Evanston committee reviews Beam benchmarking data, flags 32% nonreporting and sets baseline tasks

Evanston’s Building Performance Standards technical advisory committee reviewed a Beam-provided analysis of the city’s covered buildings and identified significant gaps in reporting and verification.

Heather, a presenter working with the dataset, told the group the Beam file includes roughly 498 covered building records and several additional lines for addresses with multiple entries; after filtering repeats, the active analytic subset ranged from about 306 to 347 properties depending on filters. She said about 68% of covered buildings had reported energy usage, leaving roughly 32% with no reported site-energy data.

That compliance figure drove much of the discussion. Heather highlighted that the dataset contains multiple reporting nuances — for example, some addresses show distinct rows because they represent separate meters or multiuse campuses. The committee heard that large institutional users, notably hospitals, laboratories and Northwestern University buildings, account for a disproportionate share of site energy usage in Evanston. “Kinda over time, we see a reduction in building energy,” Heather said as the analysis showed modest declines in the mapped subset; she flagged a roughly 4.7% drop in site-energy use for a 2019–2024 subset.

Committee members questioned data validity and the sources of error. Staff explained that most data come through Energy Star Portfolio Manager and, where available, utility feeds (for example, ComEd can provide data to portfolio manager); some smaller facilities still upload bills manually. Verification historically occurred on a three‑year cycle; the committee stressed the need to rely on ‘‘verified’’ baseline years when setting targets.

A central policy issue was how to measure compliance and what counts toward the ordinance’s 100% renewables procurement requirement. A member asked whether properties could meet the requirement by purchasing Renewable Energy Credits or joining community solar. The chair clarified that the ordinance imposes a procurement requirement, not an installation mandate, and that community solar or procurement approaches could be options to satisfy the renewables target.

Members also discussed which baseline year to use when setting interim and 2050 targets. Staff noted the ordinance allows a verified 12‑month baseline no earlier than a property’s first verified benchmarking year and that building owners can propose a baseline year subject to group agreement. The committee did not set a single baseline during the meeting but tasked staff and Beam to prepare property‑type breakout reports and owner cut sheets to inform the next meeting.

On governance, the committee moved to allow a member (Tom) to participate and vote virtually and voted to appoint Joel Freeman as chair for the year; both measures passed without recorded opposition. The group scheduled near‑term follow-up, including biweekly check‑ins starting in January, additional Beam data reviews, and outreach using Beam’s upcoming report cards.

Next steps listed by staff include providing property‑type breakdowns of EUI (energy use intensity), running baseline-year cut sheets for owners, and convening technical follow-ups on meter aggregation and verification processes. The committee also noted the Department of Energy is still reviewing its conditional grant award to the city and that a staff hire remains pending.

The committee adjourned after setting those follow-up tasks.