RexRun For PAWSitivity 2023

Come join us on National Dog Day for a family fun 5K trail run/walk to raise funds and spread mental health awareness with the help of School Resource therapy dogs!

e proposed rules would lock in place the intent of legislation passed in 2021. Building owners have spent the time since then measuring and reporting their “benchmark” emissions that will set the starting line for their required cuts.

“ e legislature was clear that these are reductions over and above the greening of the grid,” said Clay Clarke, supervisor of the climate change unit at the Air Pollution Control Division, whose sta is writing the rules for the AQCC to vote on. “So you can’t just essentially ride the coattails of Xcel or whoever your electric provider is.” ey want savings in buildings to be over and above utility savings, as policymakers intended. e Environmental Defense Fund led a prehearing statement saying it “supports adoption of a robust building performance standard to support the state’s GHG reduction goals via advancing building energy e ciency and electri cation. If well-designed, this type of policy can drive signi cant energy e ciency improvements and electri cation of space and water heating across Colorado, leading to emission reductions from business-as-usual levels.”

Environmental coalitions largely support the proposed rules, if they can get new assurances before a nal vote. ey want language guaranteeing benchmarking of existing emissions will be accurate, and that the system will prevent double dipping by blocking building owners from acquiring renewable energy credits from utilities that invest in clean generation.

Colorado’s overall greenhouse gas reduction roadmap calls for emissions controls in all major sectors of the economy to reach the state’s targets of a 50% drop from the 2005 benchmark by 2030, and 90% by 2050, state regulators say. Big buildings must make a contribution, they said.

“ ey can do it through e ciency, they can do it through electri cation, they can do it through some combination of those along with the use of renewable energy,” Clarke said. “What I can’t emphasize enough is this really is a winwin-win, because we’re reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but at the same time, our initial economic impact analysis shows that there will be $3 in savings for every dollar spent.” e division’s led “rebuttal” to all the pre-hearing statements and objections $3.61 in bene ts for every dollar spent on capital costs to cut greenhouse gas emissions. e rebuttal assesses $6.4 billion in overall bene ts to the buildings program through 2050, including about $5.2 billion in energy savings and $1.2 billion in “avoided social cost.” e state’s projection puts total costs of making the changes at $1.8 billion over that time.

Building owners and trade groups have so far refrained from expressing gratitude. ey have taken to lengthy pre-hearing statements and a public editorial campaign to decry the high upfront capital costs of making the changes, and the looming pain for nonpro t owners like hospitals, governments and associations. Building owners as a group are interested in e ciency because