Washington energy code TAG rejects proposal to add 2024 IECC as parallel path

The Washington State Energy Code technical advisory group voted down a proposal to add the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as a formal parallel path to the state'specific code, rejecting the motion in a roll call vote that left the proposal short of support. The measure would have allowed jurisdictions and designers to use a largely unmodified IECC 2024 compliance path alongside the state'modified energy code.

The outcome followed hours of debate on Feb. 14, during which proponents argued that an IECC-based path would streamline compliance, enable tools such as ComCheck, and provide an 'insurance' option if litigation undermines parts of the state code. 'If we don't have IECC available, we don't have another option,' said Greg Johnson, a TAG member, arguing for a parallel path.

Opponents warned the move could sacrifice language improvements developed through Washington's TAG process and complicate the agency's efforts to meet state energy targets. 'There is a lot of really good work in the Washington state code,' said Lisa Rosenow, who noted updates from past TAG cycles that make the state code 'better than the model code' in places. Members also raised questions about the timeline, staff workload and whether the state would retain its amendments and compliance gains if the IECC became a baseline.

The TAG vote was taken by roll call. The motion to approve the IECC parallel path failed; the roll call recorded 4 in favor, 11 opposed and 0 abstentions (detailed roll call is included in the actions section below). The TAG chair then moved on to other agenda items.

Why it matters: TAG members framed the question as both technical and strategic. Supporters said an IECC-based pathway could reduce confusion for out-of-state practitioners and ease use of national compliance tools. Opponents said the state energy code contains tailored language and policy choices developed by Washington experts that could be lost or would require extensive rework if the IECC were adopted wholesale.

Votes at a glance: The TAG also considered, separately, a proposal to roll sections back to the 2015 IECC as an interim step. That rollback proposal was disapproved in a separate roll-call vote (see actions), meaning the TAG is not reverting the code to the 2015 baseline.

What TAG members said: Supporters emphasized administrative simplicity and risk management; opponents emphasized preservation of state-specific amendments and concern about the resources required to make the switch. Several members suggested work groups and additional PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) analysis could inform future decisions.

What happens next: The proposal was not approved by the TAG and therefore will not be forwarded as written. TAG members discussed but did not adopt a single alternative; several asked staff to develop clearer pathways for future consideration and to document the steps and resources that would be required to adopt IECC-based options in future cycles.

Ending note: TAG members repeatedly noted the discussion was both legal and technical: the group is working under state law, prior council direction, and ongoing litigation risks. Several members urged quick guidance from the Building Code Council or state staff to reduce repeated debate in future TAG meetings.