Stakeholders split as Washington hearing considers limited demonstrations of propane (R290) heat pumps

A public hearing of the Washington State Building Code Council on June 12, 2026 featured sustained debate over two mechanical-code proposals (24-GP1-112 and 24-GP1-113) that would create narrow, optional pathways to allow demonstrations of equipment using A3 refrigerants such as R290 (propane).

The most prominent proponents said the changes are meant to be optional pilot or demonstration pathways that preserve safety while allowing Washington to deploy efficient, very-low-global-warming-potential equipment already used abroad. "No one is required to use these exceptions, they simply remove a conflict in our own code and open the door that the rest of the world walked through years ago," said Scott Spielman, a licensed professional engineer representing Ecotope. Jonathan Heller, president of Ecotope, told the council Washington should not wait on national standard updates: "We are not asking to change the national standards. We are asking that Washington State . . . remove those regulations and allow for companies to use the best technologies that are available to the rest of the world."

Supporters, including manufacturers, engineers and environmental groups, argued the proposals would enable outdoor, factory-charged monoblock air-to-water heat pumps that keep refrigerant outside occupied spaces and therefore limit occupant exposure. Michael Garry of Atmosphere pointed to European precedents and said the IEC-aligned charge limits allow safe use at higher charges than current U.S. listings.

Opponents and cautious voices raised safety and regulatory-alignment concerns. Roxanne Scott, Lead Regulatory Affairs Specialist at Copeland, said the proposed allowance for IEC or NEA pathways "creates significant concerns because these pathways do not necessarily demonstrate compliance with mandatory U.S. requirements under EPA SNAP or nationally recognized product safety certification standards, such as UL listings." Robert Glass, Director of Regulatory Affairs for Dyken Comfort Technologies, urged the Council to reject or at least clarify Proposal 24.GP1-113 unless the proposal strictly limits which product types the alternate standard would apply to and explicitly cites the edition of referenced standards.

Multiple technical witnesses recommended precise cross-code alignment. Eric Smith, who identified himself as Vice President of Technology at the International Institute of All Natural Refrigeration, said the exceptions are consistent with ASHRAE 15 approaches for indirect systems and encouraged the Council to integrate IEC standards into the code where intended. Several witnesses, including Scott Spielman, Jonathan Woolley and Jonny Kocher, said the pathway should remain optional and emphasize field testing and guardrails for safe deployment.

Council staff and several testifiers also flagged editorial and reference inconsistencies in the CR102 filing files. Robert Glass and others asked the Council to explicitly cite the edition year (for example, ASHRAE 15-2024) to avoid conflicting references across WACs.

The Council did not act at the hearing; staff set a written-comment deadline and said comments would be summarized for workshops and council deliberations ahead of a scheduled August 28, 2026 decision. "All testimony presented at this hearing, along with all written comments received, will be part of the official hearing record for this proposal," Dustin Curb, SBCC Managing Director, said at adjournment.

Ending note: Next procedural steps include posting all written testimony to the rulemaking docket, workshop scheduling by the executive committee, and the Council's August 28, 2026 final decision.