Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Code Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews energy‑code cost‑benefit materials and approves adjusted filing/hearing schedule
Summary
Staff presented preliminary cost‑benefit and small‑business impact analyses for proposed energy‑code changes and proposed shifting filing and hearing dates. Council members requested more methodological detail from contractors; the council approved a revised filing and hearing schedule (file July 1; hearings Aug. 11 & 14) and set target adoption dates for fall.
Council staff told members on May 29 that the commercial and residential energy‑code cost‑benefit analyses (CBAs) and small‑business economic impact statements are preliminary and that a corrected appendix would be reposted. Contractors (Moran/MacLeod and Warren McLeod were cited) prepared analyses of 11 primary proposals, including payback estimates and small‑business thresholds.
Why it matters: The CBAs help the council weigh probable benefits against probable costs and determine whether measures impose more than a de minimis burden on small businesses. Staff said they plan to file the residential energy code on July 1 with hearings targeted for Aug. 11 (Olympia) and Aug. 14 (Spokane Valley) and aim for final adoption for the energy codes in late September; publication and education would follow with an anticipated January publication to allow time before the May implementation date.
Members and technical commenters pressed for methodological clarity. Lisa Rosenau (Evergreen Technology Consulting) asked whether analyses included integrated effects (for example, reduced HVAC sizing because of better windows). Staff said the current analysis does not appear to address deep integrated design effects and that council members could request contractor presentations or hold a work‑group briefing. Patrick Hanks and others urged greater detail about the small‑business minor‑cost thresholds used in the analysis and how compliance, training and replacement cycles were counted.
Public commenters (including Larry) urged more transparency and an opportunity to review complete reports before final filings. Larry asked the council to include estimates of replacement cycles and lifecycle replacement costs for long‑lived measures (windows, heat pumps, PV) so payback calculations reflect realistic replacement timing.
Schedule vote: Staff presented an at‑a‑glance calendar with filing deadlines, proposed hearing locations and target adoption meetings. Dustin explained constraints (publication lead times with standards bodies, CR‑103 filing windows, and December 1 statutory deadlines). Roger Haringa moved to approve the proposed schedule; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. Dustin and staff will finalize filings and post updated materials and a revised adoption‑cycle schedule on the SBCC website.
Next steps: Contractors and staff will provide more complete CBA documentation and may present methodology to the council or a work group before the hearings. The council approved the schedule and will accept public comment at the scheduled hearings in August; final votes on adoption are expected in late September/October depending on transmittal timing and publication.
