Washington makes another run at heat pump rules

(Courtesy Pixabay)

Controversial requirements aimed at getting electric heat pumps installed in newly constructed houses, apartments and commercial buildings cleared a final regulatory hurdle Tuesday.

The suite of changes, approved by the Washington State Building Code Council, is part of a broader effort by the state to slash carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency in residential and commercial construction.

The new rules will take effect March 15, 2024 barring unforeseen twists, such as legal roadblocks – which could arise.

The Building Code Council had approved new codes mandating the use of heat pumps in most new construction. But it paused them in May after a federal appeals court scrapped similar regulations in a California city, and as opponents to Washington’s policy filed their own lawsuits. One of those cases remains pending in Thurston County Superior Court.

What the council enacted Tuesday offers builders incentives in the permitting process for choosing electric heat pumps – which provide both heating and cooling in the same unit – instead of natural gas furnaces. The appliances are more energy efficient and result in less pollution than gas furnaces.

But months of discussion culminating with Tuesday’s four-hour meeting didn’t end divisions over the heating technology or the council’s regulatory undertaking.

Backers hailed the new codes as among the most climate and health friendly in the nation and said they would help to keep Washington on course to meet its goals paring greenhouse gas emissions from homes and commercial buildings.

“Ultra-efficient buildings powered by clean electricity in Washington state are a climate and public health imperative, and these energy codes use proven technology to get us there,” said Rachel Koller, managing director of Shift Zero, in a statement. “The council’s energy codes for new construction are a critical part of the solution to cleaner air for our communities.”

Opponents warned the changes will result in higher costs for builders, home buyers and renters, and said they will put the state out of compliance with federal regulations.

“I find it’s going to make things way too expensive,” said Tom Handy, a Whitman County commissioner and council member. “I think it’s going to hurt affordable housing. I think it’s going to hurt small builders.”

Turning the page

Tuesday’s decision ends a turbulent chapter for the Building Code Council.

State lawmakers set a 2031 deadline for slashing greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial development by 70% below levels envisioned with the 2006 building codes.

It left the panel, composed primarily of contractors, laborers, and local government leaders, to make it happen. Electric heat pumps are cleaner and more energy efficient but aren’t necessarily the appliance of choice for builders and homeowners.

The council ditched its earlier code changes due to questions about whether they complied with the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

Their concern stemmed from the California case – California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley – in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the federal law “expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens.”

While the version of Washington’s codes the council had been moving ahead with didn’t fully ban gas appliances, the panel opted to come up with a different approach to comply with the federal law. It still effectively steers builders to choose heat pumps.

Still a ‘ban’

Washington’s building code contains energy efficiency requirements for residential and commercial construction. It establishes a scoring system used in the approval of building permits based on the size of a dwelling unit or building and different construction options.

One of the biggest changes from May is the council erased language mandating heat pumps for heating water and rooms in homes. And it revised how credits that builders need to comply with the state building code are awarded under the scoring system in hopes of spurring greater use of low-carbon building solutions.

Different amounts of credits are available for installing various appliances and employing building treatments to reduce energy use. The credits are available for such things as heat pumps, solar panels, and upgraded thermostats or ventilation systems.

Under the new rules, a builder will need five credits for a home of less than 1,500 square feet. That’s double the sum they need today. For a home between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet, they will need eight credits, up from five.

There are new credit values under the plan for different appliance options and building practices. Not surprisingly, more credits are awarded for use of an electric heat pump than a natural gas furnace.

The Building Industry Association of Washington, which challenged the earlier version of the codes, says the latest one may put the state at an even greater risk of running afoul of the federal law.

Greg Lane, BIAW’s executive vice president, described the council’s action as “a de facto ban on natural gas in new homes.”

“These new rules clearly continue to violate the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which expressly preempts state and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances,” Lane said.

by Jerry Cornfield, Washington State Standard

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on Facebook and Twitter.

  1. Not against heat pumps but they don’t work for every situation. They will definitely add to housing costs plus electricity is more expensive than natural gas as a heat source at least for the people paying the bill. Then we run into infrastructure to support all the added load on the system which will drive electricity costs higher. But I guess what it cost is of no concern for the rich people making the decisions.

    1. That’s right they use electricity to pump air that is heated or cooled by refrigerants. The refrigerants are harmful to the environment if they escape due to leaks.

      1. To add electricity to run the compressor plus the large fan needed to pass over the heat exchanger. Way better than baseboard electric heat and even if the it was a dollar or 2 cheaper than gas it would never be economically enough of a saving to even consider the proposition to make the switch. I know you consider it my moral obligation or a position government should force upon its citizens. I ain’t buying my energy cost with gas are far cheaper than any previous energy source uses.

        1. “I know you consider it my moral obligation or a position government should force upon its citizens.”

          You don’t know that, and it’s ridiculous to pretend you do.

    2. It’s true that heat pumps don’t warm up air by flowing it around hot electric coils, like ovens & stove tops. But electricity is used to power the mechanical equipment inside a heat pump that produces an output of warm air. There are efficiencies, benefits & limitations associated with heat pumps.

  2. You may be thinking of Freon, which has been illegal in the US for quite a few years. Modern heat pumps use Puron, which is far cleaner, and even that is being superseded this year by a new formulation of Puron, which is in keeping with stringent, newly established and internationally set environmental rules, and is even cleaner. But installations, which must be inspected and approved, are so secure and safe that leakage is at any rate an extremely rare event.


    1. The product is very similar and in no way environmentally friendly leaks happen the system refrigerant will also need to be replaced on occasion just like your car. The components will likely require maintenance and or replacement much more often than other heat sources. Noting that cooling equipment suffers from the same problems. Like I said I am not against them I am against being forced to switch because of government interference. If the cost to me is a guess of 30 grand likely more and I save 10 dollars a month where is the insensitive to do so? When you have no choice in different means there is no competition and the price for this only option skyrockets. Welcome to the future it won’t be all bad the poor will grow the middle will have to work harder and the rich will still be rich. And the planet will continue to warm. The guys selling heat pumps and solar panels will be about the only benefactors. I am ok with you doing what you want to do but don’t force cost increases on people. Taxes/regulations. My daughter who had baseboard electric heat did this and is happy with the savings plus having AC. Oh and she got some of that government savings to boot. Because she wins should I have to lose?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.