Building Code Council advances updated energy‑code credit tables for public review after hours of debate

The Washington State Building Code Council voted April 24 to advance updated energy‑code proposals into the state’s CR102 rulemaking process, setting up a public comment period on new commercial credit values and residential energy‑rating tables that staff and consultants say are needed to complete the 2024 code cycle.

Council members and outside technical experts spent most of the special meeting examining Pacific Northwest National Laboratory modeling and two competing approaches for how many C406 credits different building types and climate zones should be required to achieve. After protracted deliberation and public testimony from builders, utilities and clean‑energy groups, the Council voted to move the commercially‑focused C406.2 values into CR102 and to advance the C406.1 credit targets represented in David Reddy’s revised “V3” package for public review; that motion passed on a recorded vote, 6–3.

Why it matters: the credit tables spell out how much additional energy efficiency (expressed as credits that map to percent energy‑use reductions) buildings must achieve beyond the prescriptive minimums in the 2024 code. Both the modeling input (PNNL) and the choice of credit targets determine whether the state will remain on the statutory glide path toward the 2031 energy‑use goals and how the costs and design burden will be distributed across building types and between the wetter west side (Climate Zone 4C) and colder, more temperature‑extreme eastern zone (5B).

Experts from PNNL and the technical advisory group explained that the updated C406.2 table replaces earlier placeholders with modeled credit values and clarifies interpolation for partial credit combinations. Gregory Johnson, who helped coordinate the PNNL work, told the Council that “PNNL did it with the highest level of integrity” and that the populated table will make public review more meaningful by removing TBD cells.

Two approaches: Council members debated two distinct ways to set C406.1 targets. Johnson’s approach sought to balance east and west outcomes by selecting credit levels that the west side could reasonably achieve without requiring technology‑specific mandates; he said his targets aim to be feasible while keeping the aggregate statewide weighted savings near the mid‑point of the 2031 glide‑path. David Reddy’s V3 proposal used a climate‑agnostic technology mix (for example, applying heat‑pump pathways across zones) that, when modeled, produced higher savings in Zone 5B and a slightly higher aggregate reduction. Reddy said his method “uses the same technologies in both climate zones” and provides clearer, uniform compliance pathways.

Legal and implementation questions: several speakers raised EPCA (federal appliance‑efficiency law) concerns and whether a code that effectively mandates certain appliance technologies risks federal preemption. Assistant Attorney General Dierk Meierbachtol advised the Council that EPCA considerations are real and that the legal record from public comment will be important; he also noted a pending lawsuit raising similar issues. Council members said those legal issues will be clarified in the public rulemaking record before final adoption.

What passed: the Council moved the C406.2 credit values (filled from PNNL modeling) into CR102 by voice vote, and later voted 6–3 to advance David Reddy’s V3 C406.1 credit package for public review (roll call recorded on the transcript). The Council also moved other energy‑code items — including two ERI/R408 residential tables and three options for the residential simulated‑performance compliance path — into CR102 for public comment.

What comes next: staff set a May 6 target for filing the CR102 and asked members and stakeholders to deliver final editorial corrections by May 1 so staff can compile the filing. The CR102 filing will open a public comment period during which builders, energy modelers, utilities, and others may submit formal comments, cost evidence and legal arguments. Staff and committees will use those comments, and additional cost‑benefit analysis prepared before final rule adoption, to refine the proposals.

“Public comment is precisely the time to bring EPCA concerns and the practical costs to our attention,” Deputy Attorney General Dierk Meierbachtol said. Council chair Todd Beyreuther closed the discussion by thanking the technical groups and stakeholders for extensive work and urging robust participation in the public review phase.

The Council’s action only starts the formal rulemaking; final adoption would require additional votes and documentation, including the preliminary cost‑benefit analyses staff is preparing for the CR102 record.