Boulder staff present 10‑year "Resilient Buildings" road map, seek board feedback on electrification, equity and cooling access

City of Boulder climate staff on Wednesday briefed the Environmental Advisory Board on a proposed 10‑year Resilient Buildings Road Map that packages policies, programs and funding ideas aimed at cutting building emissions, improving indoor air and ensuring cooling access as the climate warms.

The presentation, led by Carolyn (senior manager, Climate Initiatives Department) and other Climate Initiatives staff, outlined technical and financial analyses prepared by consultant ARUP, results from public engagement (536 questionnaire respondents and 16 focus groups), and draft policy options the city plans to carry to a City Council study session at the end of the month.

“We're asking the board for specific feedback that, of course, will be included in the packet when conveyed to council,” Jonathan (Council Climate Initiatives staff) told the board at the start of the meeting.

Carolyn framed the road map as a 10‑year alignment with Boulder’s Climate Action Plan and said buildings remain central to the city’s climate goal. “When we talked about this before, we can't get to the goal if we don't address the emissions associated with our buildings,” she said, noting that buildings historically represented “more than two thirds of our community's emissions” though that share is changing as electricity gets cleaner.

The consultants’ building stock analysis found most commercial buildings in Boulder are heated and cooled with fossil fuels; only about 15% are electric. Roughly half of buildings use electric water heaters, meaning the other half use gas. About half of Boulder homes lack central air; mobile homes are especially vulnerable — the staff presentation said about 26% of mobile homes lack any cooling. The analysis estimated that moving the existing building stock to electrification would require about $4,500,000,000 in capital costs without incentives.

Staff presented the consultant recommendations and the city’s initial prioritization. High‑priority items staff said they will continue to study include: a building performance standard model that sets energy or emissions targets by building type (starting with the largest commercial buildings), stronger tenant protections and targeted incentives for low‑income households, workforce development to expand skilled contractors, and “early wins” programs to demonstrate benefits before stricter rules are phased in.

The draft policy menu preserves flexibility: for example, staff proposed phasing performance standards by building size and offering multiple compliance pathways (improvements, on‑site generation, or other measures). Staff also flagged legal and practical constraints around “electric‑only” appliance mandates and suggested investigating air‑pollutant (NOx) performance limits and time‑of‑sale upgrade programs as alternatives where state law limits local appliance requirements.

Board members questioned feasibility and distributional effects. Amber (board member) asked whether consultants could quantify unintended consequences — for example, whether stricter rules might discourage new construction or push tenants and businesses elsewhere. Carolyn and other staff said such impacts are difficult to predict from current data and that a second phase of targeted outreach will “stress test” proposed approaches with affected property owners, developers and managers.

Several board members emphasized finance and navigation supports. Cynthia (board member) pressed staff on financing mechanisms and whether on‑bill or other line‑item financing tools are likely; staff said a residential on‑bill financing program is expected to be developed in 2026 and that the city continues to advocate for state legislation enabling broader on‑bill financing. Staff noted existing tools and partnerships including EnergySmart (residential advising), Energy Outreach Colorado (income‑qualified rebates), PACE financing and commercial advisement programs, and said staff will recommend concentrating limited rebate dollars on lower‑income households and small businesses.

Equity and cooling access were recurring themes. Staff said the road map expanded scope beyond emissions to “social resilience” and indoor air quality; they proposed coupling incentives with tenant protections (for example, agreements that can accompany incentives to limit immediate rent increases) and building programs to improve cooling for apartments that lack central air. Staff also described outreach findings: about one‑third of questionnaire respondents said they would voluntarily electrify; lower‑income respondents were more likely to electrify if monthly utility bills fell.

Board members suggested practical engagement tactics staff plan to use, including peer‑to‑peer learning, industry champions inside commercial portfolios, and “concierge” navigational support (one‑stop assistance for permitting, rebates and contractor connections). Staff said those supports were valued in engagement: “EnergySmart … operate[s] in a really concierge style” and that a similar approach for other building types has groundwork in existing programs.

Staff will take the board’s feedback to the City Council study session later this month and said they will circulate the presentation and a short summary to board members so they can submit additional input prior to that council date.

Ending

City staff said the road map is at a strategic level and that more detailed regulatory, financial and technical design work would follow if council directs staff to pursue specific standards. The board did not take a formal vote on the road map; members instead offered feedback on priorities, equity guardrails and outreach methods that staff will incorporate into the packet for council.