December 1, 2024
Washington State Building Code Council
ATTN: Council Members
1500 Jefferson Street SE
P.O. Box 41449
Olympia WA 98504
Re: Request for a Legal and Ethical “Embodied Carbon Code” Report
DELIVERED via sbcc@des.wa.gov
Dear Council Members,
The Northwest Gas Association (NWGA) respectfully requests that the Council suspend its current work on the “Recommendations for Washington State Embodied Carbon Code Language” and start the process over in a manner compliant with ESSB 5950, common practices to protect impartiality, fairness required for publicly-funded research, and simple commonsense.
We have serious concerns about the Embodied Carbon Code report because process matters and this report fails to satisfy explicit legislative direction regarding stakeholder input. We are also concerned that its recommendations promise to distract from and imperil practical decarbonization. Finally, we are concerned about the ever spiraling costs of new energy policy to building homes and businesses; costs that promise little in the way of material decarbonization.
NWGA members are committed to reducing greenhouse gases, but true decarbonization can only take place if the requisite changes are economically and practically feasible, Gaining a clear understanding of the economics and practicality of code recommendations requires broad stakeholder input, rather than relying on the narrow agenda of activist organizations.
ESSB 5950 directs the Council to conduct this study—a study that has the potential to yield valuable insights into helping Washington reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this report failed to meet its legislative mandate, contains serious errors, and is already facing wide-spread opposition.
The Washington State Legislature stipulated “(c) In conducting the study, the council must provide opportunities for comment from design, construction, and building industry stakeholders.” This did not happen. There was zero notification that a study was even being performed until the November 15,2024 Council meeting, after the report was complete.
In response to stakeholder outrage expressed during that meeting, Megan Lewis, Program Director at the Carbon Leadership Forum who served as co-author and editor for the report, responded:
So first, we would have obviously really appreciated the opportunity to engage with more stakeholders and weren’t able to in the timeline. So, while we unfortunately weren't allowed in this timeline to include [actual industry input], we did the best we could.
How is it that the authors of this report took months to assemble a 94-page document without once providing the opportunity for public input? Ignoring this legislative requirement is especially troubling considering that the authors of the report attended, actively participated in and advocated for certain policies during various public meetings of the Council while simultaneously authoring this report.
As self-proclaimed activists, the authors of the report have a conflict of interest that blinds them from identifying solutions void of unintended consequences. In other words, they are not disinterested researchers. In fact, Carbon Leadership Forum’s own website reveals their sole goal is advocacy of a single agenda item:
Our mission is to eliminate embodied carbon in buildings, materials, and infrastructure to create a just and thriving future. To advance government and corporate policy, tools and resources are required to provide the clarity needed for meaningful action. We develop model embodied carbon policy, act as a technical advisor to inform the development of effective and just policies, provide technical support to agencies implementing embodied carbon policy, and collaborate with NGOs to align and advance embodied carbon policies.
Industry stakeholders, including NWGA, share the goal of reducing greenhouse gases, while balancing other important factors including operational carbon emissions, constructability, affordability, and public safety. Why was their input not invited and considered?
On September 19, 2024, nearly two months prior to publishing the report, co-author Ariel Brenner with the New Building Institute submitted code change proposal 24-GP1-118 to include embodied carbon as a WA state amendment to the 2024 International Building Code. The report acknowledges and offers defense of the proposal Brenner submitted (Table 3-1). To us, it appears that industry stakeholders were purposefully excluded as their input was not desired.
Furthermore, instead of working with industry stakeholders, the report attempts to preempt known concerns with an entire section dedicated to “Potential Pushback” vs “Considerations for addressing concerns” (Table 3-1). This table reads like an attempt to discredit or silence any feedback not aligned with the author’s preconceived notions.
Finally, ESSB 5950 directs the SBCC to perform a study. However, we find no evidence in the report that any study was actually performed while creating the report. Instead, the report merely references prior studies that lack statistical significance due to insignificant sample sizes.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments for the record. We respectfully urge the Council to start over, to encourage and incorporate stakeholder input and to apply commonsense rather than ideology in defense of making tangible progress that doesn’t leave people behind.
Please acknowledge your receipt of my request and confirm its disposition. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
DAN S. KIRSCHNER
Chief Executive Officer
Comments