The State Building Code Council on April 25 formally acknowledged receipt of petitions tied to Initiative 2066 but voted to hold those petitions on file rather than begin immediate rulemaking.

The council’s vote followed extended legal and stakeholder discussion about a King County Superior Court oral ruling that found Initiative 2066 unconstitutional. Assistant Attorney General Derek Merrick Tall told the council that, while a written judgment has not yet been entered, "for all intents and purposes, Initiative 2,066 has been determined to be unconstitutional," and that the council must treat further action as a policy choice rather than a purely legal obligation.

Why it matters: Petitioners and building-sector groups submitted requests asking the council to consider amendments to the 2021 code that would implement requirements in Initiative 2066. With a pending court process and potential appeal to the state Supreme Court, the council opted to preserve stakeholders’ submissions while avoiding immediate adoption steps that could be overtaken by the courts and future legislative action.

Council discussion centered on two legal points: whether an oral bench ruling is effective before a written order is filed, and whether moving now to open emergency rulemaking would be prudent given the ongoing litigation. Jim Dennison, staff attorney for Sierra Club, argued the council should regard the judge’s oral ruling as effective and urged the council to focus staff resources on the 2024 code work. Climate Solutions’ Deepa Sivrajan read a letter from Pacifica Law Group stating that, in its view, "Initiative 2,066 is unconstitutional" and that courts and agencies should act in accordance with the court’s oral ruling while the written order is pending.

After discussion, council member Kjell Anderson moved a revised motion to thank petitioners, maintain the petitions on file, close the agency’s pre-rulemaking CR-101 process for 2021-based petitions, and reserve the council’s ability to restart rulemaking if the courts later reinstate Initiative 2066; the motion was seconded. The council approved the motion by voice vote with no noted opposition.

The action preserves submitted petitions so they will be available to the council if the legal landscape changes, while giving staff and volunteer tag members priority to complete the mandated 2024 code adoption work.

Quotes in context: Assistant Attorney General Derek Merrick Tall said the council must now treat further steps as "a business decision, ultimately, up to the council as to what steps you would wanna take with respect to the 2021 code." Deepa Sivrajan, representing Climate Solutions, read from Pacifica Law Group: "As you are aware, on 03/21/2025, King County Superior Court Judge Sandra Woodland ... declared unequivocally that, 'Initiative 2,066 is unconstitutional.'"

Ending: The council’s vote documents the petitions as received and available for future use but does not send them immediately to tags for formal rulemaking. Council staff said the petitions and written letters received would be posted to the council’s website for public view; any formal next steps would depend on future court or legislative developments.