Category Archives: Buildings 2024

HB2465

HB2465 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Bellingham) (Co-Sponsors Goehner – R; Bateman – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 30th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 31st. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6291 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comment –
I’m no expert, but I think most of the bill simply codifies the Council’s current processes. The title says it “streamlines” adopting statewide amendments; I don’t see much about doing that in the bill.

In the House –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of its changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require the Council to review the new editions of the model codes it adopts by reference within 30 months of their publication. It specifies procedures for proposing and adopting emergency statewide amendments to the code at any time. It authorizes a majority of the Council to initiate an interim code adoption cycle between 12 and 18 months after the effective date of codes adopted in the regular three year cycle to correct errors and omissions, or eliminate obsolete, conflicting, redundant, or unnecessary regulations. It allows for off-cycle amendments, but only at the direction of the Legislature.

More generally, the bill specifies that substantive changes to the code must be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare; or clarifies the intent or application of the code; or be necessary for consistency with state or federal laws and regulations; correct errors and omissions; eliminate an obsolete or conflicting regulation; or be directed by the Legislature. Substantive updates will happen only once during the three year code adoption cycle, unless they happen though one of the exceptions above.

The bill also specifies some procedures for submitting proposed statewide amendments. It would require the Council to develop a process for meetings that allowed the public to understand amendments being proposed for adoption, including modifications to proposed rule text to be in writing, specify the reason for the amendment, and be available to the council and the public at least seven days before a vote on final adoption. The rules would have to encourage councilmembers and technical advisory group members to make proposed amendments and text changes available to other members and the public at least 48 hours before the meeting at which they would be discussed.

The bill specifies criteria for membership in a technical advisory group, and requires approval of a proposed amendment by a majority of a TAG for it to be considered by the Council. It eliminates the Council’s authority to contract for services, and specifies that it’s to hire a managing director. It would require its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and technical advisory groups to conform to the requirements of the open public meetings act.

SB6291

SB6291 – Specifying procedures of the Building Code Council.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lynda Wilson (R; 17th District; Central Washington) (Co-Sponsors Lovick – D; Dozier and Short – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on State Government & Elections  January 26th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2465 is a companion bill in the House.

Comment –
I’m no expert, but I think most of the bill simply codifies the Council’s current processes. The title says it “streamlines” adopting statewide amendments; I don’t see much about doing that in the bill.

In the Senate –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a very brief staff summary of the next changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require the Council to review the new editions of the model codes it adopts by reference within 30 months of their publication. It specifies procedures for proposing and adopting emergency statewide amendments to the code at any time. It authorizes a majority of the Council to initiate an interim code adoption cycle between 12 and 18 months after the effective date of codes adopted in the regular three year cycle to correct errors and omissions, or eliminate obsolete, conflicting, redundant, or unnecessary regulations. It allows for off-cycle amendments, but only at the direction of the Legislature.

More generally, the bill specifies that substantive changes to the code must be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare; or clarifies the intent or application of the code; or be necessary for consistency with state or federal laws and regulations; correct errors and omissions; eliminate an obsolete or conflicting regulation; or be directed by the Legislature. Substantive updates will happen only once during the three year code adoption cycle, unless they happen though one of the exceptions above.

The bill also specifies some procedures for submitting proposed statewide amendments. It would require the Council to develop a process for meetings that allowed the public to understand amendments being proposed for adoption, including modifications to proposed rule text to be in writing, specify the reason for the amendment, and be available to the council and the public at least seven days before a vote on final adoption. The rules would have to encourage councilmembers and technical advisory group members to make proposed amendments and text changes available to other members and the public at least 48 hours before the meeting at which they would be discussed.

The bill specifies criteria for membership in a technical advisory group, and requires approval of a proposed amendment by a majority of a TAG for it to be considered by the Council. It eliminates the Council’s authority to contract for services, and specifies that it’s to hire a managing director. It would require its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and technical advisory groups to conform to the requirements of the open public meetings act.

SB6089

SB6089 – Eliminating certain minimum requirement equivalencies for becoming electrical inspectors.
Prime Sponsor – Senator King (R; 34th District; Central Washington) By request of the Department of Labor & Industry.
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce  January 18th, and passed out of committee January 22nd. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The law currently makes some years of experience as a “journeyperson electrician” in a couple of different settings two ways to become qualified for these jobs. The bill would replace those with the same experiences as a “journeylevel electrician”. (I think this means that experience would no longer have to be in an apprentice program.) It would also eliminate two other ways you can currently qualify for the job through a combination of college work and installation work.

HB2198

HB2198 – Mitigating the impact of rising school temperatures resulting from climate change.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reeves (D; 30th District; Federal Way)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Education.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint an advisory committee to develop recommendations for public school facilities’ indoor temperature standards, including a maximum temperature recommendation. The committee would include representatives from specified government bodies and other stakeholders, and it would submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature, including draft legislation to implement its recommendations. The Superintendent would also develop and report on estimates of the associated costs, and might request appropriations and the establishment of grant programs to assist schools with those.

Currently, a district’s schools have to be open for 180 days a year in order for it to receive its state education funding. However, the Superintendent is authorized to create rules for some exceptions, including allowing districts to still receive their full funding if one or more of their schools fail to be open long enough due to some specified unexpected natural events like floods or epidemics. The bill would add “excessive heat” in buildings to that list; the temperature or heat index that counted as excessive would be consistent with the National Weather Service’s guidance, and would be established by the Superintendent.

SB5973

SB5973– Guaranteeing owners of units in common interest communities opportunities to install their own heat pumps.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Liias (D; 21st District; Edmonds) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice on January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute which would have several sections making changes to the current common interest communities statutes expire if SB5796, which replaces those, passed. Out of committee on January 25th; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would prohibit an association of apartment owners, a condominium owners’ association, a homeowners’ association, or other associations with the power to create rules for the members of common interest communities from effectively prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the installation or use of a heat pump for a unit owner’s personal use. They might require applications for approval which would be handled in the same way as applications for architectural changes. They’d be prohibited from charging a fee for the installation, and would have to approve applications if the installation was reasonably possible, complied with the association’s reasonable relevant architectural standards, and would be installed by a qualified HVAC contractor. The owner would have to have a permit, comply with local building codes, meet applicable health and safety standards, and pay for the installation. The owner and subsequent owners would be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the heat pump, as well as any damages resulting from its installation, use, or removal. They’d be responsible for removing equipment if that was reasonably necessary for work on aspects pf the property in which the residents held a common interest. An association that willfully violated the bill’s requirements would be liable for actual damages, as well as paying attorneys’ fees and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 if an owner prevailed in court.

SB5875

SB5875 – Restricts the Building Code Council’s authority to adopt residential Energy Code measures increasing efficiency to those where the benefits aren’t outweighed by considerations of housing affordability, development costs, feasibility, or “other similar factors”.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Fortunato (R; 44th District; Buckley)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would restrict the Building Code Council’s authority to adopt residential Energy Code measures increasing efficiency to those where the benefits aren’t outweighed by considerations of housing affordability, development costs, feasibility, or “other similar factors”.

HB1976

HB1976 – Allowing the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fosse (D; 38th District; Everett) (Co-Sponsor Doglio, D) By request of the Department of Commerce.
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 8th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; sent on to Rules January 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would allow the Department of Commerce to provide larger incentives for upgrading buildings to meet the State’s energy performance standards than the ones specified in the current law.

SB5570

SB5570 – Authorizing electric utilities to establish revolving energy efficiency loan programs.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lovelett (D; 40th District; Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Trudeau, Hasegawa, Keiser, Nguyen, Nobles, Pedersen, Randall, Rolfes, Saldaña, Valdez, and C. Wilson – Ds)
Current status – Had a 2023 hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology February 8th. Died in committee at cutoff. Apparently reintroduced in 2024, and had a hearing in that committee January 9th. Amended and passed out of committee that day; referred to Ways & Means.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2024 –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the amendment.

Summary –
The bill would create an Electric Utility Energy Efficiency Capitalization Grant program in the Department of Commerce, if funds were specifically appropriated for it. Electric utilities would be able to apply to the Department for funding to establish a revolving loan program making loans to low and middle income households for energy efficiency and weatherization projects, including repairs needed to achieve energy savings. A list of participating contractors would be provided as part of the loan application process, and a separate billing system or an on-bill repayment program would be provided. The loans would be interest free and secured with a lien on the property, and priority in awarding them would be given to properties in overburdened areas. The funds would be exempt from the public utility tax, and all loan repayments would have to be deposited into the revolving loan account.

Deferred loans for income-qualified customers owning and occupying their home could cover the full cost of a project. They’d have to allow repayment to be deferred until the home is sold, when the loan balance would be paid as part of the sales transaction; and would have to allow customers to qualify based on their payment history with the utility.

Forgivable loans could be made to property owners with income-qualified tenants. These would require an energy audit of the property. It would have to be continuously occupied by income-qualified tenants for five years after the upgrades; and the owner would have to keep the rent during that period within the fair market rent determined by HUD. If the owner failed to meet those requirements, the loan balance would be transferred to a new loan and become due on the sale of the home.

A utility could contract with a third party to implement the program, and could apply energy savings from cost-effective measures financed through a loan program toward achieving its conservation acquisition targets under the Energy Independence Act.

HB1391

HB1391 – Creating a state-wide building energy upgrade assistance program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Ramel (D; 40th District; Anacortes and San Juans) (Co-sponsors Doglio, Duerr, Berry, Pollet, Reed – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd and 24th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Completed a continued hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 31st. Replaced by a substitute by the prime sponsor and passed out of committee February 9th. Referred to Appropriations, had a hearing there February 21st, was replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules, and passed by the House February 28th.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it. The second substitute specified that the program would have to include resources for renters and that its energy efficiency projects did not have to include weatherization; the amendment would make the bill null and void if it wasn’t funded in the budget.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Department of Ecology to create a statewide building energy upgrade navigator program, in collaboration with the WSU Energy Office. The program would provide a statewide resource to assist building owners with electrification services and energy efficiency services and with funding for those, as well as providing other assistance in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, job creation, business opportunities, and workforce development in the sector. By March 1st, 2024, Ecology would be obliged to contract with an administrator or administrators, selected through a competitive process, to implement the program. Contracts could not be for more than five years, and would have to include sufficient performance metrics to let the department and the Legislature evaluate the program’s energy savings, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, consumer cost savings, wage and employment impacts, and customer satisfaction. The bill would convene a technical advisory group including a representative from each of a list of stakeholders to provide ongoing guidance to the program, including recommendations on continuously improving and growing it, addressing any gaps in its design and implementation, addressing split incentives, and incorporating the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities mapping tool into its work. The advisory group would provide an annual report on the program’s progress to the Legislature.

The program would have to provide outreach and deliver energy services to owner-occupied and rental residences, commercial buildings under 20,000 square feet; and single and multifamily dwellings. It would support energy efficient and emissions reductions alternatives for all types of fuel, and strive to cover all regions of the state. It would prioritize services to low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities, including tribal communities, having considered recommendations of the UTC’s natural gas decarbonization study. It might dedicate some of its funding for these services. It would support accessible administration of programs authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act, and the integrated implementation of all relevant clean buildings programs funded by the state budget, including several currently described in the 2023 House Omnibus Appropriations Bills. It would implement a process in coordination with the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises to help customers find qualified energy contractors, including considering whether they met the program’s labor standards and reporting requirements.

The program’s outreach to customers would have to include creating and maintaining updated educational and marketing materials, including advice about all relevant funds and
financial assistance available from Federal, State, local, and energy utility programs. (It would be required to focus on this outreach about funding first.) It would also provide assistance with performing energy audits to provide recommendations to customers on a wide range of cost-effective energy and health improvements, including weatherization, appliance upgrades, electrification, smart meters, solar photovoltaic panels and other on-site sources of renewable energy, electric vehicle charging; and smart thermostats. It would provide community outreach in collaboration with Ecology’s programs to reach and serve underserved communities.

The program’s energy services for customers would have to include help in finding qualified contractors to implement audit recommendations; recommendations for programs that customers might be eligible for based on their income, and assistance with securing financing. Program administrators would have to develop community workforce agreements between labor representatives and contractors for the work performed on projects funded by the program, considering the size and complexity of projects, number of trades and crafts anticipated to be used, the availability of trained and skilled workers, and the location of projects. Any community workforce agreement would have to establish goals for labor hours or percentages of work to be performed by underrepresented groups, by local residents, and by state registered apprentices. They’d have to specify that workers performing work on projects under a community workforce agreement were paid a wage rate that was at least equivalent to the prevailing wage rate of workers, laborers, or mechanics in the same trade or occupation in the locality in which the work was being performed.

The program would also identify statewide workforce and contractor training needs and develop training. It might directly administer incentives and rebates for programs when directed to do that by Ecology, but would not provide any financial or technical assistance for projects including installation of new fossil fuel appliances. The administrator might develop a database portal to identify and track the locations of services provided, customer interactions, and performance metrics for completed work.

Ecology would provide a report on the program to the Legislature every other year, covering the implementation of the navigator program and community workforce agreements. It would include details on the monetary, greenhouse gas, and energy savings achieved; the savings to investment ratio achieved for customers; the wage levels of jobs created; the utilization of state registered preapprentice and apprenticeship programs; the efficiency and speed of delivery of services; and the public health benefits, including indoor and outdoor air quality improvements and increased access to cooling for climate resilience. It would also have to include recommendations for additional energy efficiency, electrification, and distributed energy programs for customers to maximize deployment of energy efficiency services, and to achieve higher rates of penetration and economies of scale through implementing multiple measures simultaneously.

HB1433

HB1433 – Adopting a standard method for use in programs for the energy labeling of existing residential buildings.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Berry, Reed, and Doglio – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd and March 24th. 2nd Substitute returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session. Amended to make labeling a local option and remove the licensing of home energy assessors; passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2024 – Passed
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the Energy & Environment.

In the House 2023 – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 24th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 13th. Replaced by a second substitute and passed out of Appropriations February 21st. Referred to Rules and passed by the House March 1st.

Substitutes –
This extended various deadlines by a year or eighteen months and specified that score reports to Commerce wouldn’t include the addresses of individual residences or the owner’s names. The second substitute in Appropriations made a few minor changes, and removed the language specifying that nothing in the bill prohibited jurisdictions requiring HERS scores at time of sale, or prohibiting requiring them as a condition for receiving efficiency incentives from Commerce.

Summary –
The bill would require the Department of Commerce to create rules for using the US Department of Energy’s Home Energy Scores as the primary system for assigning residential buildings scores evaluating their energy efficiency. (These DOE scores are based on an assessment of the building’s characteristics by a trained and certified rater, rather than on the energy used by its current occupants.) Cities and counties could promote or administer home energy score programs, require a score when a residential building is advertised for sale; or require a score to be eligible for Commerce’s financial incentives for efficiency improvements, but the bill itself wouldn’t require buildings to have scores.

The report on a building would have to include its home energy score, on a relative scale of one to 10, with 10 being best; its energy use per year by fuel type; the unit prices for each fuel used to calculate energy costs;  the kilowatt hours per year of renewable energy it generated, if there were any; the annual cost of energy by fuel type and altogether; and its estimated current carbon emissions in tons/per year, which  would have to be shown on a  graphic scale from zero to 15 so a reader could visualize how a building compared to the worst and best possible greenhouse gas outcomes.

The report would also have to include itemized recommendations for priority energy saving improvements that had an expected payback of 10 years or less, as well as for additional improvements. (Recommendations might include upgrades to windows, and wall, roof, attic, and floor insulation.) The report would estimate the home energy score and the expected annual reduction in energy bills after itemized priority improvements were completed. (Reports would also include the building’s floor area, address, and year of construction; the date of the assessment; the assessor’s name, contact information, license number, and employer; a statement indicating that the report met Washington state standards for energy score assessments; and other energy efficiency and green building certifications for which the building had qualified.)

The Department of Licensing would create requirements for licensing home energy assessors by December 31st, 2023, and they would have to be licensed by the next September. (I’m not sure whether the bill’s language would require someone doing assessments using some other system to have a license or not.) The requirements for a license would include standards for training, including provisions for recognizing training provided by other organizations, as well as standards of professional conduct, practice, and ethics.