Proposal to require energy audits for Kansas City buildings draws opposition

Major real estate and property managers turned out in force Wednesday to oppose Kansas City’s plan to require large buildings to publicly report their energy consumption.

“This mandate … will lead to the devaluation of properties and divesting of real estate in Kansas City for the less-regulated and business-friendly Johnson County,” Chris Erdley, vice president of Tower Properties, told the City Council’s finance committee.

The council is considering making Kansas City join 13 other cities nationally in requiring large buildings to assess and report their energy and water use, much like mileage disclosures on cars.

Opponents said the city should pursue voluntary compliance and provide incentives to improve energy efficiency rather than impose a mandate with a punitive, fine-based system for violators.

But architects, engineers and environmental advocates — and some large property owners — said mandates get far more results than voluntary programs and are being adopted by the nation’s most progressive cities. They said such a move will dramatically improve energy efficiency and air quality while providing jobs and better conditions for tenants and residents.

“People don’t change on their own. They need a trigger,” said Amy Hargroves, director of corporate responsibility and sustainability with Sprint. She said that the company has saved “a ton of money” through its energy conservation efforts and that other buildings and businesses can do the same.

Dennis Murphey, the city’s chief environmental officer, pointed out that the mandate first applies to city-owned buildings through 2016. In the end, about 3 percent of buildings in the city would fall under the restrictions.

Privately owned buildings of more than 100,000 square feet would have to gather energy consumption data beginning in May 2017, but the data wouldn’t be publicly reported until Sept. 1, 2018. Buildings over 50,000 square feet would start gathering data in May 2018, to be published beginning Sept. 1, 2019.

Murphey said the time and expense to gather the data are not significant. He also pointed out that large buildings of less than 50 percent occupancy could seek an exemption from the requirement.

Noncompliance would mean a fine of up to $2,500, but finance committee chair Jan Marcason said the fine amounts could be negotiated and there’s room to compromise before the council votes on the plan.

The committee postponed a vote at least until May 6 and may extend debate past that time to try to reach a consensus.

This story was originally published April 29, 2015 at 2:13 PM with the headline "Proposal to require energy audits for Kansas City buildings draws opposition."