If you’ve been following cities’ progress on Building Emissions Performance Standards (BEPS) across North America, you might just have whip lash. I was getting ready to publish a piece with the working title, “The wildly successful compliance rates on building standards in Vancouver and NYC.” Before we could get Vancouver staff on the phone for an interview, their City Council passed a motion rolling back many of their climate programs, and pausing their version of BEPS, Energize Vancouver.
With broad public support and excellent compliance rates, why was the program paused? Leaders are pitting affordability against climate action, implying that taking action to reduce emissions means worsening housing affordability. In reality, the two are proving to work together, especially in the world of building efficiency.
New York City’s BEPS, Local Law 97, passed in 2019 and shows no signs of slowing down. After the first deadline this spring, an impressive 93% of buildings submitted compliance filings. NYC Buildings Commissioner Ahmed Tigani summed up the record accomplishment:
“The high compliance rate in this first round of annual reporting for Local Law 97 is more than a milestone; it’s proof that coordinated climate action can work at scale in a city as large and complex as ours.”
Likewise, Energize Vancouver found that 98% of buildings submitted reports, and 90% of covered buildings are already meeting 2026 GHGI targets. Thanks in part to tremendous efforts by City staff and industry supporters, these compliance rates demonstrate that building owners and stakeholders were ready and prepared to meet emissions reductions goals. Unfortunately, Vancouver’s progress is now paused.
What do these successes and setbacks mean for the GTHA? First, let’s not fall for the lazy argument that being affordable means lowering our standards for healthy, efficient homes and buildings. BEPS bylaws are designed to gradually make improvements in phases, covering only the worst performing buildings first. Compliance upgrades to these buildings typically include improvements to everyday maintenance and excessive energy costs. Affordability protections are often built into the bylaw, offering cost effective methods of compliance, alternative compliance pathways, financing that prevents rental increases and targeted funding for affordable housing retrofits. NYC has so far contributed more than $1.4M to affordable housing retrofits through the sale of carbon offsets – one of the alternative compliance pathways in the bylaw.
GTHA cities can implement the best practices from other jurisdictions and learn from their mistakes. Successful policies are developed with thoughtful engagement, include affordability protections, and provide ample lead time for industry to prepare. Conversely, shifting priorities with political winds sends negative signals and hurts policy certainty, making it more difficult for all stakeholders to prepare and plan for upcoming changes. We’ve already seen industry and key stakeholders like tenant organizers signaling support and making recommendations on how Canadian cities can implement BEPS, from REALPAC, Efficiency Canada and Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario.
Right now, municipalities in the GTHA have a unique opportunity to be leaders in both climate action and affordability. Cities already exploring BEPS policy, like Toronto, have time to undertake crucial engagement work and learn from the successes of others. For municipalities looking to get started, exploring a benchmarking policy like Toronto’s Energy and Water Reporting Bylaw is a critical first step towards taking action for better buildings. We’ve seen proven results from other cities across Canada and the United States. The solutions are clear. Residents, industry, and policymakers are ready to go. What more are we waiting for?
Leave a Reply