Description: Challenge to the Washington State Building Code Council’s amendments of the State Energy Code to ban or restrict the use of natural gas appliances in commercial and residential buildings and other State Building Code Council rules.
-
Northwest Regional Council of National Construction v. State Building Code Council
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/08/2024 Press Release Press release issued regarding denial of preliminary injunctive relief. Washington Court Declined to Block Implementation of Updated Building Codes. Earthjustice announced that a Washington Superior Court had issued a ruling from the bench denying gas and homebuilding industry petitioners’ request to block implementation of amendments to State Building Code Council (SBCC) rules that, among other things, set efficiency standards to incentivize efficient electric appliances such as heat pumps. SBCC’s amended codes were originally scheduled to take effect in July 2023, but SBCC reviewed and amended the codes after the Ninth Circuit held that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted the City of Berkeley’s ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. 02/28/2023 Petition Download Petition for declaratory judgment filed. Lawsuit in State Court Challenged Washington’s Restrictions on Natural Gas Appliances. Washington residents, businesses in the building and construction industries, trade organizations, and union representatives filed a lawsuit in Washington Superior Court challenging the amendments to the State Energy Code that would ban or restrict use of natural gas appliances, as well as other State Building Code Council rules, including a rule that would require that new homes containing a carport or garage be equipped with a circuit for charging electric vehicles. The petitioners alleged that these rules exceeded the State Building Code Council’s statutory authority and that to the extent the statute permitted the prohibition of natural gas, it was an unconstitutional delegation of authority. In addition, the petitioners asserted that the Council failed to comply with rulemaking procedures and adopted the provisions “without regard to the attending facts or circumstances of the costs imposed on homeowners, workers, businesses, developers, and myriad others across the state.”