Local debate flares over 'electric preferred' building code; trustees ask for more analysis

A public meeting and subsequent trustees’ discussion on May 13 drew residents, builders and energy providers to debate a proposed "electric preferred" change to local building codes.

Speakers included Christian Jones, public affairs manager for Atmos Energy; representatives of Sangre de Cristo Electric Association; builders and local residents. The discussion touched on reliability, upfront construction cost, long‑term operating cost, carbon impacts and municipal authority to encourage one energy source over another.

Christian Jones told trustees Atmos Energy’s position is that natural gas remains an "affordable, efficient and reliable solution for Colorado," and he raised concerns about higher construction costs and impacts on household operating expenses. Jones said data from industry studies show households that retain both fuels often have lower carbon footprints than all‑electric homes in some analyses, and he urged trustees to weigh affordability and reliability in a mountain community where outages can pose risks to homes and water services.

Several residents and small business owners spoke in opposition to an electric‑preferred requirement. Randy Crane, owner of a local propane business, told trustees he saw the proposal as a form of regulatory overreach that would reduce resident choice and raise construction costs. Local builders echoed concerns that additional code mandates increase development cost and can put housing further out of reach. One builder noted that recent code updates and the state’s ‘‘electric‑ready’’ requirements already place new construction on a trajectory toward easier electrification.

On the other side, Matt Hackel, speaking in favor of electric‑preferred, said the proposal “preserve[s] choice” because it would not ban gas but would incentivize all‑electric construction and discourage future, costly retrofits. Hackel also argued that building electric‑ready or electric‑preferred now reduces the expense of converting homes later if electricity becomes cleaner and more affordable.

Sangre de Cristo Electric Association presented a neutral, member‑focused stance: the cooperative said it would meet any increased electricity demand but preferred to remain neutral while its members weigh tradeoffs. Trustees asked the cooperative and Atmos for additional data on system capacity, projected monthly operating cost differences for typical homes, and clarity about the cost impact of the proposed code language. Board members also asked staff to clarify whether a future code change would trigger broad retrofit requirements for existing homes when owners pull permits for repairs or renovations.

Trustees did not adopt a code amendment. Instead they asked staff to procure further analysis and bring the item back with more public outreach: requested items include clear cost estimates, the remodel/permit threshold that would trigger forced compliance, the county’s proposed point‑system mechanics and examples comparing mixed‑fuel and all‑electric build costs. Trustees signaled a preference to let the public comment again and to receive model language from county staff before deciding whether to support an interjurisdictional resolution.

Ending: No final action was taken. Trustees asked staff to request clarifying information from county code drafters, collect local cost estimates and remodeling triggers, and schedule a follow‑up meeting that includes an additional public comment period.