Reilly gets vote on energy benchmarking postponed

26-Jul-13 – 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly has delayed a vote by the city council on whether to require buildings in Chicago to monitor – and allow the city to publish – their energy usage.

The ordinance would affect about 3,500 residential, commercial, and municipal buildings bigger than 50,000 square feet. It would allow prospective owners and renters to compare energy use of buildings but some say it would be unfair to older buildings and harm property values.

The ordinance was introduced by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who says it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and has the support of real estate companies such as U.S. Equities and Jones Lang LaSalle.

“This ordinance will accelerate Chicago’s growth as a capital for green jobs by arming building owners, real estate companies, energy service companies, and others with the information they need to make smart, cost-saving investments,” said Emanuel in a June 26 news release.

The Building Owners and Managers Association opposes the ordinance, saying in a recent statement it would “unfairly penalize and marginalize many older and historically significant buildings in Chicago.”

“We represent many buildings that are doing what they can to improve their sustainability and energy efficiency but still struggle with infrastructure limitations and the cost of retrofit work. Publishing the scores for buildings that simply cannot afford the work necessary to raise them will not ‘shame’ those buildings into achieving higher scores. It will simply impose yet another competitive burden on an already challenged sector.”

Reilly tried to “publish and defer” the ordinance on Tuesday but lost. By Wednesday, he had the support of ten other aldermen. The City Council will act on the ordinance in September.

On Friday, Reilly told constituents he will continue to oppose the ordinance until it is amended to “prevent the further marginalization of older buildings in the local real estate market and…better shield condominium and co-op owners from the financial burden of costly mandates associated with the ordinance.”