Advisory board reviews Colorado electric- and solar-ready code, seeks clarifications on EV, panel and enforcement rules

Board members spent substantial time reviewing the Colorado model electric- and solar-ready provisions and asked staff and subject-matter experts to supply clarifications and draft language. The item covered three core pieces: electrification-ready (reserved panel/conduit), solar-ready rooftop zones, and EV-charging readiness.

Hope (speaker 7), the meeting’s technical presenter on energy and code matters, explained the basic approach: jurisdictions adopting the model must implement minimum solar-ready and electrification-ready provisions for new construction, but may adopt language that is more stringent than the state’s minimum. "It is the basic minimum. Now you can amend it to make it more stringent than what it currently is, but you can't do anything to reduce it," Hope said. She walked the board through reserved panel capacity, conduit or junction-box approaches and the residential versus commercial thresholds for rooftop solar-ready zones.

The group discussed practical contractor approaches to meet the provisions without intrusive retrofits, including running conduit into accessible crawlspaces and reserving a two-pole space in panels for future EV or electric-appliance service. One participant summarized typical local practice: run conduit from the panel into a crawlspace, reserve space in the panel for a two-pole breaker (40-amp), and connect the charger at the future location.

Staff read the county’s current EV-ready language aloud for the board (section E370): "All single family homes shall be made EV ready for charging by pre-installing conduit or conductors during construction of the house. Designate enough space and capacity on the main electrical panel or garage subpanel for at least 40 amp, 240 volt dedicated branch circuit... The building official may grant an exception in unique situations of a significant hardship." The board noted that the county language currently applies to single-family residential in the IRC adoption amendment and asked whether commercial (IBC) language should also be added.

Members flagged two administrative concerns: (1) the state review will judge whether local language complies with the state model and nonconforming local language risks being placed on a state 'red list'; and (2) the state’s electrical inspectors generally inspect to the NEC and local jurisdictions will be responsible for enforcing the added model provisions. The board asked staff to compile a comparison of the IECC/IBC/IRC 2021 vs. 2024 editions and to provide likely cost impacts and significant code changes to help decide whether to adopt the 2021 or 2024 iteration of the energy codes.

Staff agreed to gather materials, including a 'significant changes' summary between the 2021 and 2024 editions and peer-review material lists, and to add information to the packet for the next meeting so the board can make an informed recommendation to city and county decision-makers.