HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-3-23 Climate Action Commission Agenda Packet
Iowa City Climate Action Commission Agenda
Monday, April 3, 2023, 3:30 p.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington St.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of March 6, 2023 minutes
4. Public Comment on items not on the Agenda
-Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 3 minutes. Commissioners shall
not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
5. Announcements – informational updates
a. Action items from last meeting (Staff)
b. Upcoming events (Staff)
i. Earth Expo (April 2), additional AmeriCorps events are at icgov.org/Greenlowa
ii. Neighborhood Energy Blitz (April 22)
iii. Speaking of… Live! Let’s Talk Plastics (April 27)
iv. Earth Month event hub: sustainability.uiowa.edu/earth-month
c. Intercultural Development Inventory Opportunity
d. Recruitment for AmeriCorps members (Staff)
e. Working group updates
i. Resilience hub prioritization (Grimm, Eynon-Lynch, Walter)
6. Unfinished/Ongoing Business
a. IRA energy efficiency incentives (Staff update)
b. Revisit ARPA climate action spending recommendation (update, discussion, and
recommendation)
7. New Business
a. Energy benchmarking
i. Overview of preliminary research (Staff)
b. Working group formation
i. Energy benchmarking
ii. Audience mapping for future Goldie campaigns
8. Recap
a. Confirmation of next meeting time and location
i. Monday, May 1, 3:30-5 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall
b. Actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff
9. Adjourn
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact
Sarah Gardner, Climate Action Coordinator, at 319-887-6162 or at sarah-gardner@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2023 – 3:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVART HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michal Eynon-Lynch, Ben Grimm, Elizabeth Fitzsimmons, John
Fraser, Jamie Gade, Matt Krieger, Jesse Leckband (via zoom),
Michelle Sillman (via Zoom), Brinda Shetty, Gabriel Sturdevant,
Matt Walter
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel Bissell, Sarah Gardner
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Eynon-Lynch called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 6, 2023 MINUTES:
Krieger moved to approve the minutes from February 6, 2023.
Grim seconded, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 10-0 (Leckband not present for vote). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Action Items from last meeting (Staff):
• Gardner shared the list of CBOs from the equity and health report.
• The Habitat for Humanity’s climate action grant video has been posted to the City’s YouTube page. Upcoming events (Staff):
• ICAAR Green Designation Training for Realtors (March 1 & 2)
• Earth Expo (April 2), additional AmeriCorps events are at icgov.org/Greenlowa
• Neighborhood Energy Blitz (April 22)
• Native Plant Symposium (April 29) Insulation Grant Program Update (shared with Council):
• Gardner shared the memo prepared for Council on the insulation grant program.
• Bissell shared a positive comment from a homeowner who participated in the program.
Climate Action Commission
March 6, 2023
Page 2 of 4
2
Working Group Updates:
• Resilience Hub Prioritization (Grimm, Eynon-Lynch, Walter) – Eynon-Lynch stated the
group aims to launch a resilience hub pilot. They have identified potential community
partners and clarified the definition of “resilience hub.” Next, they will work on an
agreement between the City and the potential resilience hub community partner.
• Gardner stated the timeline is to launch the resilience hub by the end of this calendar
year.
• Walter gave more background on resilience hubs as a place where residents can gather
and get the resources and information they need to help adapt to a changing climate. He
shared that the working group had discussed organizations in the community already
doing work to build resilience and how the city can support them in that work.
• Grimm explained how resilience hubs are not meant to duplicate the work of first
responders in an emergency but to provide supplemental services like a place to charge
a cell phone in a power outage or help channel information to the community.
• Eynon-Lynch added that resilience hubs are not emergency shelters but trusted
organizations where people can get information and resources that enable them to
shelter at home.
• Gardner offered to share links to some of the resources related to resilience hubs that
the group had been referring to in their discussions.
UNFINISHED/ONGOING BUSINESS: Two volunteers needed for FY24 Climate Action Grant Review Committee:
• Bissell shared the Habitat for Humanity video which discussed how the grant helped
their organization incorporate electrification in a new home.
• Bissell stated that businesses, nonprofit entities, and students can receive grants of up
to $10,000 to advance a project that they wouldn't otherwise be able to complete.
• The application period will remain open until noon on April 17.
• Walter and Fitzsimmons volunteered to be on the committee.
• Bissell asked commissioners to pass along information to their networks and CBOs.
GHG inventory and CAAP metrics progress report:
• Gardner presented highlights from the report.
• Grimm asked about a possible cause for the increase in emissions 2020-21. Discussion around renewable energy production emphasized the need to pursue multiple strategies – especially efficiency -- to reduce emissions.
• Krieger noted that the Annual Update showed the percentage increase or decrease within each sector, which might be helpful in this report as well.
• Krieger asked about population increases to Iowa City and how that relates to per capita emissions. Eynon-Lynch asked about Iowa City residents’ per capita emissions combined across all sectors.
• Eynon-Lynch asked about changes in transportation modes between 2021 and 2018 (if
work from home replaced transit ridership, for example). Sturdevant asked if the transit numbers included Cambus, and Bissell replied it was only Iowa City transit data.
• Krieger asked about EV charging stations in multifamily locations vs. public ramps.
Climate Action Commission
March 6, 2023
Page 3 of 4
3
Gardner replied that multifamily structures will be prioritized because 80% of charging happens at home and EV adoption depends on renters as well as homeowners.
• Fraser remarked on the importance of equity and praised the thoughtful approaches he had seen in City programs.
• Krieger asked about whether the trash and recycling data was for Iowa City or the landfill as a whole since the landfill serves the whole county. Eynon-Lynch noted benefits of backyard composting. Gardner described the AmeriCorps team’s upcoming program to encourage home composting.
• Sturdevant asked about demolition waste. Krieger described waste management plan templates for contractors. Fitzsimmons asked if the City could consider a paper recycling and organics pickup program for businesses. Gardner stated the City is legally prohibited from providing those services to commercial entities, but businesses can contract with commercial compost haulers. If a regional hub for composting were developed, it might spur growth and new possibilities in this sector.
• Krieger asked if resilience hubs would include cooling centers. Gardner noted that the City already operates a number of cooling centers, but that even so many people still want to shelter at home if possible due to pets, mobility issues, or the need to stay near medical equipment, among other reasons. For this reason, it is important to have twin goals of having cooling centers reachable within walking distance of residents but also implementing measures to enable those who want to stay home to be able to do so.
• Sturdevant asked about floodplains in the City and whether demolition-buyout spaces could become community garden spaces. Gardner confirmed that floodplains become green spaces which could work for gardening in limited instances.
• Gade thanked staff for the report.
RECAP:
• Confirmation of next meeting time and location: o Monday April 3, 3:30-5 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall
• Actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff: o Gardner will send the link to the resilience hub resources.
o Bissell will set a meeting for the committee to review climate action grant applications. o Bissell also will share climate action grant social media posts so that Commission members can post them to their individual feeds.
ADJOURNMENT:
Krieger moved to adjourn, Gade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0.
Climate Action Commission
March 6, 2023
Page 4 of 4
4
CLIMATE ACTION
COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
RECORD
2023
NAME
TERM EXP.
4/
4
/
2
0
2
2
5/
2
/
2
0
2
2
6/
6
/
2
0
2
2
7/
1
1
/
2
0
2
2
8/
1
5
/
2
0
2
2
9/
1
2
/
2
0
2
2
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
2
12
/
5
/
2
2
1/
9
/
2
0
2
3
2/
6
/
2
0
2
3
3/
6
/
2
0
2
3
Michal Eynon-Lynch 12/31/2024 X X X NM X X X X X X X X
Elizabeth Fitzsimmons 12/31/2025 X X X
John Fraser 12/31/2024 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Jamie Gade 12/31/2025 X X X
Ben Grimm 10/31/2023 O/E X X NM X X O/E X X X X X
Clarity Guerra 12/31/2022 X O/E X NM X X X X X * * *
Megan Hill 12/31/2022 X X X NM * * * * * * * *
Kasey Hutchinson 12/31/22 X X X NM X X X X X * * *
Matt Krieger 12/31/2023 X O/E X NM X O/E X X X X X X
Jesse Leckband MidAmerican Rep X X X NM X O/E X X X X X X
Michelle Sillman 12/31/20025 X X X
Brinda Shetty UI Rep X X O/E NM X X X X X X O/E X
Gabe Sturdevant 12/31/2024 X O/E X NM X X O/E X X X X X
Matt Walter 12/31/2023 NM X O/E X X X X X X
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
0/E = Absent/Excused
NM= No
Meeting * No longer on Commission
Date: March 30, 2023
To: Climate Action Commission
From: Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director
Re: Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Opportunity
The purpose of this memo is to invite the members of the Climate Action Commission and
Climate Action and Outreach staff to take a voluntary Intercultural Development Inventory
(IDI). Members of the Human Rights Commission participated in the IDI and one of their
top recommendations was for more board and commission members to avail themselves of
this opportunity.
About the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)
The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is the premier cross-cultural assessment of
intercultural competence. The capability to shift cultural perspective and appropriately adapt
behavior to cultural differences and commonalities—what we define as intercultural
competence—is assessed by the Intercultural Development Inventory or IDI. Research
conducted on intercultural effectiveness, cross-cultural adaptation and adjustment,
international job performance, diversity & inclusion efforts, and other forms of intercultural
contact (e.g., tourism, immigration, refugee resettlement), clearly identifies intercultural
competence as a key capability for working and living effectively with people from different
cultures. Indeed, intercultural competence is essential for transcending ethnocentrism and
establishing effective, positive relations across cultural boundaries both internationally and
domestically. Watch the introduction video at this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdxhozrbiW4&feature=youtu.be.
Who administers the IDI
We have the privilege of working with Schabel Solutions , a premier DEI firm located in Des
Moines. Since 2016, they have been leveraging their experience and expertise as a
strategic DEI consulting partner helping many business, education, government, and non-
profit clients develop and implement innovative diversity and inclusion programs to build
more collaborative, engaged, and productive workplaces and workforces.
Why the IDI is useful for members of boards and commissions
Being able to provide this opportunity to persons who serve or staff a commission supports
the City Council’s strategic values of partnerships and engagement, climate action, racial
equity, social justice, and human rights. Persons who serve on city boards and
commissions play a vital role in shaping this community and the place that we all call home.
Providing the opportunity for commission members and their staff to become more
conscious of where they are on the IDI continuum and how they can increase their
intercultural competence is a win-win for the city and the community.
Logistical details about the assessment
The Intercultural Development Inventory, or IDI, assesses intercultural competence through
a 50-item questionnaire, available online, that can be completed in 15–20 minutes.
Once all inventories are completed you will receive an email from Claudia Schabel to
arrange a time for a debrief (via Zoom). At the debriefing, you will receive a copy of your
individual results and an aggregate of how others overall scored with no names or
identifiers. Claudia will walk you through your inventory and provide direction on how you
can strengthen your intercultural competence based on your individual assessment.
Please note, only you and Claudia will see your results. No information on your individual
results is shared with me or any other city staff.
How do you sign up
Simply send an email no later than April 12 to Stefanie Bowers at SBowers@Iowa-City.org
to indicate your interest in completing the inventory. Because there is a cost to the city for
the inventories, if you are unsure or if you may not have the time to follow through, including
taking time to chat with Claudia, we would ask that you please decline this opportunity. We
hope to continue to offer more opportunities like this to board and commission members in
the future.
Do this Year DateCompleted
Get a home energy audit
Free from Green Iowa AmeriCorps, a $400 value!
Iowa City residents call 319-339-5399 to schedule.
Do in the next 2-3 years
Improve insulation, air sealing, and ventilation in your home
Up to $1,600 rebate/$1,200 tax credit
Upgrade when it breaks
Replace air conditioner with heat pump
Up to $8,000 rebate/$2,000 tax credit
Replace water heater with heat pump water heater Up to $1,750 rebate/$2,000 tax credit
Bonus: Upgrade electric panel
Up to $4,000 rebate, $600 tax credit when combined with a heat pump HVAC system or heat pump water heater
Replace your current car with an electric vehicle (EV)
Up to $7,500 tax credit (new EV)
Up to $4,000 tax credit (used EV)
Do in 5-10 years
Replace drafty windows Up to $1,600 rebate/$1,200 tax credit
Replace thin exterior doors Up to $1,600 rebate/$1,200 tax credit
By December 2031, when rebates and credits are set to expire
Home renewable energy system
30% uncapped tax credit for rooftop solar array
30% uncapped tax credit for battery storage
Find more rebates and tax credits for your home at RewiringAmerica.org/app/IRA-Calculator
Save money, year after year
Residents can receive an average of $10,600 in incentives to electrify their household under
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Tax credits have an annual cap ($1,200 for home improvements
and $2,000 for some appliances), so the framework below can help maximize your financial benefits.
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide a
substantial infusion of resources to help turn the tide on the
pandemic, address its economic fallout, and lay the foundation for a strong and equitable recovery.
The American Rescue Plan will deliver $350 billion for state, local, territorial, and
Tribal governments to respond to the COVID-19 emergency and bring back jobs.
Eligible Jurisdictions & Allocations
Direct Recipients
•States and District of Columbia
($195.3 billion)
•Counties ($65.1 billion)
•Metropolitan cities ($45.6 billion)
•Tribal governments ($20.0 billion)
•Territories ($4.5 billion)
Indirect Recipients
•Non-entitlement units ($19.5 billion)
Funding Objectives
•Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to
decrease spread of the virus and bring the pandemic under control
•Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital
public services and help retain jobs
•Support immediate economic stabilization for households and businesses
•Address systemic public health and economic challenges that
have contributed to the inequal impact of the pandemic
Address Negative Economic Impacts
Respond to economic harms to workers, families,
small businesses, impacted industries, and the
public sector
Premium Pay for Essential Workers
Offer additional support to those who have and
will bear the greatest health risks because of their
service in critical infrastructure sectors
Replace Public Sector Revenue Loss
Use funds to provide government services to
the extent of the reduction in revenue
experienced due to the pandemic
Support Public Health Response
Fund COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical
expenses, behavioral healthcare, and certain
public health and safety staff
Broadband Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to provide unserved
or underserved locations with new or expanded
broadband access
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to improve access
to clean drinking water and invest in
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure
Example Uses of Funds
Building Working Group ideas regarding ARPA fund use, July 16, 2021
Group members; Matt Krieger, Becky Soglin, Ben Grimm, Jeff Falk)
ARPA intent: Support immediate economic stabilization to households and businesses
Provide immediate economic relief for vulnerable households and businesses, including for energy bills,
but also balance this with longer-term programs such as energy efficiency, which provide savings and
benefits over time (see next item below)
• Outcomes: keep households from spiraling into debt or more debt or risk of homelessness.
• Links to Building Incentive Accelerated Action #2 and to accelerated actions of Adaptation
Education Action #1 (ambassadors can possibly help with outreach to vulnerable households)
and may connect to Adaptation Project Action #4. ARPA intent: Address systemic challenges; help retain/create jobs
Help with residential weatherization, energy efficiency and lead and asbestos mitigation while
maintaining attention to indoor air quality including radon mitigation and mold and pollen mitigation
(with increased humidity indoor mold will be even more of a problem).
• Outcomes: lower energy bills, better indoor air comfort/health
• Link to existing Accelerated Actions -- scale up efforts related to Building Education 2 and 3;
Building Incentives 1 and 2; and Buildings Regulation 3
ARPA intent: Address systemic challenges
Scale up the home rehabilitation program. Potentially expand to businesses not just homes. As with
point above, consider lead, asbestos and radon mitigation as well as mold and pollen conditions
• Outcomes: more resilient homes; lower utility costs; improved comfort and health
• Approach suggestion: Find a way to address rehabilitation and incentive application program for
larger existing multi-family housing. Model it on what is available for new builds. Potentially
follow model of historic preservation in the Downtown District.
• Concern: Consider whether some homes should be equipped with AC and dehumidification if
they are not. People can then be prepared for the increased temperatures and humidity.
• Concern: Costs to operate AC. In addition, appliance and equipment city-based rebates (water
heaters) is an existing component of the rehab program. Newer/higher efficiency equipment
may cost more to repair or maintain.
ARPA Intent: Address systemic public health and economic challenges.
Resilience planning re Adaptation Accelerated Action #3, Phase 2. Can funds be used for the proposed
resilience hub pilot or related hub such as a place to serve as shelter, resource center, and potentially
temporary education for children if they can’t go to school?
• Outcomes: future disaster mitigation from climate impacts; neighborhood scale resources would
be ready.
• High heat events will occur more often; some homes still do not have AC or people are reluctant
to turn on due to cost. A cooling center within the resilience hubs and/or reassurance and funds
to pay for the higher bills would be helpful. Can a building such as the GuideLink Center “winter
shelter” be used for cooling?
ARPA intent: Addressing systemic issues
Where possible reducing impervious surfaces around buildings/other built environment, which
contribute not just to stormwater problems but also increased temperatures, especially at night. This
links to Adaptation Accelerated Action #4.
Date: April 3, 2023
To: Climate Action Commission
From: Andrew Parr, Management Intern
Sarah Gardner, Climate Action Coordinator
Re: Energy Benchmarking
Executive Summary
In 2020, Iowa City adopted the Accelerating Iowa City’s Climate Actions Plan, which
expanded upon the priority actions identified in the 2018 Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan (CAAP). Within the accelerated plan were two items related to energy benchmarking
for commercial properties: BR-4, which called for establishing such a program by the end of
2023; and BI-10, which called for establishing incentives by the end of 2025 for energy
enhancements and retrofits connected to the benchmarking program.1 As when the CAAP
was adopted, buildings continue to be the largest source of emissions in Iowa City,
accounting for 78% of total citywide emissions as of the 2021 greenhouse gas inventory.2
Nearly half of those emissions (306,734 tonnes CO2e of the 612,062 total tonnes CO2e)
were generated by buildings in the commercial and industrial sector.
The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of initial investigations by Iowa City staff
into benchmarking programs and serve as a starting point for the working group of Climate
Action Commission members to take up whether/how Iowa City should proceed with such a
program. The working group will report back to the Climate Action Commission, which will
together make a formal recommendation to City Council as to whether a benchmarking
ordinance should be adopted.
Background
Iowa City’s CAAP prioritizes the need to improve the energy efficiency of our city’s built
environment.3 This is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
estimates that an average of 30% of the energy consumed by commercial buildings is
wasted.4 Although City staff do receive aggregated data about energy usage in the
commercial sector as part of the annual greenhouse gas inventory update process, they do
not have access to data that shows the energy used by individual buildings. Energy
benchmarking is a mechanism that has the potential to fill this data gap and allow for more
targeted interventions.
In preparation for this effort, staff conducted research on energy benchmarking policies
across the U.S and met with representatives from Kansas City and Des Moines. In total, 51
U.S. jurisdictions have passed some form of benchmarking policy, 44 of which are cities.
Early adopters include Washington, D.C.; Chicago, IL; Boston, MA; Cambridge, MA;
Minneapolis, MN; New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA; Austin, TX; and
Seattle, WA.5 The Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) regularly updates a map
resource (see Appendix A) that details all energy benchmarking and transparency policies
for existing buildings that have been implemented in the U.S.6
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines benchmarking as “the practice of comparing
the measured performance of a device, process, facility, or organization to itself, its peers,
or established norms, with the goal of informing and motivating performance improvement.”7
In other words, energy benchmarking tasks the building owner or manager with measuring
their property’s energy consumption. Notably, this definition differs from the one contained
in HF605 recently passed by the Iowa House of Representatives and now up for
consideration by the Iowa Senate, which defines benchmarking as “requiring a decrease in
the average energy use of a property” and seeks to prohibit local governments from
enacting energy benchmarking requirements.8
Under a benchmarking program as defined by the DOE, the hope is that those building
owners will compare their energy consumption to that of their peers and voluntarily move to
improve efficiency and reduce waste, but they would not be required to do so. One of the
most common data points that jurisdictions cite as a rationale for benchmarking is an EPA
finding that regularly benchmarked buildings will see an annual average of 2.4% in energy
cost savings.9 A review of multiple studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
indicated that most findings ranged from 3-8% in terms of reduction in gross energy
consumption or energy use intensity over 2-4 years of implementing a benchmarking
program.10 Another data point that jurisdictions cite is the number of buildings covered and
the proportion of community-wide square footage that those buildings account for. For
example, the City of Chicago’s website says that their ordinance covers less than one
percent of all buildings—equal to approximately 20% of total energy use.11
Three components that are common among all benchmarking policies that are currently in
effect include a building size threshold, an exemption process, and a penalty or strategy for
addressing noncompliance (see Appendix C for best practices in benchmarking policies).
Potential Benefits & Challenges of Benchmarking
Benefits Challenges
More granular data
Increase building owners’ awareness of
energy efficiency and consumption
Identify opportunities to intercede, inform
building owners of funding opportunities
First step toward an incentive program
May not lead to voluntary change/need to
pair with robust incentives
Potential for inaccurate data
Difficulties with achieving compliance
(i.e., enforcement strategies)
Inhospitable state legislative environment
Administrative burden (i.e., outreach)
Policy Alternatives
Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs)
The DOE Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains administers a program that
partners with 37 universities across the U.S. to provide no-cost energy assessments for
small- and medium-sized manufacturers.11 Engineering faculty along with upperclassmen
and graduate students conduct these assessments which usually recommend over
$130,000 in annual savings opportunities. In the year immediately following an assessment,
manufacturers are reportedly able to implement roughly $50,000 in savings. Although no
universities in Iowa host such a program any longer, the nearest IAC in Milwaukee, WI has
expressed a willingness to work with industrial entities in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City.
Energy Audits, Tune-ups & Retro-commissioning
Cities like Berkeley, Orlando, Atlanta, and Boston have implemented energy audits as
complementary policies to their benchmarking programs. These audits are often guided by
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standards and assess building elements that contribute to energy consumption.12 Energy
audits are typically performed every 10 years though some cities require them every 5
years.13 Depending on the jurisdiction, building owners may or may not be required to
implement the resulting improvement recommendations.
Similar to energy audits, building tune-ups assess a building’s energy systems and controls
to identify changes to building operations and maintenance that would result in energy
savings.12 Cities like Boulder and Salt Lake City mandate tune-ups in addition to
benchmarking requirements. Retro-commissioning (RCx), another type of assessment, is
almost identical to building tune-ups. The difference is RCx compares actual building
performance to modeled performance and the RCx documentation process is more
intensive than for tune-ups.12
Building Performance Standards
The U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy defines Building Performance
Standards (BPS) as “outcome-based policies and laws aimed at reducing the carbon impact
of the built environment by requiring existing buildings to meet energy and/or greenhouse
gas emissions-based performance targets.”14 Two key choices that must be made to
develop a BPS include the performance metric (e.g., EUI, GHG, or ENERGY STAR score)
and the targets for covered buildings. BPS policies are commonly built using the data from
energy benchmarking programs utilizing their awareness of how buildings are currently
performing in terms of energy use, water use, and/or emissions.15
Conclusion
Key Questions
City staff recommend that the working group of the Climate Action Commission members
consider the following questions as they weigh a recommendation to Council as to whether
or not to adopt a benchmarking ordinance.
• Do the potential benefits outweigh the potential challenges in adopting a
benchmarking ordinance? Which benefits are deemed most important?
• What measures could be incorporated into a benchmarking program to maximize
success? Should it be paired with any other programs?
• If the City chooses not to pursue a benchmarking ordinance at this time, or adopts
an ordinance that is later preempted by the state, is there a recommended
alternative worth pursuing?
• If staff were to need to curtail some activities to create capacity for a successful
launch of a benchmarking program, what might the lower priority activities be?
APPENDIX A: IMT Benchmarking Map
Image source: Institute for Market Transformation (IMT)6
Jurisdictions marked green or orange only require benchmarking to be performed with no
additional action required by the related law or ordinance.
Jurisdictions marked blue or purple require additional actions such as energy audits, retro-
commissioning, or tune-ups. These requirements are known as complementary policies that
accompany energy benchmarking laws.
APPENDIX B: Benchmarking Best Practices
Building Size Threshold
Definition: The minimum area (in square feet) that a
building needs to cover to be required to benchmark.
Most Common: 20,000 ft2; 25,000 ft2; 50,000 ft2
Classification Examples: Commercial, multifamily,
municipal, non-residential, privately-owned, residential
Exemption Process
Definition: Building types or circumstances that exempt
owners from the reporting requirement.
Common Examples:
▪ No Certificate of Occupancy for most of the year
▪ Primary building use is industrial or agricultural
▪ Property is experiencing qualified financial
distress/hardship
▪ Property is unconditioned and/or unlit
▪ Proprietary information or “confidential business
practices”
▪ State and Federal buildings
Noncompliance Strategy
Definition: How cities address owners that do not report
their building data.
Most Common: Monetary fine ranging anywhere between
$50 to $3,000.
Other Examples:
▪ Written warnings / late notices
▪ Late fees (with or without grace period)
▪ Delay enforcement in favor of cooperation
▪ Publish public list of noncompliant buildings
APPENDIX C: References
1 City of Iowa City Staff, Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Actions1–40 (2020). Iowa City, IA; City of Iowa City.
Retrieved from https://www8.iowa-city.org/WebLink/0/edoc/1944166/100%20Day%20Report%20-
%20approved%20April%202020.pdf
2 Office of Climate Action & Outreach, Climate Action & Adaptation Plan 2022 Annual Update1–2 (2022). Iowa
City, IA; City of Iowa City. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.iowa-
city.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2094863&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity&cr=1City of Iowa City
3 Climate Action Committee, Anderson, I., Karr, G. T., Sarsfield, K., Leckband, J., Maas, L., Sempf, R., Krieger,
M., Fraser, J., Stanier, C., Norbeck, M., Tate, E., Russett, A., Nations, B., Fruin, G., Monroe, A., Cook,
D., McMahon, S., & Linder, K., Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan1–85 (2018). Iowa City, IA;
City of Iowa City. Retrieved from https://www8.iowa-
city.org/weblink/0/edoc/1803121/Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf
4 U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (n.d.). About the Commercial Buildings Integration
Program. Energy.gov. Retrieved February 17, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-
commercial-buildings-integration-program
5 Cleary, K., & Palmer, K. (2021, April 6). Federal Climate Policy 106: The Buildings Sector. Resources for the
Future. Retrieved February 17, 2023, from https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-
policy-106-the-buildings-sector/
6 Institute for Market Transformation. (2022, August). U.S. City, County, and State Policies for Existing
Buildings: Benchmarking, Transparency and Beyond. Institute for Market Transformation. map, Institute
for Market Transformation. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://www.imt.org/resources/map-u-s-
building-benchmarking-policies/.
7 U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (n.d.). Building Energy Use Benchmarking.
Energy.gov. Retrieved February 17, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/scep/slsc/building-energy-use-
benchmarking
8 Committee on Commerce, Iowa House of Representatives, HF605. Retrieved March 30, 2023, from
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=hf605.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, February). Building Energy Benchmarking and Transparency:
Overview for State and Local Decision Makers. EPA.gov. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
02/documents/benchmarking_building_performance_standards_section1.pdf
10 U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mims, N., Schiller, S. R., Stuart, E., Schwartz, L.,
Kramer, C., & Faesy, R., Evaluation of U.S. building energy benchmarking and transparency programs:
Attributes, impacts, and best practices1–73 (2017). Berkeley, CA; Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
11 Office of the Mayor. (2023). Chicago Energy Benchmarking Overview. Chicago.gov. Retrieved January 27,
2023, from https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/supp_info/chicago-energy-
benchmarking/ChicagoEnergyBenchmarkingOverview.html
12 Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. (2022). Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs).
Energy.gov. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/mesc/industrial-assessment-centers-
iacs
13 Gahagan, R. (2021, March). Implementing Energy Audit and Tune-Up Policies. Institute for Market
Transformation. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from https://www.imt.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/Implementing-Energy-Audit-and-Tune-Up-Policies_4.6.2021.pdf
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, February). Building Energy Benchmarking and Transparency:
Overview for State and Local Decision Makers. EPA.gov. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
02/documents/benchmarking_building_performance_standards_section1.pdf
15 U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (2022, December 31). Building Performance
Standards. Building Energy Codes Program. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://www.energycodes.gov/BPS
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, February). Building Performance Standards: Overview for
State and Local Decision Makers. EPA.gov. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
02/documents/benchmarking_building_performance_standards_section2.pdf