The Clean Buildings Act will cost Washington property owners millions of dollars in the coming years. State regulators should tap the brakes on broadening the law’s impacts, and state lawmakers should look at ways to ease its effects.

Most immediately, Spokane-area property owners and business leaders should be vocal in objection during the public-comment period while they still can do so. Public comment on broadening the regulations will be taken for the last time, as currently planned, on Nov. 21. The Washington state Department of Commerce needs to hear the concerns of those who will be investing heavily in building upgrades that wouldn’t have to occur otherwise.

The law in question requires owners of buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of space to improve their buildings to meet energy-efficiency performance standards. Specifically, they must reduce building emissions to what’s referred to as an energy-use intensity target, report building performance, implement a maintenance-and-operations plan, report energy efficiency audits, and invest in measures to meet efficiency targets.

Those rules are phased in between 2026 and 2028 with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Structures used for industrial and agricultural operations can be exempt for owners who can prove financial hardship.

The broadening of the law involves applying the same standards to smaller buildings, those with 20,000 square feet or more. The timetable hasn’t been set for those yet, but likely will be after the Nov. 21 hearing.

The potential expansion greatly increases the number of businesses and property owners that could be affected. The city of Spokane estimates 400 buildings within its limits have more than 50,000 square feet of space and would be subject to the current law, and hundreds more would fall in the range of that second tier.

Property owners already are hiring costly consultants to evaluate structures and make recommendations of measures that need to be taken to comply with the new laws. Some estimate they are spending in the six figures for the consultants alone.

Those same property owners will be weighing whether to spend large sums on improvements or, if it makes more sense, to pay fines associated with noncompliance. It’s an unenviable decision many people will face.

Keep in mind, public buildings aren’t exempt, and universities and some municipalities are estimating they’ll need to spend tens of millions of dollars to come into compliance.

As with most government regulations, the costs will be passed down, which means they will result in increased rents for tenants, commercial and residential alike.

We express our concerns about the Clean Buildings Act with full acknowledgement that we, as a society, must take steps to lower our carbon footprint. But we question the wisdom of making otherwise unnecessary improvements to buildings in the name of the environment. Put another way, what volume of emissions will be produced on construction projects that wouldn’t occur if not to satisfy what has all the makings of a government overreach?

Talk to regulators about the measures they’re taking, and beseech state legislators to do something to ease the burden. Otherwise, either indirectly or directly, all of us will be paying for this overzealous initiative.