The Building Code Council's BFRW standing committee spent much of its June 27 meeting debating how proposed EV-charging infrastructure language should treat parking and definitions, and how those definitions should align with electrical and energy codes.

The committee discussed whether the compliance table should base EV infrastructure on the number of automobile parking spaces provided, or on dwelling units and occupancy classifications; whether the table should keep an exception for small sites ("9 or fewer spaces"); how to treat "dedicated" or "employee" parking that jurisdictions cannot reliably enforce; and whether raceway and EVSE definitions should match the National Electrical Code and NFPA 70. Roger Haringa presided; Todd Byreuther, Angela Haupt, Tom Handy and other committee members and industry representatives spoke.

Why it matters: the issues determine how many EV-ready or EV-capable connections developers must install, who must install them, and how local jurisdictions would enforce those requirements. The committee's choices affect developers, multifamily property owners, suppliers and electrical inspectors statewide.

Committee members and outside presenters focused first on the table's first column (whether to use "spaces" or occupancy categories) and on the meaning and enforceability of the phrase "dedicated spaces on-site." Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington and others said using "spaces" would better reflect how parking is actually provided; several committee members and public commenters said assigned or employee parking is effectively unenforceable at the jurisdictional level. As Micah, an attendee with historical knowledge of the work, told the group, "employee parking, you're never gonna get it." (Micah added later that the 2.2 exception in the statute was intended to capture cases where employee parking cannot be identified.)

The group agreed that the definitions in the draft should align with the ICC/IECC language where practicable, but several speakers—Ken Brule among them—urged the committee to check alignment with the National Electrical Code and NFPA 70. Ken explained that the NEC's definition of "electrical vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)" is broader than the version the committee had posted and recommended reconciling the two. Patrick Hanks and others asked staff to confirm whether the appendix definitions would legally permit installing only a raceway that later would accept wiring under the NEC.

On enforcement and intent, Angela Haupt and others emphasized that the statute and current code language refer to spaces "provided" rather than spaces "required," and said the committee should clarify that the percentages in the table apply to parking that is provided on site (not a jurisdictional minimum). Todd Byreuther noted market-driven zoning in some jurisdictions can result in no required parking at all, which affects how "provided" should be interpreted.

The committee reached a directional outcome rather than a formal vote. Members instructed staff to: keep the definition updates; revisit the table formatting and, where possible, revert to the older table structure while changing the column title to make clear the calculations are tied to parking "spaces" for specific occupancies; strike confusing references to "dedicated" spaces in the R occupancies' first row; and confirm alignment of the raceway/EVSE definitions with the NEC/NFPA and with the IECC appendix language. Staff was also directed to change wording so the code applies to spaces "provided" rather than spaces "required." Roger Haringa asked Dustin and Todd to prepare a cleaned revision for the committee's July 2 meeting.

Quotations are taken from the meeting transcript and attributed to speakers on the record. No formal code amendment was adopted at the meeting; committee members described the outcome as direction to staff and an intent to produce a revised draft for the next meeting.

The committee also discussed practical implementation questions raised repeatedly during the session: whether assigned or private garage spaces should be treated differently than open/shared spaces; whether townhouses and tuck-under parking belong in the same line as multifamily common parking; whether the IECC appendix or the NEC should provide the authoritative definition of "raceway"; and how small-site exceptions (the "9 or fewer" rule and rounding rules for the 10% threshold) should be preserved or clarified.

The committee scheduled follow-up work: staff to post an updated draft that (1) preserves most of the earlier table structure but calculates percentages on "spaces" for each occupancy; (2) removes or rewords "dedicated"/employee parking where it is unenforceable; and (3) verifies NEC/NFPA alignment for electrical definitions. The July 2 meeting was identified as the target for a revised working draft and another substantive discussion.

Ending: Committee members and industry groups agreed the definitions should be harmonized with national standards and that enforcement clarity ("provided" vs. "required") must be explicit. Staff will post a cleaned version of the draft for review before the July 2 meeting, and the committee will revisit the section then.