Meeting 4 Notes

1. Building Efficiency and Advisory Committee

- Meeting 4, compliance support

2. Welcome and Introductions

- Katie joining from Core Planning Strategies - City staff: MaCie’, Morgan, Mo, Matt, Abbey, Lindsay, Jessica

3. Introductions Continued

- American Cities Climate Challenge Staff from IMT: Cliff, Julie, Jake, Ryan - Facilitators: Sydney, Engaging Solutions, and Sonya, Delivery Associates

4. Roll Call and Ice Breaker Activity

- Roll call for committee and ice breaker

5. Agenda

- Set the tone, reiterate our objective, and brief introductions - Recap of progress - Compliance support, exemption information, and enforcement ideas - Time for discussion and questions - Next steps and timeline

6. Zoom Tutorial

- Tutorial on how to use certain Zoom features, including chat function, reactions, and breakout rooms.

7. Our Overall Objectives

- Objectives for participants: provide your input on policy considerations, help identify barriers, advise on planning, and suggest additional resources. - Ground rules: Chatham house rules and democracy of time.

8. Recap of Progress to Date

- Now we will look at a summary of this committee’s work. - We will review the ideas the committee has had so far and add any follow-up that was requested in the last meeting.

9. Recap of Progress to Date

- Meeting 1: History of Thrive and sustainability in Indianapolis, and establishing the need for energy efficiency in our City. - Meeting 2: what benchmarking policies look like in different cities, overview of policy elements, and discussion of what types of buildings should be included in the program and what the implementation schedule should look like. - Meeting 3: what data access looks like and what types of data should be reported, and discussion of what types of data to collect, data access, and data transparency.

10. Data Type and Access

- Overall, the group felt that adding water collection would be an effective addition to our program. - A few concerns included irrigation that some buildings use and the District Energy System that some buildings use, and these concerns can both be addressed in Portfolio Manager.

11. Data Verification

- In the last meeting, we discussed that the success of this program hinges on good quality data, which can be supported through 3rd party verification. - To follow up on this discussion, the City reached out to peer cities to see the costs of this. Peers in Maryland shared that they have seen estimates in the range of $500-$2000, but it is hard to know that this is accurate given the determining factors Indy has outlined. - The committee has decided to not move forward with this based on cost estimates and cost variability and rather is considering other ways that this can be done like having in-house trained energy manager and the possibility of remote verification to lower costs.

12. Data Transparency

- Concern over disclosing addresses in the transparency piece of this ordinance arose during the last meeting. In response, it is our goal that the transparency component act to spur market actions towards energy efficiency, not to shame poor performing buildings. - Regarding these concerns, we are considering an option to delay the transparency piece, meaning that there could be a voluntary period and phase-in approach to implementation.

13. Policy Decision Points

- There are many decision points we have asked this group to advise on, and we are nearing the final few. - Today our breakout sessions will focus on compliance and exemptions.

14. Compliance Support

- To make the program reach its intended goal, the City intends to provide ample support to building owners.

15. Portfolio Manager Trainings

- Portfolio manager is the platform that will be used to track and report data. - We want to ensure that building managers are confident with this platform, which will require some training. Most can learn the basics of the platform in just one or two trainings. - Some options for training include: benchmarking workshops, industry specific training webinars, on demand video trainings, and a how to guide.

16. Benchmarking Help Center

- Some cities have help centers to assist building owners with specific issues. - Some cities do this in house and others outsource. - The benefit to these centers is that they are helpful to both building owners and city governments, as many cities with these centers report higher compliance rates, improved data quality, and increased relationships between stakeholders.

17. Compliance Support Materials

- It can be helpful to create a checklist for building owners to ensure they comply. - Many cities cite they could significantly reduce help desk time by having this document to guide building owners through the process.

18. Benchmarking Website

- It is important to have a website for all information for building owners. - Looking at St. Louis’ website, building owners can look up their building from a unique code, they are able to report their data, and they are able to request applicable exemptions. - Another helpful piece to the website is that it can provide immediate program updates. For example, considering COVID-19, they posted updates on deadlines to account for that on their website.

19. Guidelines for Specific Property Types

- Since this ordinance will affect so many different types of buildings, it is likely that they will all face different challenges and obstacles in this process. Because of that, D.C. created a benchmarking guide for each type of building to help create better guidance. This is an example of how cities are working to help guide owners through specific issues.

20. Case Studies

- Lastly on this topic, there are several case studies from other cities to learn from. - Uplifting successful work from other cities to our building owners may help encourage compliance.

21. Exemptions

- Next, we would like to talk about exemptions, as we recognize this may be necessary for some buildings for a few different reasons.

22. Most Common Exemptions in Existing U.S. Benchmarking Policies

- Most cities view exemptions on a case by case basis. - Most common exemptions include: undue financial hardship, demolition occurring during the reporting period, data that is difficult to collect, low occupancy, and industrial buildings.

23. Atlanta’s Exemptions - Our first peer example is from Atlanta. Atlanta developed a flow-chart to help guide building owners through exemption eligibility. - Examples of exemptions in Atlanta: The city is offering special consideration to multifamily properties until data is available in the aggregate form and undue financial hardship.

24. St. Louis’ Exemptions

- They give special exemptions to building owners that have difficulty obtaining whole- building data or have a less than 50% occupancy rate, which is averaged over the compliance cycle.

25. Seattle’s Exemptions

- They offer exemptions for vacant buildings, buildings pending demolition, building falls under residential and primarily permanent in nature, there is no certificate of occupancy for all 12 months of the compliance cycle, or if there is valid documentation proving that 50% of the building is classified as industrial.

26. Denver’s Exemptions

- Denver offers exemptions for undue financial hardship, demolition work, vacancy, utility failing to provide necessary data, less than 60% occupancy, and/or if the building is used primarily for manufacturing or agricultural processes.

27. Enforcement

- Next, we will look at enforcement. Our focus remains on providing support so that all building owners have the tools they need to remain in compliance. However, enforcement mechanisms may need to be utilized in some cases.

28. Compliance Mechanisms

- There are several ways to encourage maximum compliance, including written warnings, published on a non-compliance list, a one-time fine, accruing fines, and suspending registration. - It is worth noting that these will not be used until the pre-determined voluntary period is over.

29. Peer Cities Enforcement Mechanisms

- Peer cities have used many tactics to ensure compliance. - These include one-time fines, accruing fines, suspended registration, and civil suits. - It is not our intention to make money on this program, and we are working with Business and Neighborhood Services to see what might be most effective here in Indianapolis and with this committee to gain further input.

30. Discussion on Policy Direction

- We will now move into the discussion portion of the meeting.

31. Breakout Sessions - Each group will discuss the final policy elements with support from moderators and experts from the American Cities Climate Challenge.

32. Decision Points for Breakout Session

- Recap: o Group 1: Regarding compliance support, they discussed creating peer groups so that we use partners to educate each other with their expertise. The group discussed opportunities such as free technical support to help building owners overcome some of the challenges in relation to reasons for exemption reporting. Regarding compliance mechanisms, it was suggested that the City be sure to discuss ways that the they can give something back to the community and help with any related difficulties that certain sectors or businesses are facing in relation to this. o Group 2: Regarding limited resources, they thought that workshops and webinars on demand would be the best, IPL suggested ideas on how to best coordinate their resources with the city. Regarding exemptions, they were concerned with how financial hardship claims would be concerned and how to identify these (i.e. how do we define low occupancy). Lastly, looking at compliance, they discussed a live document that would show who is not compliant the possibility of having decals for the windows of buildings that are compliant. o Group 3: They emphasized the need to define what success of the program looks like. Regarding exemptions, they were concerned with fines in the case that the building couldn’t afford the fine. Lastly, they discussed transparency and how this can incentivize or disincentivize compliance. o Group 4: They first emphasized the need for clear timelines regarding compliance, opt- in, and how much time to get into compliance if a building is found to be not compliant. They suggested that the trainings are very important especially if we have a compliance checklist so that this list does not become too cumbersome. For the compliance, they suggested rewards for being compliant rather than fines for being not compliant. They added that positive reinforcement is most likely more effective.

33. Upcoming Meeting Schedule

- The next meeting is currently scheduled for July 27th, and it will likely be a Zoom meeting. - We are currently considering what the public meeting will look like.

24. Questions?

- Contact Morgan, [email protected]