Pitkin County staff propose tiered energy code; commissioners move to first reading Feb. 12
Loading...
Summary
County building officials proposed a tiered update to the residential energy code that tightens HERS/ERI baselines, ties performance standards to home size, and adds battery-and-solar requirements; commissioners instructed staff to bring the proposal for first reading Feb. 12 and asked for further consultation with HERS raters and finance staff.
Pitkin County building officials presented a proposed update to the county’s residential energy code on Jan. 14 that would lower the HERS Energy Rating Index baseline, add size-based tiers tying performance to home square footage, and require on-site renewable offsets and battery storage for larger homes or those that continue to use fossil fuels for exterior loads.
Chief Building Official Jeff Erickson and technical staff described a three-tier house-size system: Tier 1 for homes up to 3,250 square feet; Tier 2 for 3,251–5,750 square feet; and Tier 3 for 5,751–9,250 square feet (with a plus provision for replacements at existing authorized footprints). Under the proposal the county’s baseline HERS/ERI requirement would move from 60 to 50 for all new single-family construction. Larger homes in tiers 2 and 3 would then face additional post-renewable ERI targets that effectively require more on-site solar and battery storage or else participation in an exterior-energy budget/mitigation program.
Key technical provisions presented:
- Baseline ERI: adopt ERI 50 as the pre-renewable-energy baseline for new residential buildings (county currently follows HERS ERI pathway adopted in 2020).
- Post-renewable targets and offsets: in tiers 2 and 3, hybrid homes that retain fossil-fuel systems must install on-site renewable energy to reduce ERI scores toward a post-renewable target; Tier 3 homes are expected to install substantially more on-site generation and storage to reach a post-renewable ERI target described by staff as effectively reducing their net on-site usage.
- Battery minimums: staff recommended a minimum 5 kilowatt-hour (kW) storage requirement or battery sized to 25 percent of a system’s daily output for new or expanded photovoltaic systems; batteries must support grid-operational modes (utility program participation, self-consumption or time-of-use strategies) to enable resilience and grid services.
- Exterior energy cap: a budget for exterior energy use of 200,000,000 BTUs per year was proposed as a cap for hybrid systems; developers who choose fossil fuels for exterior loads would budget to that cap or pay a mitigation charge.
- Incentives: the draft code ties permit fee reductions and expedited review to all-electric homes with no exterior energy uses (example: a sample permit fee reduction from 2.7 percent to 1.6 percent was shown for a Tier 1 example; Tier 2/Tier 3 reductions would be smaller). The draft also exempts small all-electric homes from mandatory on-site solar and allows a limited exception for one prepackaged, insulated spa and up to 5,000 watts of exterior heat tape for small all-electric units.
Staff noted a pending state-level model low-energy/low-carbon code that would require ERI 50 for homes 3,500 square feet or less and ERI 47 for larger homes on July 1, 2026; the county proposal generally meets or exceeds those state-minimums for many tiers. Building staff also reported results from stakeholder outreach, including a September stakeholder meeting with more than two dozen design/build professionals and an industry survey; staff said the in-person stakeholder meeting recorded no organized opposition to the proposed direction but asked commissioners for additional guidance on larger-home incentives and battery/solar issues.
Finance staff shared a brief revenue analysis showing that proposed fee reductions would decrease permit revenue modestly but would still cover department expenses under 2024 permit patterns; the presentation included a modeled reduction of about $1.4 million in building permit revenue relative to 2024 if the proposed fee structure were applied to last year’s permit mix, and staff said results would be monitored after adoption. Staff warned that revenue sensitivity depends on future developer behavior and noted that Tier 1 construction has historically been a small portion of county valuation.
Commissioners asked for follow-up on several topics, including ground-mounted solar treatment, HERS rater capacity to handle expanded pre/post ratings for remodels and additions, whether vehicle-to-grid (V2G) approaches should be included, and the operational details for battery-grid connectivity (Holy Cross Energy’s net-metering and generation tariff distinctions were discussed). Staff agreed to gather more input from local HERS raters, Holy Cross Energy and solar contractors; commissioners asked staff to bring the proposal back for first reading on Feb. 12 with the requested follow-up and stakeholder feasibility feedback.
No formal ordinance vote was taken at the Jan. 14 work session; commissioners approved moving the draft forward to the Feb. 12 first reading with staff follow-up to incorporate feasibility input.
