Back to top

Green Codes and Certifications

Housing Tax Credit (HTC) supported projects face an evolving set of energy requirements. While these requirements add complexity to project development, they can also establish eligibility for new funding sources, reduce operating costs, and improve resident quality of life when navigated successfully.
  • Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) requires certification to a green building program for all federal and state HTC supported developments, supporting improved environmental and health outcomes for residents.
  • International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) promotes building system energy efficiency, as amended and adopted by each jurisdiction.
  • The State Model Electric Ready and Solar Ready Code supports a path to decarbonization via electrification and renewables ready strategies.
  • Building Performance Standards set energy use targets and measure performance during operation, encouraging utility cost reduction.
Energy regulation is not static. Green certification programs are updated regularly, with changes to mandatory criteria and cost implications. New energy codes are published on three-year cycles. Building performance standards often set energy use targets that increase in stringency over time. Given this complexity, three strategies can help developers of affordable housing projects get the most out of the Colorado energy regulatory framework:
  1. Find areas of alignment between energy code, green certifications, and energy funding to simplify design and construction approaches whenever possible. 
  2. Understand regulatory considerations that can inform the choice between all-electric and electric-ready construction.
  3. Utilize performance energy modeling to give design teams the maximum allowable flexibility to meet code requirements and plan for Building Performance Standard compliance. This will often support a design approach that has both lower construction costs and reduced operating costs.   

Alignment Opportunities

Housing Tax Credit supported developments can select a green certification including Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) for Homes and Multifamily Mid-rise, Enterprise Green Communities (EGC), and National Green Building Standard (NGBS). To enhance competitiveness in project applications, developers can pursue advanced pathways such as Zero Energy Ready Homes (ZERH) or Passive House Certification (PHI, PHIUS). To learn more about how these programs compare, please reference “A Comparison of Multifamily Green Building Certifications.”(PDF) There are a few green certification energy requirements that are important to understand in order to identify alignment opportunities:

  • The current version of the NGBS (2020) Energy Chapter references the 2018 IECC as a baseline. While the certification program offers both prescriptive and performance-based pathways for energy compliance, NGBS does not mandate energy performance that exceeds the minimum requirements established by the 2018 code. The next version of the NGBS (2024) is expected to align with the 2021 IECC as a baseline.
  • LEED and EGC both require ENERGY STAR building certification for new construction. The ENERGY STAR Multifamily New Construction (MFNC) certification is a rigorous energy standard that results in better energy performance. The standard imposes above code minimum system requirements and construction phase testing that often increases project cost.

Since Colorado is a home rule state, municipal and county jurisdictions have adopted different editions of IECC, many times with custom amendments. However, the majority of jurisdictions currently have the 2012, 2015, 2018, or 2021 version of the IECC in effect. State climate action goals and bills passed by the Colorado General Assembly in recent years (HB22-1362, HB23-1233), are beginning to push more jurisdictions to adopt 2021 IECC.

 

Alignment Opportunity 1: Projects that have tight construction budgets and are located in a jurisdiction that has adopted the 2018 IECC or older may want to consider NGBS certification.

This will allow a code-compliant design to also satisfy green certification energy requirements. Funds that would otherwise be spent on higher performance energy systems can go to other NGBS sustainability features and building investments that better align with project goals.

Alignment Opportunity 2: Projects that pursue EGC or LEED may consider pursuing the 45L Tax Credit.

Because these green certification programs require ENERGY STAR certification, they will pre-qualify projects for the 45L Tax Credit. Note that higher levels of the tax credit can be secured via Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) certification and meeting prevailing wage requirements.

Alignment Opportunity 3: Projects that are subject to 2021 IECC may consider pursuing either EGC or LEED along with the 45L Tax Credit. 

The 2021 IECC increased energy requirements compared to previous versions. As a result, there is less of a cost difference between systems required by the energy code and those required by ENERGY STAR MFNC. Additionally, many of ENERGY STAR’s construction phase testing requirements are also mandated by 2021 IECC - see the charts below for more detail. (Note that the applicable code section, Residential vs. Commercial, is determined by building height for multifamily buildings. Unless otherwise amended,  three stories and under fall under Residential sections while four stories or above fall under Commercial sections of the IECC.) 

3 stories or less

2012 / 2015 / 2018
Residential IECC

2021
Residential IECC

Blower Door Testing (R402.4)
3 ACH50 target.
Apartment Testing: Can be challenging to hit target when testing individual apartments, as required for walk-ups. Added air sealing services may be required to meet compliance.
No sampling allowance.
Meets ENERGY STAR MFNC + NGBS testing requirements.
Whole Building Testing: For buildings with enclosed corridors, whole building testing is allowable by code and more achievable to hit target.
Does not meet ENERGY STAR MFNC.
Meets NGBS testing requirements.
Blower Door Testing (R402.4)
0.3 CFM/SF shell area target.
Apartment Testing: Target is more achievable for individual apartments than historic 3 ACH50 target.
No sampling allowance.
Meets ENERGY STAR MFNC + NGBS testing requirements.
Whole Building Testing: Allowed by code.
Does not meet ENERGY STAR MFNC.
Meets NGBS testing requirements.
Duct Leakage Testing (R403.3.3)
Not required by IECC, unless ductwork is located outside thermal boundary.
Does not meet ENERGY STAR MFNC (duct leakage testing mandatory).
Duct leakage testing not required for NGBS.
Duct Leakage Testing (R403.3.6)
4 CFM/100SF target.
Required at all apartments with ducted systems, regardless of duct location.
No sampling allowance.
Mostly aligns with ENERGY STAR MFNC testing requirements.
Duct leakage testing not required for NGBS.

Jurisdictional Considerations

Many jurisdictions have amendments to the IECC that directly impacts the IECC performance testing requirements. Examples include:
Denver and Westminster requires all R-2 occupancy to comply with Commercial IECC. Denver additionally requires thermal envelope performance testing scope in addition to prescriptive compliance.
Boulder requires all R-2 occupancy to comply with Commercial IECC, and must achieve air leakage compliance for both whole building and individual apartment testing. This aligns with ENERGY STAR MFNC testing requirements.
Fort Collins has a more challenging air leakage target than what is required by IECC.
Aurora allows for RESNET sampling in lieu of testing 100% of units in multifamily buildings.
4 stories or more
2012 / 2015 / 2018
Commercial IECC

2021
Commercial IECC

Blower Door Testing (C402.5)
Prescriptive air sealing details meet compliance for C402.5 Air Leakage. No testing required for IECC.
Does not meet ENERGY STAR (apartment air leakage testing mandatory).
Meets NGBS. 
Blower Door Testing (C402.5)
0.30 CFM/SF shell area target.
20% sampling allowance.
Aligns with ENERGY STAR MFNC testing requirements .
Not required for NGBS.
Duct Leakage Testing
Not required by IECC.
C-IECC does not meet ENERGY STAR requirements (duct testing mandatory).
Duct leakage testing not required for NGBS.

Alignment Opportunity 4: Projects pursuing Zero Energy Ready or Net Zero design demonstrate high alignment with CHFA’s energy efficiency and sustainability guiding principle.

These projects might consider a comprehensive review of energy funding opportunities, as several funding programs will be available to help offset higher costs associated with above code systems.

 

In recent years, Colorado made significant strides toward advancing sustainable building practices through legislative measures, notably HB22-1362 and HB23-1233. These bills introduced the Colorado Model Electric Ready and Solar Ready Codes, which establish standards for new construction to facilitate the integration of electrification, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and solar photovoltaic systems. The Colorado Energy Office (CEO) oversees development of these code requirements and monitors the jurisdictional adoption of these codes, with specific triggers that vary based on a jurisdiction's code cycle and the timing of the 2021 IECC adoption.

The table below summarizes the overlap between the state model codes, green building certification programs, and the Housing Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) published by CHFA. While EV-readiness, Solar-readiness, and Electric-readiness are not required as a prerequisite in any of the green building programs, these codes align with elective options that help achieve program certification. The state Solar-Ready and Electric-Ready codes correspond with EGC program electives, while the EV-ready code corresponds with NGBS program electives. All three state model codes support either mandatory or elective options within the QAP.

 

Green Building Certification Program

QAP

State Model Codes

NGBS

EGC / ESTAR

LEED for Homes

EV-Ready

Credit 505.6

-

-

 

Solar-Ready

-

Credit 5.3a

-

 

Electric-Ready

-

Credit 5.5a

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meets mandatory requirements of the program

 

 

Aligns with elective credits available in program

 

-

Does not contribute toward program compliance

 

While both EV-Ready and Solar-Ready codes promote decarbonization, the Electric-Ready code is expected to have the most significant impact on multifamily new construction. This code mandates that all multifamily buildings have their electrical service capacity sized to accommodate future electric equipment. Upgrades to service capacity, wiring and circuit infrastructure, and distribution systems are necessary to support a larger electrical load. For affordable housing projects located in jurisdictions that have adopted the state Electric-Ready code, this may incentivize a shift toward full electrification. Many of the electric infrastructure costs associated with all-electric systems will be required in any case, and projects can benefit from cost savings associated with eliminating the need for natural gas infrastructure (gas service/distribution, flues, etc.) 
 

Whole building energy modeling uses physics-based software to calculate energy performance based on a selected set of building characteristics. Predictive energy modeling can help teams determine if a particular new construction design or retrofit will meet Energy Use Intensity or greenhouse gas emissions targets required by Building Performance Colorado (or other jurisdiction building performance standards). Predictive modeling works by calibrating energy models to actual or expected occupancy, operating schedules, and utility consumption. This improves the model’s ability to accurately estimate energy performance post retrofit or construction.

Code energy modeling, while less useful for estimating actual energy use, can be a flexible and cost effective pathway to meet IECC requirements. The two typical methods used to establish energy code compliance are outlined below:

IECC Energy Code Compliance Options
  1. Prescriptive (REScheck for Residential IECC, or COMcheck for Commercial IECC)
    • Requires adherence to prescriptive envelope values.
      • Additional considerations:
      • REScheck has no minimum efficiency requirements for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems. COMcheck has thresholds for minimum lighting, mechanical, and plumbing system efficiencies.
      • New: 2021 COMcheck requires 10 points to be claimed under Additional Energy Efficiency Credits.
  2. Performance (Energy Modeling)
    • Allows for trade-offs between envelope and MEP, enabling teams to analyze choices and invest selectively in building systems. Higher efficiency MEP systems allow for flexibility on elements of envelope (i.e. eliminating slab insulation).
    • Recommended for projects that prefer to invest in higher efficiency MEP systems, prefer flexibility in envelope design, or would otherwise benefit from energy modeling for other purposes (i.e. HUD financing, Xcel Energy Design Rebate, solar analysis, and/or utility allowance analysis).

Pursuing energy modeling under the Performance path can yield significant benefits, particularly for larger buildings (50+ units), those under the Commercial IECC, and projects considering solar PV installations.

RESchecks and COMchecks impose strict adherence to minimum U-values, slab edge insulation, and overall envelope UA values. Although this approach may enhance envelope performance and occupant comfort, the cost-benefit ratio for meeting some of these prescriptive requirements can be less favorable than other high efficiency building system investments. An energy model will allow design teams to evaluate various packages of energy measures and select the option that aligns best with project goals. For instance, slab insulation is a mandatory requirement under the Prescriptive Path, but a modeling analysis will show that this has a <1% impact to energy performance while introducing added costs and construction complexities. A more worthwhile approach may be to direct resources toward improving MEP systems serving apartments, which may provide tenants with improved indoor air quality and/or reduced operational costs. Higher performance MEP systems may be further justified by leveraging funding opportunities from state, federal and utility rebates and tax credits.

Back to top