[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Second reading questions for energy codes

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Questions for 2nd reading of the energy code updates:

1. Regarding both the ERI requirements for additions and the thresholds for energy upgrades because of alterations and repairs, has there been any thought given to the cumulative effect of either additions or alterations?  In particular, if over time there are several smaller additions, the ERI requirement will be (often much) less stringent (or even sometimes greater...meaning a higher ERI) than what would have been required if all of the additions were done at once.  With alterations, sequential activities can simply avoid triggering more serious energy upgrades.

2. Regarding alterations and repairs, the new code calculates thresholds based on valuations instead of square footage.  But valuations of construction are wildly variable (just look at the building permits reported in the Camera), and assessor valuations are equally wildly variable.  Perhaps this really is better than square footage, but do we have any way to "force" some sort of consistency (I know we have formulas for construction, but still, the valuations are wildly variable)?

3. As residential units need to significantly reduce their ERIs, some if not most will eventually need to contract for community solar, which raises these questions:
                -- what if it isn't available in sufficient quantities, either locally or remotely?
                -- what if it is obviously overpriced?
                -- what if net-metering gets phased out so this solar becomes quite expensive?
                -- if at some point Boulder's base electric energy becomes, say 75 or 80+% renewable, why bother with this requirement?
                -- this option is allowed after "all on-site renewable options have been exhausted."  What does that actually mean? That all types of on-site renewables must have been attempted, including for example geothermal, and irrespective of the cost?
                -- and while we presumably can require this and indeed it will help reduce fossil fuel use, why it is "fair" that only new houses (and some remodels) must pay extra (assuming there is some extra cost, at least cash flow), even though those houses will be built to much, much higher energy standards than existing houses?

4. The city isn't requiring all-electric houses but encouraging them - presumably on the path to actual requirements.  Is there an analysis of the extra cost of operating an all-electric house, with or without full solar power?  Right now, it is considerably more expensive to heat space and water with electricity, so both an estimate of yearly operating costs as well as a net-present value would be helpful.

5. Our new regs (and perhaps our existing ones) specify that if a building has both commercial and residential uses it is treated as a commercial building.  Are there situations where that would reduce the energy requirements, even if the building  were mostly residential?

6. While we want to create incentives for EVs, current models can go 200+ miles on one charge and clearly that range will only increase.  Super-fast charging stations will also become more common.  So is it "reasonable" to require C/I buildings to provide charging stations that presumably have a fairly long life expectancy when their need and utility will very likely be phased out?

Thanks --Matt