references that would point back to the NEC in a way that would not make sense if the language sits inside the I-Codes. The committee agreed deleting the redundant phrase and trimming the NEC-specific cross-reference would make the definition clearer.

On whether the charging table applies to parking “provided” or “required,” the group discussed enforcement implications. Several jurisdictions raised that they do not require parking by zoning, which could be read as a loophole if the code language refers to spaces “required.” Patrick King and committee members recommended switching the wording to “provided,” a change several members supported and which, one committee member noted, better aligns with RCW language (the transcript cites RCW 19.27.540 as the state statute guiding EV charging capability requirements).

Formal action and next steps
After discussion, the committee moved and approved a motion to forward the EV charging package (definitions, table and related edits) to the State Building Code Council as a CR102 for public comment. Committee members said the edited document would also contain rationale text in the CR102 package (staff noted rationale language is not code text but may be included in the CR102 rationale section).

The committee also noted the methodology used to compute percentages in the table and suggested the council and stakeholders monitor the underlying models (for example, regional power/charging studies) for future cycles.

What the action does not yet do: the committee’s vote only forwards the edited language for CR102/public-comment; it does not adopt the code changes as final. The council and the public comment process may produce additional edits before any final rulemaking.

Attribution and procedural notes
The committee’s discussion included representatives of the building industry and several committee members and staff; direct quotations and attributions in this article come from the committee transcript of the July 18 meeting. The committee indicated it will accept public comment during the CR102 process and expects to address public-comment issues and any remaining ambiguities (for example, mixed-use parking assignments) during the council review cycle.

Ending: The committee approved the motion and asked staff and stakeholders to track public comment, with staff preparing the CR102 material for the council’s next steps.","The BFRW committee on July 18 approved sending revised electric-vehicle charging definitions, table changes and related wording to the State Building Code Council for the CR102 public-comment process, after clarifying definition language and whether requirements apply to 'provided' versus 'required' parking.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

BFRW committee sends IRC existing-amendments and significant-changes reports to IRC tag for technical review

BFRW committee forwards revised EV-charging code language to full council for public comment