Washington State has enacted Senate Bill 5156, making it the first state in the country to pass meaningful elevator code reform legislation. The bill, sponsored by Senator Jesse Salomon (D-32nd District, Shoreline) with co-sponsors Senators Bateman, Liias, Nobles, Riccelli, Shewmake, and Stanford, directs the State Building Code Council (SBCC) to adopt standards permitting smaller passenger elevators — no larger than wheelchair-accessible size — in apartment buildings of up to six stories and 24 units. Those smaller elevators must still meet ADA accessibility requirements. The bill also directs the SBCC to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of requirements for hoistway opening protection and two-way visual communication devices, two provisions that add cost to residential elevator installations with limited safety return data to justify them at current regulatory levels.

The bill's path to passage was neither fast nor clean. A prior version passed the Washington Senate in 2025 by a vote of 42–6 but died in a House committee after the National Elevator Industry Inc. (NEII) opposed a provision that would have directed state agencies to affirmatively pursue harmonization with global elevator code standards. For the 2026 session, Senator Salomon returned with three targeted modifications: the global harmonization directive was changed from a mandate to a non-binding statement of intent, an explicit ADA clarification was added to head off any ambiguity about accessibility compliance, and the cost-benefit study directive was incorporated to satisfy concerns about stripping safety requirements without analysis. Those adjustments were sufficient. The Senate passed the revised bill 41–7. The House passed it 93–1 with amendments. The Senate concurred 41–6.

The underlying cost problem SB 5156 is trying to address is real and well-documented. According to Stephen Smith of the Center for Building in North America, elevator installations in the United States and Canada cost three to four times more than comparable installations elsewhere in the world. That cost differential is not principally driven by labor rates or materials — it is driven by code requirements that specify cab dimensions, door configurations, machine room arrangements, and hoistway clearances that differ from standards in Europe, Japan, and other major markets. The result is a product that is effectively custom-manufactured for the North American market, which eliminates the economies of scale that keep elevator costs manageable elsewhere. For mid-rise residential developers operating on thin margins in high land-cost markets, the elevator requirement is often the line item that makes a four- or five-story apartment building with ground-floor retail economically unviable without a lift exemption — and exemptions typically mean the building is not accessible.

For the elevator trade — mechanics, contractors, and inspectors — SB 5156 raises practical questions that will take time to answer. The bill directs the SBCC to adopt the new standards; it does not itself create those standards. That rulemaking process will determine which specific dimensions, load ratings, and safety features apply to the new class of smaller elevators, and it will determine how existing ASME A17.1 provisions map onto units that were designed for markets with different code regimes. IUEC mechanics in Washington will eventually service whatever equipment gets installed under the new rules, and the training and inspection protocols for smaller-format elevators in mid-rise residential buildings are not yet written. The cost-benefit study on hoistway opening protection and two-way visual communication devices will also matter to the trade: both of those requirements directly affect how installations are designed and inspected, and any changes to them will ripple through inspection checklists, apprenticeship curricula, and service contracts. Independent contractors and local union halls in Washington should track the SBCC rulemaking closely — that process, not the bill itself, is where the specifics will be decided.

NEII's opposition to the original 2025 bill produced a compromise that is worth understanding clearly. The industry association did not oppose smaller elevators; it opposed a statutory mandate directing Washington agencies to pursue harmonization with global standards, which in practice would mean aligning with European and Asian code frameworks that allow equipment the North American majors currently do not manufacture at scale. The shift from mandate to non-binding intent statement removed that threat while preserving the symbolic signal. Whether the intent language carries any real weight in future SBCC rulemaking remains to be seen, but the legislative record — NEII successfully narrowing the harmonization provision — will be cited in every future state that considers similar legislation. Elevator World reported on the final passage on March 25, 2026 (Kaija Wilkinson); Sightline Institute's Dan Bertolet covered the bill's progression and context in a March 19, 2026 analysis that remains the most thorough publicly available treatment of the cost and housing policy dimensions.

Washington is now the test case. If the SBCC completes its rulemaking, manufacturers develop compliant products, contractors successfully install them, and inspectors certify them without incident, the argument for reform in other states becomes much harder to dismiss. States that are already running years behind on ASME A17.1 adoption will be watching to see whether Washington's code divergence creates problems or reduces them. The housing production argument alone — that accessible mid-rise residential construction is being suppressed by elevator cost — is gaining traction in state legislatures far beyond the Pacific Northwest. SB 5156 will not be the last bill like it.