The Evanston Environment Board has signed off on new regulations that, if approved by the City Council, would require most nonfederal buildings 20,000 square feet and larger to become more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.
In November the board got a preview of what the Healthy Buildings Ordinance would contain, but not the actual legal language, since that was still being hammered out. During Thursday’s meeting at the Morton Civic Center, the board spent almost two hours going through the legal language line by line. The new Healthy Buildings Ordinance would require a building to reach net zero — in other words, pollution would have to be 100% offset by environmentally friendly building improvements — by 2050. Most notably, building owners would be encouraged to remove natural gas lines.
The ordinance would also create two new oversight bodies: the Healthy Buildings Accountability Board to make sure policies are implemented fairly and equitably and the Healthy Building Technical Committee to figure out the particulars of the new policy.
New standards
The first section would heavily modify the existing Title 4, Chapter 22 of the Evanston municipal code, which currently only requires most buildings that are 20,000 square feet or bigger to report energy and water consumption. That was originally done to better track how much pollution is created within the city, so the city has a better idea how to reduce it.
Cara Pratt, the city’s sustainability and resilience manager, said those buildings were singled out because they generate around 80% of buildings-based pollution.
The new ordinance would tweak what buildings would fall under the scope of Chapter 22. It specifies that each condo that has its own HVAC system would be treated as a separate unit, and explicitly says federal buildings would be exempt. This led newly appointed board member Olin Wilson-Thomas to wonder whether buildings owned by regional entities such as the Housing Authority of Cook County or the CTA would be exempt as well. Ben Martin, one of the city’s sustainability and resilience specialists, said that while he isn’t sure how it would affect state-owned buildings, “the county buildings and the CTA buildings do report.”
Reporting requirements would mostly remain as is. However, penalties would more than double, from $100 to $250 per violation.
The new building performance standards would call for buildings to meet interim goals by the start of 2031 and benchmarks would grow more strict every five years until 2050. Notably, the owner of multiple properties could ask the Accountability Board to treat all properties as part of “a campus or a portfolio” for compliance purposes.
The ordinance would also allow property owners to apply for an Alternate Compliance Property Plan if they can’t meet the targets. The plan would give them more time and require all future owners to follow through on that plan. Each plan would have to be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Manager, and the applicant would have to prove “financial hardship and/or occupancy” in order to be considered.
“There has to be a compelling reason to request alternative compliance,” Pratt told the environmental board. “It can’t be ‘I don’t believe in climate change so I won’t do it.'”
Fines to come
Anyone who doesn’t follow the benchmarks would be fined, with the amount deter-mined based on how many standards the owner failed to meet, the value of the property and “the magnitude of noncompliance under each performance metric.” At least 50% of the fines would go toward helping property owners who face financial struggles get into compliance.
Wilson-Thomas said he was worried that the fines might be smaller than the costs of getting rid of gas lines and other upgrades.
” I just want to make sure that’s not profitable [for the owner] to take a hit on the fee rather than complying,” he said.
Gul Agha, who was appointed to the board in November, said he worried about the interim standards not being explicitly defined right off the bat. He said that, in his experience as a condo owner, lack of explicit standards would let condo boards “kick the can down the road.”
“Very often, they don’t want to raise assessment,” Agha said. “Very often, they push back, [thinking] let the next board worry about it, maybe they’ll change the law in 2050.”
Accountability board
Under the new ordinance, the Healthy Buildings Accountability Board would be “authorized to make recommendations and decisions related to decarbonization policies and programs” and to make sure policies are equitable and fair. It would have seven members appointed by the Evanston mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The members would need to reflect city demographics and “possess expertise in racial and social equity, housing, climate action, affordability, preservation, and/or environmental justice.” At least five members must be Evanstonians — something that Pratt said was added to make sure that experts who have Evanston connections but don’t live in the city wouldn’t be excluded.
Members would be compensated on a per-meeting basis. The ordinance doesn’t set the exact amount.
Temporary tech committee
Unlike the Healthy Buildings Accountability Board, the Healthy Building Technical Committee is meant to be temporary — it would automatically dissolve 12 months after its first meeting unless the City Council extended it. It would have five members appointed by the mayor, at least three of whom must be Evanston residents. The ordinance specifically says that HBAB members can sit on the tech committee as well. Members must “possess technical expertise in areas related to buildings, energy systems, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical engineering, electrification, building science, or energy management.” Like HBAB, the members would get stipends for attending meetings.
Environment Board co-chair Michelle Redfield noted that the ordinance primarily uses the word “recommend” in describing their powers and duties. She said she was under the impression that the bodies will make the rules and decisions.
“It doesn’t seem like these are the people who are going to make the final determination; that didn’t come across to me,” Redfield said. “That just wasn’t clear to me — who is making the final decision?”
After some further discussion, Pratt said they would be advising the city manager, who would then bring the policy proposals to the City Council for final approval.
Council Member Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th Ward), said that, in practical terms, the two bodies would figure out the particulars.
Board member Katarina Topalov said she was concerned about building owners getting on either committee. The ordinance makes both off-limits to council members and city employees, but otherwise doesn’t ban anyone.
“How are we ensuring that both boards are going to support the [Healthy Buildings goals], and will represent our community and not be formed of mostly building owners?” Topalov asked.
Wilson-Thomas suggested that the city ethics code would prevent this kind of conflict of interest.
Pratt said the ordinance may go before the council during its first meeting of 2025. Nieuwsma said it has a good chance of passing. “I’m pleased to report that this ordinance has seven cosponsors — six council members plus the mayor,” he said. “And we only need six votes to pass.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that the proposed Healthy Buildings Ordinance would apply to most buildings 20,000 square feet or larger.
Environment Board OKs Healthy Buildings Ordinance is from Evanston RoundTable, Evanston's most trusted source for unbiased, in-depth journalism.