Committee debates net-zero definitions, offsets and concise alternative-compliance forms

The committee spent a portion of the workshop on the technical policy question of how to define net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and what kinds of offsets or alternative compliance should be permitted.

Members agreed the program’s primary reporting metric will be natural gas consumption reported in Energy Star Portfolio Manager (therms-in), and they debated whether to adjust for equipment efficiency. Some members argued for a simple measurement — therms in as the baseline metric — while others raised the need to account for system efficiency differences in rare cases.

Committee members also discussed allowable offset and compliance mechanisms: certified carbon credits, payments to local decarbonization funds, or verified offsets were all raised as possible options. Several members cautioned against allowing distant tree-planting projects as a compliance route and suggested the committee draft clear guidance on geographic or verification limits for credits.

On alternative compliance, the group favored designing a short, multi-track form that building owners would file if they cannot meet interim targets. The form should let staff quickly classify submissions (e.g., extension based on scheduled renovation, purchase of renewables, or a project-based reduction plan) without producing long, staff-intensive reports.

No formal decisions were taken; the committee asked staff and Slipstream to provide comparative examples from Denver, Boston and other cities and to return with draft options so the HBTC can recommend concrete language to city staff.