Experts tell Columbus committee smart surfaces and performance standards cut heat, flood risk and energy costs

Council Member Weiss introduced the hearing’s sustainable‑building segment and invited national and out‑of‑state guests to share tools and local experience on cooling, stormwater and building performance policy.

Bill Updike, program manager for the Smart Surfaces Coalition, described the coalition’s Cities for Smart Surfaces program and its geospatial and benefit‑cost tools. “The urban heat island effect … can lead to upwards of 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit hotter temperatures in urban areas versus rural areas,” Updike said, and he emphasized that surface strategies can deliver measurable energy, health and stormwater benefits. Updike summarized modeled benefits across 10 metro areas including billions of dollars in avoided costs for infrastructure, health and energy over a 25‑year horizon and described a publicly available Smart Surfaces policy tracker that curates nearly 2,000 policies nationwide.

Courtney Anderson, director of Buildings and Homes for the City and County of Denver’s Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resilience (CASR), and Derek Valente, Denver’s building performance program administrator, presented Denver’s experience implementing building performance and energy‑code changes. Anderson said Denver’s 2022 energy‑code amendments prohibit gas furnaces and water heaters in commercial and multifamily new construction and narrow paths for new buildings; she said the city has seen an uptake in all‑electric projects, including affordable housing developments that pursued electrification. Valente described Energize Denver, the city’s building performance ordinance for existing buildings, and the program’s phased compliance years, benchmarking requirements and a potential penalty tied to kilobritish thermal units (kBtu) not achieved.

Why this matters: testimony showed how local rules, technical assistance, and data tools can be combined to reduce building energy use, lower peak electric demand during extreme heat and manage stormwater with green infrastructure.

Key points from Denver and the Smart Surfaces Coalition

- Smart Surfaces Coalition: Updike explained the coalition’s modeling and geospatial tools that estimate localized cooling potential and produce benefit‑cost ratios for combined surface strategies (cool roofs, green infrastructure, permeable paving, urban trees, and energy‑generating surfaces). He said the coalition’s Baltimore analysis produced benefit‑cost ratios “upwards of 5 to 1 to 10 to 1” for some interventions and that modeled reductions in peak temperatures translate into lower peak electricity demand and public‑health benefits.

- Denver code and ordinances: Anderson said Denver’s energy code requires commercial and multifamily projects to avoid new gas furnaces and water heaters (policy took effect in the update she described) and that the city’s Green Buildings Ordinance applies to new and existing buildings over 25,000 square feet with options including cool roofs, green roofs, solar, or certified green‑building standards. Valente explained Energize Denver’s two performance pathways: a simpler compliance path for buildings 5,000–25,000 square feet (LED lighting or 20% renewables) with one‑time compliance deadlines, and a benchmarking‑driven approach for buildings 25,000 square feet and larger that uses site EUI targets, interim performance years, and potential penalties for missing targets.

- Equity and technical assistance: Denver described an Equity Priority Building assistance program that offers three service tiers — virtual guidance, a free on‑site ASHRAE level‑2 audit for the most vulnerable qualifying buildings, and financial coaching to help owners access available financing and incentives. Anderson said Denver’s climate protection fund provides approximately $40 million annually and that Energize Denver implementation funding totaled roughly $7 million for technical assistance and program support.

Barriers and lessons for Columbus

Speakers identified recurring implementation barriers: siloed agency responsibilities; upfront costs versus life‑cycle benefits; the need for contractor and designer training; and the timing mismatch between policy milestones and building owners’ planning cycles. Valente said Denver adjusted timelines and expanded outreach after early stakeholder feedback to allow owners more time to develop compliance plans. Updike recommended framing interventions with a benefit‑cost narrative and using geospatial targeting to prioritize neighborhoods with high heat exposure, energy burden and health vulnerability.

What remained discussion, not decision

This portion of the hearing was informational; no Columbus policy was proposed or adopted. Council members expressed interest in the Smart Surfaces Coalition’s data tools and in Denver’s experience and asked staff to share presentation materials and policy tracker links.

Ending note: Presenters offered further technical resources and asked the committee to consider interagency coordination and targeted assistance if Columbus pursues similar building performance or surface‑transformation policies.