Goal to cut emissions is moved forward to 2035, though council suggests condos get until 2050
An Eversource substation at 377 Putnam Ave., Cambridgeport, under construction in June 2020. (Photo: Marc Levy)
An exemption for condominium owners from a law trying to lower greenhouse gases entangled Cambridge city councillors in a long discussion of protocol on Monday – but did not stop a recommendation to city staff for a 27-year condominium pass.
Enacted in 2014, Beudo’s goal is to lower emissions from large commercial, institutional and multifamily buildings, which produce a large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions from building energy in Cambridge. Most emissions come from non-residential buildings. The name is shorthand for the Building Energy Usage Disclosure Ordinance.
At an ordinance meeting last April, five out of nine councillors were present to vote to fast-track the Beudo ordinance to 2035 from 2050, and on Monday they formally instructed the Community Development Department to change all language to reflect the new, ambitious goal.
Condo owners caught up in the change said they’d felt blindsided by the extreme financial burdens threatened, especially for residents of older buildings.
Letters from several condo owners said the city left condo owners out of the conversation for 40 meetings over two years. “City planners have drawn up a one-size-fits all approach to emission reductions that ignores legitimate issues that will make it financially and practically difficult to impossible for many condominium buildings to comply,” said the copy-and-paste public comment submitted by seven condo owners.
“There’s a number of condo owners that are really undone with what they think is going to happen,” councillor E. Denise Simmons said, “and I don’t think we’ve done our best at reaching out and making sure people are kept up to date with what we’re doing.”
An amendment to specify “non-residential buildings” in the 2035 deadline and omit condo owners was proposed by councillor Quinton Zondervan, who said the changes were among those already in the works at the Community Development Department. “Importantly, part of the evolution of the conversation is that the 2035 deadline is only intended to apply to non-residential buildings, not to the residential buildings, which would remain on the 2050 timeline,” he said at the meeting.
Eversource electrification goals
The inclusion of Eversource at the series of meetings is also recent. The city’s electricity provider has said it will take many years to site and build the substations needed to provide all the power called for by the law, which encourages property owners to stop using fossil fuels. “I wish we were having these discussions about infrastructure 20 years ago. Maybe we’d have some of these substations built,” councillor Marc McGovern said. Instead, the city seemed to be setting an ambitious goal that “you can’t achieve … but you’re going to say you’re going to achieve it anyway.”
Goals are best achieved by setting them, councillor Dennis Carlone said, and Zondervan noted that property owners could comply with Beudo through means such as carbon credits. “The 2035 deadline does not mean that Eversource needs to fully electrify the City of Cambridge by 2035,” Zondervan said. “Under the ordinance, you can be net zero without being fully electrified.”
Muddled procedure
City councillor Quinton Zondervan reacts to being interrupted during a procedural debate at Monday’s meeting of the Cambridge City Council. (Image: livestream screen capture)
There was more than a half-hour of muddled procedure and some heated words as councillors accepted minutes from a hearing held more than 10 months ago that was being overtaken by current events. It was another in a recent series of procedural pile-ons in which councillors debated the order of actions and even what they were doing. Like other recent debates, it dragged in the city clerk and city solicitor to offer opinions on how to proceed. At one point Zondervan rested his head in his hands as he was interrupted while offering an explanation, and other officials seemed equally aware of the morass they were in. Simmons asked a question with the ironic comment it was “just so we can clearly muddy the water”; Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui made an equally arch remark about 20 minutes in about taking a vote “and based on where the vote goes, we can have more fun after that.”
Vice mayor Alanna Mallon said at the meeting that there have been communication issues among council members regarding Beudo – including the meeting at which the net-zero goal was moved to 2035 from 2050. “There was four of us not at an Ordinance Committee meeting. I doubt I would have voted to change that deadline to 2035, because I would have tried to amend the order to simply seek guidance from CDD and Eversource,” Mallon said.
She recommended not passing Zondervan’s amendment to omit condo owners and preferred to refer to the Ordinance Committee.
“Do I think that condo owners are being pretty unfairly treated with the proposed date that was, up until five minutes ago, on the table? Yeah,” Mallon said. “We need to refer to the Ordinance Committee and really say we are committed to working on whatever amendments need to be coming forward.”
Any additional amendments to Beudo will continue at the next ordinance meeting – originally scheduled for March 1 but now to be rescheduled for sometime in mid-March.
This is a comedy show, isn’t it?
What a disgraceful group of elected councilors.
It seems that during the last several years, it has gotten much worse. We used to have some councilors who understood what realism meant.
Today, except for one of them, they each live in
their own fantasy world. In addition, and most importantly, it is clear that their knowledge when making critical decisions, decisions that affect all Cantabrigians, is minimal.
And it seems destined to go on. What a sad situation.
Everyone wants to do something about climate change until it hypothetically affects their life, let alone actually.
Indeed, @cambridgeresident
Climate change is a crisis. We need to do something. By “we”, I mean someone else, not me.
Isn’t it funny how residents always feel “blindsided” by things that were announced, debated, and discussed in public meetings?
The “we need to do something” crowd should look to what cambridge is currently doing juxtaposed to other communities. Cambridge is 4th in the Nation compared to States (not cities) in resiliency. Cambridge has adopted the specialized stretch code (see also: net zero code). Cambridge is one of ten cities that has volunteered to ban gas hookups in new construction. The general public and BEUDO affected property owners were only just made aware of the massive changes to the policy presented by the Mayor, Zondervan, and Nolan through a mailing campaign not driven by the City of Cambridge but by the BID, Chamber, and other business associations. The “40 meetings” they’ve had prior to this outreach were with 20 “stakeholders” and consultants who include Microsoft, Google, Marriot, Boston Properties, New Ecology, MIT, and Harvard. At no point in time did the city attempt to discuss the impact with any other group until Paul Toner convened his committee and invited Eversource. To date Eversource had not been consulted on any of this. Giving condo owners was a political decision due to the backlash received once they were made aware of the issue, again, by a letter I personally drafted sent by the associations. However smaller commercial buildings, residential buildings 50 units or greater, churches, hospitals, and schools will all be affected by this policy. It is unjust to fine people under a policy change of doing what was required by building codes and city regulations only the day before. Further it is unjust to fine property owners who have no way to resolve the offending issue due to lack of capacity from the grid, which is currently generating up to 85% of its electricity by burning the same fossil fuels you hope to ban. There should be no fines. No requirement to up grade where the existing systems have yet to fail or in a lot of cases are brand new. The stretch code will solve, over time, many of these problems naturally. In the meantime attempting to exact additional tax revenue is a gross over step by the Council.
Patrick,
The Council is living in a dream world. The critical thinking from this body is non existent.
The moral contortions that it goes through to
try to enact doomed utopian projects of social and economic engineering is simply frightening.
Additionally, never once have I heard any Council member address the fact that renewables rely on mining for raw materials and that supply chains reveal severe human-rights abuses and environmental damage.
They even refuse to deal with the fact that DPW trucks take their very long breaks from street cleaning while continuing to have the motors running, which spew the toxic gasses which they are trying to clean up. They can’t do it in Cambridge, but they’re out to save the world from environmental disaster.
The hypocrisy is deafening.
Please note that Zondervan and Nolan live in homes that are not affected by this order. While hearings were going on about 2035, condo associations were not invited to the discussions. Eversource has said it cannot provide enough electricity for these guidelines.
And having each condo building inspected individually (we’re not all alike) to discover what it will take to meet these guidelines has never been part of the conversation. Some of the City Councilors have shown as much caring for what’s financially feasible for condo owners as the Republicans have shown for women’s health care.
Joyce,
You at absolutely correct. Absolutely nothing has been done at the building level. I’m meeting with eversource reps this week and next to spend some time in Central Square essentially doing the work the City should have done before this ever started. The first and biggest issue that arises is space for new infrastructure. The other issue that keeps being ignored is the disruption and siphoning of resources to other communities that aren’t as far along as we are. Cambridge and our Council is endorsing a type of green theft of other communities by redirecting Eversource’s efforts to cater to just our needs.
I find it ironic that the sponsoring councilors creating panic are also those who want to find more housing. This program will create displacement and financial hardship. BEUDO and converting gas and oil to 100% electric in older single steam pipe heating systems with radiators, can’t accommodate the novel heat pumps advocated. Individual units are supposedly to have one. with building over 50 units, 50 boxes will line the foundation or be put on the roof with bigger cost. Further, older buildings have to be vacated in order to open walls to rip out pipes and replace them with wire and ducts. Lacking heat and hot water, they are uninhabitable according to code. Is the city going to cover hotel costs? asbestos and other toxic materials which have been sealed will be disrupted adding to green house gases as will construction itself. Restoring wallboard plaster, construction and painting is left to the unit owner and I bet not covered by Insurance.
Converting larger buildings to 100% electric completely can run into millions with HUGE assessments charged to individual unit owners, some speculating to be $40,000-80,000 or more each. But we don’t know because no numbers, studies or inspections are forthcoming. And those larger buildings may have to build their own electrical bunkers and vaults to supply their own electricity for capacity. A neighboring building did it and it cost them $750,000 on top of 2 years vacancy. Tenants were evicted. So wouldn’t the forced penalties slated to begin 2030 be better off being used to fix windows or help with common areas. Individual unit owners cannot be forced to comply. Ideological councilors are living in a silo and never think beyond the perfect world. How is it going to happen?
People want to help but not at the expense of going bankrupt or losing their housing. (and we are not talking rich, NIMBY, homeowners- but middle class, first responder, generational, and those who purchased and invested in wrecks 40 yrs ago). lower income has programs, rich can deal. The middle class gets lost lacking qualifications for taunted financial aid.
And according to CDD, 80% of green house gases are from buildings. How much of that is residential? around 15-20%. of that 3-5 % (even 7%) is from condo buildings of 50 units or more. The stats keep changing. And each building has different issues- leaks, masonry, roof, windows and other maintenance being dealt with on a regular basis. And the stats being used are erroneous, chosen to pick the scenario. A deadline is not feasible, and more talks with Eversource are needed.
Pete you’re absolutely correct. Of the emissions coming from buildings roughly 76% of those emissions comes from buildings 150k sqft or greater. Res is a small portion. However and make no mistake once they pass something they’ll be coming after the rest of you.
Climate change is an “all hands on deck” existential crisis. Funny how people always want someone else to make the sacrifices.
Yes @FrankD – all hands on deck. So condo will spend millions to reduce carbon by 0.000000000000001% and then we can celebrate all over the country by blasting millions of tons of fireworks into the sky made overseas and brought here on boats. All hands on deck, right?
Frank D- if climate change is all hands on deck, why are buildings of 50 units or more singled out for huge expensive retrofitting by fixed income tenants and home owners who may be displaced while smaller buildings think they have an easy ride? with these large question questions which everyone agrees with, whether it is trees, affordable housing, zoning, climate change, world peace– the question is always HOW?? what is the roadmap and how many people get hurt along the way for little return? It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Nor is it a one-size-fits-all. Easy for you to say.
Patrick, How did you get Eversource to respond to you? No one has returned my phone calls.