Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Embodied Carbon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SBCC work session digs into embodied-carbon appendix, legal authority and next steps
Summary
The State Building Code Council spent the July 7 work session reviewing public comment on an optional embodied-carbon appendix, debating whether the council has authority to adopt carbon-reporting provisions and how to balance statewide guidance with local discretion. Staff said final rulemaking remains months away; legal counsel will review authority questions.
The State Building Code Council on July 7 reviewed dozens of public comments on an optional embodied-carbon appendix and began mapping possible amendments without taking any final votes. Dustin, the council’s staff lead, told members the council received 19 comments on a key performance-pathway petition: 6 in opposition and 13 in support, with supporters split over two compliance options.
Dustin summarized the disagreement: opponents argue building codes should remain focused on life, health and safety and warned of higher design and supply-chain costs and local enforcement burdens; supporters said the optional appendix aligns with Washington’s climate goals, is feasible in practice and would provide consistent reporting for jurisdictions that choose to adopt it. “We received 19 specific comments on this proposal. We have 6 comments that are in opposition. We have 13 comments that are in support,” Dustin said.
Council members pressed staff and legal counsel about statutory authority and about which compliance paths to retain. Derek, who the council identified as legal counsel, told the group he would review written materials before offering a legal judgment. “I don’t want anyone to think that those characterizations are intended to fully describe what those positions are…we’ll look carefully at them,” Derek said, and committed to follow up after reviewing the record.
Members also discussed a split between Option 1, which contains multiple pathways (including a whole-building life-cycle analysis and a materials-tracking pathway), and Option 2, a slimmer whole-building-LCA pathway. Several members flagged an apparent mismatch between petition language and the posted CR102 materials and asked staff to ensure amendments are built from the published CR102 versions.
The council did not act on any rule language. Staff said the council can continue to accept amendment proposals routed through council members, that staff will assemble and post sponsored amendments in the tracker, and that final adoption remains scheduled for Aug. 28 with a statutory posting deadline in mid‑August.
