Multifamily owners and residents tell Montgomery County BEPS could be unaffordable, ask for longer timelines and more funding

Montgomery County’s Transportation and Environment Committee heard sharply divergent testimony July 15 about proposed Building Energy Performance Standards, with condo and housing representatives warning the regulations could be financially and technically infeasible for many older multifamily buildings and industry experts urging mandatory standards coupled with clearer compliance pathways and more incentives.

Chair Glass opened the meeting by noting the county’s climate commitments — an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2027 and elimination of on-site emissions by 2035 — and said the session was the fourth in a series of listening sessions on BEPS. He invited two panels of multifamily and industry stakeholders to offer perspectives.

“Residents choose to live in the building because it is located in a walkable community,” said Beryl Blecker, representing the Willoughby of Chevy Chase Condominium’s BEPS committee, describing the 1968 high-rise as home to many retirees on fixed incomes. Blecker said the county’s multifamily site EUI target of 37 would require “an over 40% reduction on on-site EUI” compared with earlier medians and that the technical changes needed — particularly electrifying central HVAC and hot water systems — are not feasible for her building without catastrophic cost or disruption. She asked the committee to “adjust the goals,” extend compliance timelines (a minimum of seven years for interim requirements and 12–14 years for final targets), and “drastically increase financial support” including tax subsidies and specific common-ownership grants.

Several condo leaders echoed those practical concerns. Jean Andrej, president of Grosvenor Park 3’s board, said a consultant’s engineering study found electrifying the building would either require quadrupling electrical capacity or multi‑million‑dollar renovations that would “gut the building” and displace residents for months. Andrej proposed a “good faith safe harbor” for properties that have taken reasonable steps to reduce EUI, a formula for financial-hardship exemptions, and confirmation that equipment need not be replaced before the end of its useful life.

Henry Jordan of Leisure World, which oversees multiple associations and thousands of units, said master-metered buildings lack submetering needed for per-building benchmarking and that many bylaws prevent board‑level mandates on unit owners’ appliances. “We respectfully request that the regulations be modified to provide alternative waivers such as grandfathering all-electric residential buildings over 40 years old on a master meter system,” Jordan said.

Miriam Hamilton, a Promenade Towers board member and engineer, added that replacing boilers and electrical systems before their useful life would be deeply uneconomic; she cited an association report estimating HVAC replacement costs that could reach tens of millions for very large properties and said forcing early replacements undermines reasonable reserve planning.

Industry and service providers painted a more mixed picture. Adam Landsman, president of Pulse IQ and a Green Bank technical assistance partner, said benchmarking and mandatory programs are “essential” and that many properties have financially viable paths to improved efficiency. Landsman praised Montgomery County’s Department of Environmental Protection as “responsive and supportive” and urged use of the county’s Building Performance Improvement Plan (BPIP) process for properties that demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility.

Brian Anlou of the Apartment and Office Building Association (AOPA) and other industry witnesses presented case studies showing BEPS compliance could cost between roughly $20,000 and $50,000 per unit in some scenarios; Anlou cited the county’s technical report estimating a cumulative BEPS impact of about $2.4 billion across all building types and warned that the county’s most aggressive targets yield significantly higher costs for only marginal additional greenhouse‑gas reductions.

Tower Companies’ Director of Sustainability Luke Lanciano and others recommended adding off‑site renewable procurement as an allowable compliance pathway. Lanciano said BEPS metrics that focus solely on energy intensity “fundamentally miss” whether that energy is renewable. Several speakers urged the county to allow validated off‑site renewable purchases or credits (for example, through REC agreements) to reduce on‑site retrofit burdens.

Panelists also raised practical barriers: lack of whole‑building data, master metering that prevents unit‑level measurement, electrical “heavy‑up” costs from utility providers, and governance limits in condo bylaws that make unit‑by‑unit conversions difficult. Industry witnesses said that many incentives — especially tax credits relevant to BEPS — do not reach common‑ownership communities or REITs and asked the county to expand cash or abatement programs that are accessible to existing ownership structures.

Councilmembers pressed for clarity on the BPIP process, asked how federal and state funds could be channeled to multifamily and common‑ownership housing, and highlighted equity and resident health benefits from electrification when done carefully. Vice President Stewart said federal funding flows create a one‑time opportunity to secure resources for electrification and affordability protections.

The committee did not take formal votes. Chair Glass said funding will be the focus of the committee’s next session with the Green Bank on Sept. 16 and that a subsequent hearing on houses of worship’ needs is scheduled for Sept. 23. He closed by encouraging continued technical engagement between industry, the Green Bank and county staff.

Why it matters: multifamily and common‑ownership buildings comprise a large share of Montgomery County’s housing stock and, according to witnesses, house many residents on fixed incomes. Panelists agreed on the climate goals but disagreed strongly on timeline, metrics and the distribution of costs; the committee’s next meetings will focus on how to align targets with funding, alternative compliance mechanisms and outreach to affected residents.