Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Building Decarbonization topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Arapahoe County endorses amended position on building decarbonization bill

2980216 · March 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff recommended and the board voted to support an "amend" position on HB25‑1269 with technical clarifications and without changing the proposed enterprise fund structure, citing concerns about permit workload and local implementation.

Arapahoe County commissioners voted to take an "amend" position on House Bill 25‑1269, the building decarbonization measure that would update energy‑use benchmarking and performance standards for certain buildings.

County staff briefed commissioners on the bill’s requirements, including adoption of 2040 performance standards as set by the Air Quality Control Commission and a task force to implement rules. The bill also would create a decarbonization enterprise fund that could assess fees on buildings over 50,000 square feet to support technical assistance.

County staff said the bill contains confusing language about how adopting a wildfire resiliency code interacts with energy code adoption; staff recommended clarifying that adopting a wildfire resiliency code should not automatically trigger adoption of the new energy standards. Staff also flagged likely increased permit workload — notably HVAC permitting and inspections — and recommended amendments to reduce operational strain on permitting offices.

At the meeting, commissioners and staff discussed asking DRCOG (the Denver Regional Council of Governments) to have representation on the task force named in the bill because DRCOG is standing up a decarbonization program. Commissioners also expressed concern about the enterprise fund provision that would levy an annual fee on larger buildings; the board decided not to include structural amendments to change the fund’s financing mechanism at this time.

The board’s motion to adopt a position of “amend” with the suggested clarifications (excluding changes to enterprise fund structure) passed with five affirmative signals from commissioners.

County staff will submit the recommended technical clarifications to the sponsors and coordinate with state partners as the bill proceeds through the legislature.