Legislation watch
Capitol Building

2011 Senate Bill 5485: Maximizing the use of our state's natural resources
  1. Introduced by Sen. James Hargrove (Hoquiam) (D) on January 26, 2011, to adopt, by reference, the international green construction code to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts at earlier stages in the building and construction design process. The state building code council is required to review the state building code and adopt changes as necessary to promote the greater use of wood and wood products.
    • Referred to the Senate Environment, Water & Energy Committee on January 26, 2011.
      • Substitute offered in the Senate on February 16, 2011, to replace the provisions of the original bill with the requirement that .the department of general administration must: review, in consultation with the state building code council (SBCC), other states' codes, international standards and literature on life-cycle assessment and embodied energy in building materials; recommend methodologies to assess embodied energy in building materials; and make suggestions for streamlining energy conservation, life-cycle cost analysis and high performance codes for public buildings. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 16, 2011.
    • Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February 16, 2011.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. James Hargrove (Hoquiam) (D) on March 7, 2011, to remove reference to the Department of General Administration to the University of Washington that shall act in the lead role and report. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 7, 2011.
  2. Passed 44 to 5 in the Senate on March 7, 2011, requires the University of Washington to: review, in consultation with the state building code council (SBCC) and other states' codes, international standards and literature on life-cycle assessment and embodied energy in building materials; recommend methodologies to assess embodied energy in building materials; and, make suggestions for streamlining energy conservation, life-cycle cost analysis and high performance codes for public buildings.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the House on March 8, 2011.
    • Referred to the House Environment Committee on March 8, 2011.
      • Amendment offered in the House on March 25, 2011, removes the intent section; specifies that the CBE is responsible for the review and recommendations to the Legislature; modifies the requirements of the review and recommendations to the Legislature, and requires the report to be submitted by September 1, 2012; removes the requirement that the UW conduct the review in conjunction with a nonprofit consortium and in consultation with the SBCC; defines "life-cycle assessment"; specifies that the report submitted by the GA must be submitted to the Legislature by December 1, 2012, and requires the GA to consider the report submitted by the UW when making its recommendations; and, adds a null and void clause. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on March 25, 2011.
    • Referred to the House Capital Budget Committee on March 25, 2011.
      • Amendment offered in the House on March 29, 2011, modifies the underlying bill to provide that in addition to the University of Washington, the Washington State University will conduct the review. The Capital Budget amendment also adds monitoring and reporting of a building's performance over its life to the recommendations that will be made to the Legislature and makes a grammatical correction. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 29, 2011.
    • Referred to the House Rules Committee on April 5, 2011.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Hans Zeiger, (R-Puyallup) (R) on April 7, 2011, to change peer review to include life-cycle accounting rather than life cycle impacts. Includes high performance buildings in recommendations. Changes the definition of life-cycle assessment to include from cradle to grave. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 7, 2011.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Larry Haler, (R-Richland) (R) on April 7, 2011, to require the review conducted by the University of Washington and Washington State University to identify whether there is a cost difference when materials are created using hydropower when compared to fossil fuel sources, and identify locations within the state where new hydropower facilities could be located (if there is a cost advantage to using hydropower). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 7, 2011.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea (R) on April 7, 2011, to modify the contents of the Department of General Administration's (GA) recommendations to the Legislature by requiring the GA to include a comprehensive assessment of the fiscal and regulatory impacts of any statutory changes recommended by the GA and an analysis of the cumulative impacts on building costs if the GA's recommendations are adopted. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 7, 2011.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Shelly Short, (R-Addy) (R) on April 7, 2011, to modify the content of the recommendations submitted to the Legislature by the University of Washington and Washington State University by requiring the recommendations to apply to public buildings (instead of buildings). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 7, 2011.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Shelly Short, (R-Addy) (R) on April 7, 2011, to require the report by the University of Washington (UW) and Washington State University (WSU) to include a list of any journal articles, study summaries, and other scientific information reviewed by the UW and WSU in developing and finalizing their report to the Legislature. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 7, 2011.
  4. Passed 91 to 1 in the House on April 7, 2011.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the Senate on April 18, 2011. Passed 47 to 0 in the Senate on April 18, 2011.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  6. Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on May 12, 2011.

Comments