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

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.