Portland City Council Housing & Permitting Committee 10/20/26
Portland's pushing a rule forcing big buildings (20k+ sq ft) to cut gas emissions 20% by 2030 and zero out by 2050—40+ people testified today, split hard between climate groups and landlords/gas industry/unions who want a pause over unfunded costs. No vote taken.
Agenda
- 2026-376: Housing and Permitting community feedback
- 2026-377: Add Climate and Health Standards for Buildings Code to reduce carbon emissions of commercial and multifamily residential buildings and provide information to tenants to improve the affordability, health, and resilience of rental housing (replace Code Chapter 17.104)
Summary
A proposal to phase out on-site fossil fuel emissions from Portland's large commercial and apartment buildings by 2050 drew more than 40 testifiers, with no vote taken. The Climate and Health Standards would apply to buildings 20,000 square feet and larger. Owners would cut emissions 20% starting in 2030 and another 20% every five years, choosing their own baseline year, with alternative compliance plans and possible exemptions or extensions. Landlords would also have to tell prospective tenants about expected energy costs, heating and cooking appliances, and whether a unit has cooling. Regulated affordable housing is exempt, and retrofit costs and fees could not be passed on to residential tenants. City staff said the policy would cover about 40% of building-sector emissions, far more than the state standard.
Supporters, including the city's Sustainability and Climate Commission, the Coalition of Communities of Color, physicians' groups, climate organizations and renters, urged quick passage. They pointed to six years of engagement, health risks from gas stoves, and residents surprised by energy bills of $300 or more a month. Opponents asked for a pause. These included landlord and commercial real estate groups, NW Natural and the gas industry, building trades unions, and the restaurant and lodging association. They argued the retrofits are unfunded, the economic study is out of date, the rules overlap with state requirements, and owners would be penalized for tenants' energy use or for filling vacant space. Hospitals asked for a clearer compliance pathway for campuses, and universities and colleges asked to be exempted like K-12 schools. One testifier was told to leave after using a slur. In general public comment, a resident asked the city to help remove a tree she says is at imminent risk of falling after nearby Habitat for Humanity construction.
Chair Avalos said many concerns are already addressed through the flexible baseline, alternative compliance plans, exemptions and funding such as PCEF, and that she disagrees that stakeholders were not engaged. Vice Chair Green said he fully supports the policy. Councilor Novick asked for input from New York City officials and for more detailed long-term cost and funding estimates. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney was out sick, and her chief of staff said she has questions to raise in a future meeting. The committee will continue its discussion before any vote; no date was announced.
Key Points
- The committee held a public hearing on the proposed Climate and Health Standards for buildings (Document 2026-377). The ordinance would replace City Code Chapter 17.104. It would require large commercial and multifamily residential buildings (20,000 sq ft and larger) to cut on-site carbon emissions 20% starting in 2030, with an additional 20% every five years, reaching zero by 2050. It would also require annual energy reporting and disclosure of energy costs, appliance types and cooling to prospective tenants.
- Chair Avalos's new policy director, Damon Mott Story, recapped the policy. City staff say it would cover about 40% of Portland's building-sector emissions, compared with about 5% under the state building performance standard. Regulated affordable housing is exempt. Buildings that fall off track would pay a carbon pollution impact fee. Tenant protections include relocation assistance, a right to return, and a ban on passing retrofit costs and fees through to residential tenants.
- Testimony was limited to two minutes each because more than 40 people signed up. Supporters urged passage, citing six-plus years of engagement, health risks from gas appliances, and rising energy bills. They included the city's Sustainability and Climate Commission, the Coalition of Communities of Color (with a sign-on letter from 28 organizations), Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, 350 PDX, Breach Collective, Portland For All, Earth Advantage, the Green Energy Institute and individual renters.
- Opponents asked the committee to pause the ordinance. They cited unfunded retrofit costs, an outdated ECO Northwest economic study, overlap with the state standard, and penalties on owners for tenant energy use. They also raised baselines set while buildings are vacant, grid capacity and the downtown recovery. This group included Multifamily Northwest, NW Natural, the Northwest Gas Association, a coalition of BOMA, NAIOP, Oregon Smart Growth and the Portland Metro Chamber, building trades unions, the Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, and several property owners.
- Providence and Legacy asked for a pause to define a workable compliance pathway for hospital campuses. OHSU, PSU, PCC and the Oregon Alliance of Independent Colleges and Universities asked that higher education be exempted, as K-12 schools are. The Port of Portland requested two technical amendments: excluding aviation buildings and clarifying ground-lease ownership.
- Chair Avalos responded that many concerns are already addressed. She pointed to the flexible baseline year, alternative compliance plans, nine exemption and extension situations in Section 17.104.170, and funding sources such as PCEF, Energy Trust of Oregon and OHCS. She also distributed a redline document showing policy changes from 2022 to the present.
- Councilor Novick asked to hear from New York City officials who have implemented a similar law. He also requested cost estimates for naturally occurring affordable housing for 2035–2045, an estimate of how much of total retrofit costs PCEF and other programs could cover, and the city's administrative costs. Vice Chair Green voiced full support, citing climate impacts such as the loss of the Palmer Snowfield and changes in hydropower.
- Councilor Pirtle-Guiney was absent due to illness (strep throat). Her chief of staff read a statement supporting ambitious climate goals and raising questions she plans to ask later. These cover contingency plans if utilities miss clean energy targets, definitions in the ordinance, and discretionary enforcement for unique buildings such as hospital campuses.
- During general public comment, Lacey Sutton said a Douglas fir damaged during Habitat for Humanity construction is at imminent risk of falling and asked the city to pay for emergency removal. Amber Cook raised concerns about misconduct and severance pay among housing agency leaders.
- Chair Avalos ordered one testifier to leave the chamber after he used a slur during his testimony.
Votes (1)
Approval of September committee meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the committee's September meetings
Action Items
- Councilor Novick requested testimony from New York City officials involved in implementing that city's building performance law.
- Councilor Novick requested cost estimates for naturally occurring affordable housing, especially gas-served buildings, for 2035, 2040 and 2045.
- Councilor Novick requested an estimate of total retrofit costs over 20 years and how much PCEF, Energy Trust of Oregon and other programs could reasonably cover.
- Councilor Novick requested information on how city administrative costs change depending on how much flexibility the program allows.
- Councilor Pirtle-Guiney plans to raise questions in a future public meeting on utility clean-energy contingency plans, definitions in the ordinance, and discretionary enforcement for unique buildings.
- Chair Avalos invited public commenters to contact her office for follow-up on issues raised during general comment.
- The Port of Portland requested technical amendments to exclude aviation buildings and clarify the definition of owner in ground-lease situations.
Issues Discussed (10)
The Housing & Permitting Committee held a public hearing on the Climate and Health Standards ordinance (phasing out on-site fossil fuel emissions in large buildings by 2050), drawing over 40 testifiers split between supportive climate/health/renter groups and opposed landlord, gas industry, and building trades representatives. No vote was taken, with Councilor Novick requesting more cost data and input from New York City officials before further discussion.
Not directly addressed in this meeting; the session focused on the proposed Climate and Health Standards for large buildings, though related tenant protections were discussed, including a requirement that landlords disclose expected energy costs, appliance types, and cooling availability to prospective tenants, and a provision barring retrofit costs from being passed on to residential tenants.
During the public hearing on the broader Climate and Health Standards ordinance, specific mechanisms like carbon pollution impact fees and utility decarbonization details were not separately detailed, with discussion instead centering on building emissions cuts, compliance flexibility, and funding sources like PCEF. No vote was taken, and Councilor Novick requested more detailed long-term cost and funding estimates before further consideration.
Not addressed in this meeting; the session focused on the Climate and Health Standards for buildings (Document 2026-377), with no discussion of single stair building design policy.
This specific issue was not addressed in this meeting; the hearing focused on the Climate and Health Standards ordinance for large commercial and multifamily buildings, not fuel terminal regulations.
Not addressed in this meeting; the session focused on the proposed Climate and Health Standards for large commercial and multifamily buildings, with no discussion of data center zoning or siting rules.
The committee held a public hearing on the Climate and Health Standards ordinance requiring large buildings (20,000+ sq ft) to cut on-site carbon emissions 20% starting in 2030 and every five years after, reaching zero by 2050, drawing over 40 testifiers but no vote. Supporters including the Sustainability and Climate Commission and health groups urged quick passage, while landlords, NW Natural, and building trades argued the retrofits are unfunded and requested a pause, with discussion to continue at a future meeting.
The committee held a public hearing drawing over 40 testifiers on the ordinance to phase out fossil fuel emissions in large buildings by 2050, with supporters like health groups and climate organizations urging quick passage and opponents including landlords and the gas industry calling for a pause over unfunded costs; no vote was taken, with Chair Avalos defending the engagement process and Councilor Novick requesting more cost data before further discussion.
Hospitals requested a clearer compliance pathway for multi-building campuses, while universities and colleges asked to be exempted from the standards similar to the existing K-12 schools exemption. Chair Avalos responded that many stakeholder concerns are already addressed through the ordinance's flexible baseline year, alternative compliance plans, and existing exemption provisions.
The committee held a public hearing on the Climate and Health Standards ordinance (Document 2026-377), drawing over 40 testifiers both for and against the proposal to phase out fossil fuel emissions in large buildings by 2050, but took no vote. Supporters including health and climate groups urged quick passage, while landlords, NW Natural, and building trades asked for a pause citing unfunded retrofit costs and overlap with state rules; the committee will continue discussion before any future vote.