Paul Derence, partner/owner of Hot Water Productions in Montrose, CO, in response to our story, "Regulation Nation.":
Approximately two years ago, a green energy coalition formed in Telluride, CO: The New Community Coalition. The purpose of the group was to raise awareness about energy consumption, carbon footprints and the impact our everyday use has in local communities. At the time of the group’s inception, there was one person involved who was committed to bringing in new regulations and restrictions on so-called “wasteful energy use.”
The three major components of this program were targeted at pool and spa installations, heated sidewalks/driveways and heated garages. Of the three, pool and spa use was considered the most energy consuming. After multiple city council presentations — which took place without the knowledge of myself or other local industry professionals — the coalition created a plan detrimental to businesses that participated in these industries, specifically: new construction, electrical and portable hot tub retail. This plan was similar to a code already implemented in two other Colorado communities; however, there was a small piece of information left out of the regulation. The proposal for this new code was to impose an “impact fee” in lieu of offsetting the carbon footprint of mitigation of energy use.
The formula for calculating this use would be based on heat loss and water surface area. An 8-by-8-foot portable hot tub calculated at 64 square feet of surface area or anything less would be exempt from this code. This meant virtually 100 percent of all portable hot tubs would be exempt. But there was one more item lost in translation: the grandfathering clause that would allow any replacement spas to also be exempt from this rule. When the town council had its final meetings and passed a vote on the proposal, the new coding passed almost unanimously.
At 6:30 p.m. the night before the final council meeting (and code passing), I was contacted by the person in charge of the proposal. She left a voice message (as it was after business hours) requesting some information regarding energy use in hot tubs, as she had to present some info for a meeting in the morning. After multiple attempts the next morning to return her call with no answer or response, I found out about the new code next day when a customer asked if I had read about it in the newspaper.
According to the new code, any new hot tub or swimming pool would either need a solar array installed to offset the estimated energy consumption of the spa (the average cost to provide proper solar supply is $20,000) or pay a fee calculated at $109 per square foot of water surface area. That meant an average size spa at 7 by 7 feet with an estimated water surface area of 49 square feet would cost the homeowner $5,300 in permit fees alone.
In the time since this code passed, my company has spent hours in council meetings, devoted time to support communications with the IHTA and worked with local government officials to eliminate this “tax” on pools and spas.
As of today, we convinced the council to pass a new vote to lower the fees based on updated information we and the IHTA have provided them regarding proper calculation of energy use and industry guidelines for energy. However, we are still not satisfied with the results and continue to push for a resolution that will not have such a negative impact on our business and our industry as a whole.
This kind of process could also be proposed in other communities across the country, and we will continue to provide awareness to help local governments better understand energy use as well as the impact a ruling like this could have on a small business like mine.
