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

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.