Evanston technical committee debates how to count renewables, hears ASHRAE guidance on target-setting
Loading...
Summary
At its April 1 meeting the Evanston Healthy Buildings technical committee discussed how on-site solar, community solar and RECs should count toward ordinance targets, clarified verification and reporting questions, and heard ASHRAE vice chair Jamie Kono recommend using local benchmarking when setting EUI targets.
The Evanston Healthy Buildings technical committee met April 1 and focused on how the city's ordinance should count renewable energy (on-site solar, community solar and renewable energy certificates), how to verify owner submissions, and how to set interim energy-use targets.
Julie Kaye Lake of Northwestern University's sustainability program joined as a guest; Chair (speaker 1) described a draft approach that lays out five interim reporting periods leading up to the 2050 goal and three compliance pathways: on-site generation, community solar allocations and REC purchases to cover remaining load. "Community solar doesn't get you all the way," the Chair said during the meeting, noting allocations are tied to prior usage and will not always cover a building's full electricity demand.
Members debated classification questions. Some said geothermal should not be treated as an electricity-generating renewable for the ordinance because it typically reduces load rather than producing on-site electricity; others argued geothermal belongs in the renewable category because it lowers energy consumption. Committee members also discussed hybrid approaches (for example, combining community solar and on-site generation) and concerns that simple owner-entered REC or community-solar percentages could lead to weak verification without added staff burden.
On data and verification, staff described the new Healthy Buildings web portal and said agendas will include links to resources. Committee members asked whether the BEAM/Energy Star workflow can accept documentation or whether the city would rely on owner-entered values. Staff and members agreed a simpler data-entry process reduces enforcement overhead but complicates verification; the committee flagged this tradeoff for further discussion with outside jurisdictions.
Members noted practical examples and compliance context: one member said Illinois's grid currently has roughly 15% renewables feeding it and that the city's benchmarking collection currently achieves about a 73% reporting rate through Energy Star submissions. Several members expressed a policy preference for prioritizing local decarbonization (local projects or a local carbon fund) rather than distant RECs where possible.
The committee pressed staff on process questions: members agreed that the technical committee will develop recommended targets and guidance, staff will help draft accessible language and materials, and the city legal department will review and finalize ordinance text before it goes to city council.
In the second half of the meeting, Jamie Kono, a consulting engineer and vice chair of the ASHRAE Standard 100 committee, presented the standard's approach to target-setting. Kono said Standard 100's default EUI targets come from national commercial building survey data and modeled ratios; the committee's recommendation is "to create targets based on local benchmarking data, whenever you can," because local data are more applicable to a specific jurisdiction. She reviewed practical tradeoffs: national data are easier to use but can lag and lack granularity for certain property types, while local targets require more work but yield more relevant benchmarks.
Kono also discussed normalization factors (for example, operating hours/shifts), the limits of Energy Star applicability (Energy Star scores apply to only certain property types), and alternative compliance pathways for property types with insufficient local data. She suggested jurisdictions could combine Energy Star scores for building types that have them with Standard 100 default EUIs for types that do not.
Formal meeting actions were procedural: the committee approved a motion to allow remote participation for a member named Tom, approved the minutes from the March 4 meeting, and adjourned at about 9:59 a.m.
Next steps: the technical committee will compile questions for upcoming presenters from Boston and Denver, continue refining the guidance on renewables and verification, and work with staff and legal to draft the ordinance language the committee will recommend to city council.
