ROARING FORK BROADCASTING COMPANY
A majority of Pitkin County commissioners voted Wednesday to delay implementation of an aggressive plan to limit outdoor energy use by new residential properties over concerns about private property rights.
A proposal to put big homes on an exterior energy diet not to exceed 200 million British thermal units per year was placed on hold until March 13 because the board majority wants to craft a way for homeowners to seek exemptions. Commissioners Francie Jacober, Patti Clapper and Steve Child favored creating an appeal process for homeowners.
Child said he regretted not being able to support the ordinance proposed by community development staff that would have created the tougher energy use regulations without exemptions.
“I respect private property rights and the fairness issue also. That’s part of our job,” Child said.
Jacober expressed a similar sentiment in favor of creating a system where exemptions would be allowed. “It’s not saying ‘Yes, you can use more energy,’” she said. “It’s saying you can ask us. And I don’t think we’re going to make many exemptions.”
Commissioner Greg Poschman countered that the board’s majority was creating a process that is too cumbersome and creates too many problems for county staff for the potential benefit of only a few homeowners.
“It seems to me the fixes we’re trying to apply to this make it less practical,” he said.
The environmental community is already behind the energy diet proposal and is demanding action, he said, and building large homes the consumptive ways they have been built in the past “simply aren’t acceptable anymore.”
“What we’re trying to address here is a climate emergency,” Poschman said.
The commissioners passed a first reading of an ordinance that bolsters its energy code on Dec. 13 but it’s now stumbled twice in efforts to try to get the ordinance codified. The core concept remains intact. The 200 million Btu per year energy budget would apply to in-slab snowmelt systems, outdoor electric heat mats, outdoor spas, outdoor pools, heat tape on roofs and gutters, outdoor electric heaters and outdoor gas fireplaces and firepits.
The increased regulation is designed to help the county achieve its goal of reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gasses by 90% from 2019 levels by 2050.
“Reducing exterior amenity energy use substantially reduces the overall energy load,” says a staff memo to commissioners. “Pitkin County Building and Energy codes require buildings to get more and more efficient. However, exterior energy use remains an outstanding inefficiency that increases the total energy load of the site. This exterior energy use is driven primarily by non-essential luxury amenities. Therefore, establishing a limit on exterior energy use is low-hanging fruit and an imperative step to reduce overall residential energy consumption.”
While the commissioners haven’t wavered on putting big homes on an energy diet, the board majority has got hung up on the exemptions issue. They asked Community Development Director Suzanne Wolff and her staff at a January meeting to come back with proposals for how homeowners could seek exemptions. Wolff outlined a possible exemption process on Wednesday but stressed repeatedly that the staff advised against it.
“Providing any exemptions to this will allow more excessive exterior energy amenity use to persist,” Wolff said.
The proposed process would allow property owners who have received land use approvals and have entered the building permit application process to appeal to the commissioners to exceed the 200 million BTU diet on a “hardship” basis, or show that they have some innovative plan to offset their energy use, or both.
“From staff’s recommendation, none of this language would exist,” Wolff said. “So again, just going to keep hammering that one home for you.”
Instead, community development staff want the new, stricter energy code provisions to be enacted immediately and applied to all projects that currently don’t have a building permit.
“That would mean no exemptions for approved/vested site plans or pending land use applications,” Wolff said in her presentation. “Any building permit application submitted after the code goes into effect would be required to comply with the 200 million Btu external energy budget.”
Wolff warned that some properties with vested approval rights could linger in the energy consumption appeal process for several years. She estimated there are 95 residential projects with vested site plans.
County Attorney John Ely also warned the board about potential legal pitfalls with the exemption process. He said criteria needs to be established on what constitutes hardship and innovation.
“This couldn’t be adopted the way it’s written,” Ely said. “It needs a lot more meat on the bones, so to speak. It needs to be defined so you can apply it without being arbitrary so you can distinguish when somebody gets (an exemption) and somebody doesn’t.”
Prominent entities and members of the local conservation community also urged commissioners to pass the exterior energy budget immediately and without an exemption process.
Jami McMannes, communications and engagement manager for the Aspen-based Community Office for Resource Efficiency, said the building sector produces more than 60% of greenhouse gas emissions in Pitkin County. Establishing an exterior energy use budget is a critical step in reducing the emissions. “Later is too late,” she said.
Auden Schendler, senior vice president of sustainability for Aspen Skiing Co., said it has taken Pitkin County a long time to get around to regulating outdoor energy usage but it is worthwhile to get it on the books as soon as possible.
“Exterior energy use is what CORE was trying to address 25 years ago,” he said.
Mona Newton, a former executive director of CORE and an environmental consultant, noted that a community advisory committee appointed by commissioners in 2022 to look at land-use code tweaks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was in favor of reducing house sizes and regulating energy consumption. The exterior energy budget dovetails with the committee’s recommendations, she said.
Newton urged passage without exemptions.
“Why not now?” she asked. “We’re in a climate crisis. It’s raining, it’s February.”
The encouragement by county staff and conservationists to pass the proposal post haste didn’t sway the majority of commissioners. Instead, they want to massage the exemption language at a March 13 meeting.