Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Embodied Carbon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances two embodied‑carbon code proposals to public comment amid split views
Summary
The council advanced two alternative proposals for an optional embodied‑carbon appendix — the BFRW/materials‑pathway package and a whole‑building LCA reporting pathway with stricter thresholds — to CR‑102 public comment. Proponents said an appendix will provide a standardized framework for jurisdictions that wish to adopt embodied‑carbon rules; o
The State Building Code Council voted on July 25 to publish for public comment two alternative proposals addressing embodied carbon in buildings: (1) the BFRW committee’s materials‑focused appendix (with product compliance, whole‑building LCA and building‑reuse options) and (2) a whole‑building life‑cycle assessment (LCA) pathway option advanced in revised form by council member Kjell Anderson.
Why it matters: Embodied carbon — the greenhouse‑gas emissions from manufacturing, transporting and assembling building materials — accounts for a substantial share of a building’s lifetime emissions. The legislature and several stakeholders have urged a standard approach so local jurisdictions that choose to adopt embodied‑carbon measures have consistent tools and definitions.
Proponents from the New Buildings Institute and Carbon Leadership Forum argued the state needs an optional, standardized appendix so jurisdictions without the staff or time to write their own rules have an implementable model. Ariel Brenner of the New Buildings Institute said the draft aimed to “put forward one standardized code framework vetted by the public, that can be used, across the state by jurisdictions on a voluntary basis.” Aurora Jensen of the Carbon Leadership Forum said a whole‑building LCA pathway is a “very strong proposal” because it rewards reuse and procurement choices in a single method.
Opponents, including trade associations and contractors, cautioned that supply‑chain realities, limited availability of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), and the need for robust economic analysis mean the council should delay or limit any mandatory steps. Tim Atterbury of the Associated General Contractors and other industry commenters asked for additional study and legislative coordination.
Representative Alex Ramel (sponsor of related legislation) said the legislative working group established by House Bill 1282 is focused on EPDs and materials, and not whole‑building LCA; he warned against waiting for the working group to finish and urged progress by code channels. “12‑82 is about EPDs and materials. Right? It’s not about whole life cycle,” Rep. Ramel said.
Action taken: Representative Ramel moved and Chell (Kjell) seconded that staff prepare CR‑102 filings for both the BFRW/materials‑pathway proposal and the Whole‑Building LCA pathway modification advanced by Kjell Anderson. The motion carried by roll‑call voice vote after extended discussion.
What’s next: Both proposals will be posted for public comment. Staff will prepare required economic impact statements and append the proposals to CR‑102 filings. The council and tags will consider comments and any new data from the HB 1282 work group and other stakeholders before a final decision.
Ending: The council’s vote moves embodied‑carbon proposals into the public‑comment phase; members said they expect more stakeholder engagement and economic analysis before any adoption decision.
