Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Utility Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrence board weighs utility‑cost disclosure, aggregate utility data and outreach to address renters’ energy burden
Summary
Board members discussed disclosure of utility costs for rental housing, data options and potential incentive packages as a way to reduce renters’ energy burden and support the board’s greenhouse‑gas KPI work.
Board members discussed a range of policy options to address a prioritized greenhouse‑gas KPI that focuses on rental housing energy efficiency and renters’ energy burden.
The board opened with a description of the problem—more than half of Lawrence residents rent, and many residential buildings predate modern energy efficiency standards—then moved into possible policy responses including mandatory utility‑cost disclosure in rental listings or leases, voluntary portals or “glass‑door” style tools for renters to upload meter data, green leasing and incentives packages that combine city actions with utility and nonprofit programs.
Members raised practical concerns about a disclosure ordinance, including whether utilities can provide historical data at the unit level, privacy and consent limits, enforcement and how to avoid unequal uptake. Board members suggested several approaches to collection and use of utility data: ask Evergy and Black Hills for anonymized aggregate data at a fine geographic scale (census block or block group) to target investments; require landlords to provide averages supported by utility documentation at lease time; or create a city‑run portal where renters upload usage data voluntarily. Participants noted tradeoffs: aggregate utility data could guide targeted programs without disclosing individual tenant data, while unit‑level disclosure could better inform renters but trigger privacy and enforcement complexity.
Board members explored incentives that might make improvements feasible for owners: streamlined rental licensing, low‑cost improvements (weather stripping, insulation), PACE financing, utility rebate programs and partnerships with nonprofits. Several board members said that mandatory disclosure alone might not be sufficient in a tight rental market where lower‑income renters have limited alternatives. Others argued disclosure is a low‑cost, politically feasible first step that signals market demand for efficiency and can be paired with outreach to renters and landlord education.
Legal and administrative constraints were central to the discussion. Staff told the board that green leasing could be recommended but might be preempted from being required by the city; the city’s legal staff would need to review any ordinance. Board members asked staff to research comparator cities that have adopted similar disclosure or benchmarking policies and to provide examples and enforcement models.
Next steps and staff directions: staff will attempt to secure comparative research on other cities’ approaches, ask utilities about the granularity of anonymized aggregate data they can provide (staff reported receiving some Evergy data by ZIP code/SIP code), and arrange a discussion with Ashok Gupta (Natural Resources Defense Council), an energy policy expert who has advised the city and regional partners on utility dockets. Staff plans to share findings with the board and, if feasible, coordinate targeted outreach to renters and landlords before proposing formal recommendations to city commission.
Ending: board members emphasized the need to include tenant‑centered groups, property managers and landlords in future outreach and recommended a measured, research‑driven approach to drafting any ordinance or policy recommendation so that legal and privacy questions are resolved before the board brings a detailed proposal to the city commission.
