Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statutory Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SBCC authorizes research and potential AG request after lengthy debate on whether RCW 35A.21.440 affects statewide energy-code enforcement
Summary
The council heard WAVO’s request for guidance on RCW 35A.21.440’s application to conversions to residential use, debated whether the statute targets local ordinances or the statewide code, and authorized the chair and staff to research and, if appropriate, prepare a request to the Attorney General; the formal opinion request was tabled pending that work.
The Washington Association of Building Officials (WAVO) asked the State Building Code Council for guidance about RCW 35A.21.440 and related statutes, which the association reads as prohibiting local jurisdictions from imposing current energy-code requirements when converting existing buildings to residential use. WAVO sought clarity from the SBCC because jurisdictions and builders are uncertain whether that RCW restricts local enhanced energy ordinances or also limits enforcement of the statewide Washington State Energy Code.
Stakeholders, council members and staff debated the legal scope at length. Lisa Rosenow (Evergreen Technology Consulting) and Micah (WAVO) outlined industry confusion around three project types identified in the statute (unchanged portions of existing buildings, previously permitted conditioned space, and changed portions converted to dwelling units) and whether an alternative compliance path (including Clean Buildings standards) applies. Council counsel Derek advised the SBCC that while the council can offer nonbinding observations, formal statutory interpretation is generally outside the SBCC’s rule-focused role and that an Attorney General (AG) formal opinion is a recognized path for legal clarity (SEG 3461-3696).
After extended discussion, the council voted to authorize the chair, in collaboration with legal counsel, to research the statutory questions and, if appropriate, prepare a request to the Attorney General’s office for a formal opinion. The council also voted to table the staff opinion response and to revisit the matter once the legal research and potential AG request are prepared. Members stressed the need for timely clarity because jurisdictions may face inconsistent enforcement absent statewide guidance.
The council did not issue a substantive legal opinion on the statute at the meeting. Instead, it directed staff to pursue a formal legal route and to return to the full council with findings and any draft request for AG consideration.
