Applying Beudo changes to commercial first means equitable treatment at condos, rentals
There are legitimate concerns that were not taken into account in the development of updating the Building Energy Usage Disclosure Ordinance to fulfill the goal of reducing emissions. The process of developing an update was part of the original Beudo, in effect since 2014 – the ordinance required updates to be proposed in 2019 if emissions were not reduced. Since emissions overall were not reduced for the decade preceding Beudo and the several years of Beudo implementation, the city, led by its Community Development Department, started working on amendments to ensure emissions reductions. A subset of large stakeholders met behind closed doors with CDD to develop potential amendments. These negotiations took several years, after which proposed amendments were presented to the City Council and the public in November 2021.
Those proposed amendments have been discussed, amended and debated for the past year. Many in the community, including members of the City Council who were not part of the amendment drafting process, believe that the proposed deadline of 2050 is too late to have a meaningful impact and position the city as a climate leader, counter to the city’s stated goals. Also, many small commercial property owners and thousands of residents in condos and apartments living in buildings subject to Beudo since 2014 did not know about the ordinance, or that the next step was to require emission reductions. Some property owners are frustrated, confused, angry and fearful of how the changes would affect them. Since the proposal was made public, there have been negotiations and discussions on how to meet a faster timeline for buildings to achieve net zero – by 2035, if possible, in line with the urgency of the climate crisis and our city’s leadership position, while being sensitive to the feasibility of proposals and to limitations of some property owners.
Cambridge needs to be at the forefront of climate leadership and needs to assert that our city can lead and will take effective action to reduce our emission pollution. A deadline of 2035 for emissions reductions for existing large commercial buildings builds on the work of stakeholders across the city, on the Net Zero Action Plan Task Force, the Climate Committee and the Climate Crisis Working Group, and on votes of the City Council. With a requirement and built-in flexibility to allow some form of carbon credits and flexibility of timeline for reductions based on capital projects, it can be met. For existing residential, though, more study is needed before setting a deadline to meet net zero emissions requirements. For new construction, commercial and residential, it is expected that the specialized stretch code, effective as of July 1 of this year, will lead to more net zero construction.
I remain firmly committed to Cambridge being a leader, to pushing for accountability and accelerated action in line with previous city work. And I am acutely aware of the need to be thoughtful in developing a feasible plan for the transition to becoming a net zero city. I will advocate for amendments to Beudo to be developed with the following criteria:
Commercial related properties: Current updates to Beudo would apply to all Beudo properties not used as individual residences. Those updates would include required emissions reduction over time by 2035 with flexibility in options for compliance that include alternative compliance payments; credit for helping other owners reduce emissions; and verified carbon credits. A deadline of 2035 with the proposed flexibility options is possible and feasible for commercial properties. And the work of supporting the transition for these properties of necessity includes Eversource and utility providers.
Residential properties: The current Beudo emissions reporting requirement for residential buildings of 50 units or more will continue. And as a method of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, all residential properties will be expected to use the city’s or another electrical supplier that includes a 100 percent renewable option. If a 100 percent renewable energy supply is cost prohibitive, exemptions will be accepted. By the end of 2024, the City Council, in conjunction with city staff and in line with the goals in the Net Zero Action Plan, Climate Committee reports and working group recommendations, will develop a system for requiring emissions reductions by all residential buildings. A schedule for requiring reductions will be developed in line with a review of different buildings and building types and their particular configurations with regard to feasibility. Note: “All” residential includes single- and two-family homes, all multifamily and condo buildings – not group living quarters such as dormitories of higher education institutions. Any plan will be developed in collaboration with property owners, utilities and experts in the field of electrification and retrofitting.
Support for achieving residential emissions reductions: The city will improve its programs of assistance, financial and technical, for property owners, with greater accountability and specific targets for implementation. The first focus will be smaller, non-residential property owners subject to amended Beudo requirements. The second focus will be non-residential properties not subject to Beudo. The third focus will be residential, focused on low and moderate income households.
Summary: By proposing that these criteria be included in Beudo 2.0 amendments, I hope the process can move forward and the City Council will adopt changes that will lead to a more effective law. The city can provide clarity and affirm climate leadership while being sensitive to practicality and without being overly burdensome to small-property owners. By having changes apply to commercial buildings first, condo owners and apartment dwellers will be treated more equitably, along with other non-congregate residential properties. I hope that the institutional leaders in the city, including large property owners and Harvard and MIT will support these proposals.
Patty Nolan, city councillor
“Cambridge needs to be at the forefront of climate leadership”….because??? You don’t want to be shown up by those yahoos in Somerville??
“not group living quarters such as dormitories of higher education institutions”
Yeah….why would we want to hold Cambridge’s two largest taxpayers to task.
Yea, lets us impose these “planet-saving” changes onto the commercial buildings. Let’s shoot ourselves in the foot, and not just that, let’s ensure we aim correctly so that we cannot walk after that. Because Cambridge wants to “be at the forefront.”
Rich against poor, whites against blacks, the 1% against the rest, landlords vs. renters, car owners vs. bikers, the greedy developers vs. residents – and now, in this case, commercial vs. residential. Politicians love to divide people in the name of bringing people together and saving the planet. Oh forgot to say red vs. blue.
“A deadline of 2035 with the proposed flexibility options is possible and feasible for commercial properties.”
Based on what Councilor Nolan? Eversource doesn’t even think it can be done by 2050. My condo owning friends be not fooled by this “olive branch.” It wasn’t the Council that alerted you to these massive changes or the city of cambridge. It was the Chamber and all the business associations led by Central Sq. But for our efforts they would have already passed this and now as we inch closer and closer to election season they will try to divide and conquer. The 2035 deadline hasn’t been adopted by anyone other than Cambridge and it will have a dire impact on funds available to other communities and will require Eversource to rip local and adjacent infrastructure to shreds to implement. Cambridge is already a climate leader. This is nothing more than resume building.
I don’t know what PatrickWBarrett means by saying “The 2035 deadline hasn’t been adopted by anyone other than Cambridge.” Whole states and countries have adopted it, and both academic studies and reporting by business magazines like Forbes say it’s perfectly plausible. Comments here seem to assume the city is staffed by idle, corrupt thugs with no motive but to spread lies and make life miserable, but it isn’t quite like that. Have you talked to any staff, been to a City Council meeting, attended any meetings about BEUDO?
This city councilor’s earnest and thoughtful letter describes, after conversations with stakeholders alarmed at the potential cost of retrofitting their homes (particularly condo buildings) her suggested amendments to the existing BEUDO ordinance that will make it easier on us. This is not the person to be venting rage at, surely. She’s working hard to help us deal with an existing law–to the principles of which which the nation is once again committed by the Paris Accords–with less stress and cost! To the ultimate benefit of our kids and ourselves: longevity and disease-free old age are much higher in cities and countries with significantly lower emissions. (And their tree canopies are in better health than the pathetic remains of ours, in our ever hotter and drier summers.)
Eversource does indeed think it can be done, by the way, and offers assistance of various kinds, including free assessments of your home or condo-building’s emissions, needs and options. Before freaking out I’d suggest getting such an assessment: no time like the present. Given the rebates already available (and Councilor Nolan’s amendments would require more financial help directly from the city), it won’t be as expensive as you fear–and heat pumps pay for themselves in <5.5 years, with much lower electric bills! Already, living in an oil-heated condo building, Cambridge's aggregate electric provider has lowered my electric bills by over 1/3–and I chose the pricier 100% renewable option.
By the way, Cambridge is not a climate leader (though I do agree that that's not the point)–we're behind the curve. And 83% of our emissions come from buildings, not vehicles or appliances or labs qua labs, which is a far higher percentage than most US cities.
Isobel: which cities, states, countries have adopted 2035? Our City staff came to us with a proposal of 2050. Unfortunately, some in the Council pushed for a 2035 deadline. This was before ever meeting with Eversource. I held two meetings with Eversource and what they said is “we are not in the business of saying no” but the deadline you are setting is a huge lift which would require enormous infrastructure investments all to the benefit of Cambridge and only with the cooperation of state, other municipalities, and private land owners. It is fine to be aspirational but setting goals that can’t be achieved has set up a ll the anger and frustration that is referred to in this letter.
The City should set up a fund to pay the increased rent for small businesses. It has been a rough few years, we have lost many small businesses already, and more could go out of business due to these additional costs. The City should also send every such tenant a letter, informing them of the proposed changes and the estimated impact on the building where they rent space.
Large commercial buildings often house both large and small businesses in Cambridge, like cafes, restaurants, or small shops, and it’s not like large commercial landlords are just going to absorb the cost to comply—they are going to pass them on to all of their tenants, large and small.
Isobel,
1) Cambridge is absolutely a leader in resiliency and in fact leads the nations cities. We also have taken up the specialized stretch code which many cities smartly have not committed to yet.
2) The are few places on the planet that have committed to 2035. UAE has a “utopian” green experiment in Masdar City which has largely been a failed experiment. Further places like Ithaca have committed to net zero by 2030 but their plan is voluntary and their grid is already 80% hydro. Compare Cambridge who has roughly 80-85% oil/gas.
3) Eversource has said twice in public forum that 2035 is all but impossible unless cambridge submits to massive infrastructure that’ll take resources from other towns and likely cause massive disruption through the installation of additional transmission lines.
Lastly and more importantly Nolan has not “worked hard” on anything here. If anything she is casually lobbing hyperbole at the business community with misstatement after misstatement. The only people currently doing any work are the condo owners and property owners who face massive fines through an illegal tax scheme cooked up by three councilors. If Nolan wanted to get to work she would have addressed the communities affected by this change two years ago but instead held private meetings with Harvard and MIT hoping for a fastball. Cambridge is a climate leader and anyone saying anything to the contrary needs to bring facts not sanctimony and virtue signaling.
What struck me was NOT Councillor Nolan’s zeal at having Cambridge be first, the leader, the most enlightened– but how disconnected and uninformed she is on condo issues. She says “carrots and sticks haven’t worked” (because no one knew about them) so by 2035 (or even 2030)– financial penalties are to be implemented for energy non-compliance.
Condo owners are only realizing what BEUDO means financially on top of capital maintenance and huge on-going building assessments. Add retro-fitting assessments estimated anywhere from $15,000 to $100,000 PER UNIT depending on quirky individual buildings. They can’t be treated as a one-size-fits-all – CDD’s (and some councillors’) favorite fallback position. Instead of a broad brush, no details have been forthcoming.
Climate change is real and Cambridge has been in the forefront. The state-wide Stretch Code has been signed calling for new buildings to be 100% electrified beginning July 1. Even if we paused BEUDO, the millions of new square feet of development will still have to comply to state regulations. Any spike in green house gases (GHG), is not coming from older buildings, it is from construction, (synthetic materials) and landfill deposits as well as smaller single and multi-family homes, institutions, bio/ tech, labs, commercial and retail. .
Of the 83% of GHG emitted from buildings, 1-8% actually come from Condos. (the numbers as with most of the published data keep changing).
Heat pumps and splits can’t be adapted to 100 yr old single steam pipe-heat/ radiator systems and boilers in many older buildings. Technology in general, hasn’t caught up to what Councilor Nolan relentlessly proposes. Many buildings don’t even have the electricity capacity. In order to electrify older buildings, walls will have to be opened, pipes will be replaced by tons of electrical wires and ducts leaving units uninhabitable. Where are tenants, displaced by retrofitting and construction for up to 2 yrs going to go if there is a housing shortage? And renovations of unit interiors, plastering, painting will be at the owner’s expense as will the $millions it may cost to retrofit.
We are talking small first time owners, teachers, workers, elderly, retired, renters paying a rent hike and generational owners– most being cash-poor. And many do not qualify for the meager financial programming.
A member of CDD was overheard saying keep the deadlines and “incentives” (penalty) and let the condo trustees figure it out. (sounds like “let them eat cake”). Volunteer trustees are ill-equipped to do so and need help. Changes to Condo docs in general involve a 100% vote by owners. Trustees have no jurisdiction over their spaces.
Beyond that, councilors are ignoring Eversource who has stated it takes up to 12 yrs PER substation and Cambridge needs FOUR not including transformers and infrastructure under the streets. Councilor Nolan is tone-deaf. East Boston is fighting a substation impacting environmental justice. Those substations also have to service surrounding municipalities which means coordination with other towns.
Cambridge lives in a rarified, self-important, wealthy bubble. Get real. Following the lead of Councilors Simmons and Toner, forums are valuable in understanding building and trustee issues. Figure out where funding is available. Help pay for consultants, windows, masonry. Help Condo owners get to where they need to be, not punish them.
EVEN Eversource says that in some cases, the effort and expense to retrofit a complicated building may not be worth the long-term small benefit. How much damage, displacement, financial harm is worth the accolades of being first? Is 100% net zero really feasible? Can we do 80%? This doesn’t mean ignoring climate change, but it calls for getting into the trenches and getting realistic.