Evanston staff hear Beam demo of calculators, compliance paths for building performance standards

City staff and local committee members met to review a demonstration of Beam, a software platform the city uses for building benchmarking, and discussed how it could be used to implement Evanston's proposed building performance standards.

The presentation, introduced by the meeting chair and Naomi Watson, Building Energy Analysis Manager, centered on public-facing calculators and internal "derived columns" Beam uses to compute building emissions, targets and penalties. Naomi Watson said, "Beam is currently being used by the city to implement all things benchmarking," and showed how building owners could enter an ID, prepopulate data and model different compliance pathways.

Why it matters: the software would translate policy choices'targets, timelines, allowable offsets and penalty formulas'into calculations owners and staff can use to track compliance. The committee focused on which policy model to emulate, how to handle historic properties and whether to permit partial exemptions or alternative compliance pathways.

Beam presenter Baric emphasized the vendor'client approach: "Our philosophy is that you come up with a policy, and we figure out how to make it work in practice." The demonstration included examples from Colorado, Cambridge and New York City, showing different ways jurisdictions set baselines, custom emissions factors and allowable offsets. On penalties, the presenter cited a New York City example: "In New York City, the penalty is $268 per metric ton of CO2 emissions over the building's limit."

During questions, committee members sought clarity on public visibility and data flows. Naomi Watson and the Beam team explained that ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager data can be pulled nightly into Beam, reducing duplicate entry, and that Beam can publish calculators so owners can experiment with options without staff disclosure of internal setup. The platform also can support intake forms and documentation review for alternate compliance requests.

Owner access and delegation were discussed at length. A representative who identified themselves as representing Brace Star asked how many users can claim a single building ID and how third-party managers gain access. Beam explained that the city determines initial claimant fields and that a recognized owner can then designate third-party building viewers.

On policy direction, participants said they preferred starting simple. Several members recommended using Colorado's approach as a straightforward model rather than the more complex New York City or DC frameworks. One committee member asked Beam to return for a focused session on alternative compliance plans; the group also expects Slipstream to provide analytical data on building metrics ahead of the next meeting.

The meeting concluded informally after a nonofficial motion to adjourn was made and seconded. Next procedural steps include a return presentation from Beam covering alternate compliance-path analyses and receipt of Slipstream data for staff review.