Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Performance Ag Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Energy office says ag buildings can be exempt from building performance rules but data gaps are causing confusion
Summary
Colorado Energy Office officials told a Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee that agriculture, manufacturing and industrial uses are exempt from Building Performance Colorado if more than 50% of a building's use is that activity, but inconsistent assessor data and reporting forms have led to intrusive outreach and calls for administrative fixes or clarifying legislation.
Colorado Energy Office staff told members of the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee that the state's building benchmarking and performance standards program includes exemptions for agricultural buildings but that inconsistent data from county assessors has caused owners to receive confusing notices.
Chris Piper, director of legislative affairs for the Energy Office, and Amy Hiron, director of building decarbonization, explained the program's basics and the practical problem the office faces: assessor templates and the records the Energy Office receives do not always show whether a building's primary use is agricultural, manufacturing or industrial. That omission can cause farm and ranch owners to get contact letters and reporting requests that feel intrusive.
"Agriculture, manufacturing and industrial are exempt if they're more than 50% of the building use," Hiron said, describing the statutory exemption. She added that the office provides assessors a template and that reporting has improved with each round, but acknowledged uneven county data and mistakes in owner contact information.
Committee members pressed the office on the program threshold and compliance. Hiron confirmed the baseline for coverage is 50,000 square feet and that the program has two parts: benchmarking (public reporting of energy use) and performance standards (energy-reduction targets that carry compliance requirements beginning in 2026). "We do not have a compliance requirement yet," she said, noting that penalties for noncompliance are overseen by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment under AQCC rules.
Piper told the panel the office's preference is an administrative remedy: "Over the weekend we kind of put our heads together and started brainstorming some thoughts around an administrative remedy to this problem," he said. Staff said they update their database when new assessor information arrives and that they send explicit letters to owners included in the program.
Senators described constituent frustration at having to prove an ag building's exemption. "If it's an ag building, it should be exempt. Period," Senator Pelton said, adding that rural producers trust their local assessor classifications. Energy Office staff responded that, while they want to avoid burdening producers, they must avoid automatically exempting buildings that may no longer be used for agriculture.
The committee suggested two paths: let the Energy Office continue working with assessors to improve templates and outreach, and consider clarifying legislative language if administrative fixes fall short.
