Building Compliance Is Changing. The Data Is Starting to Drive What Comes Next.

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/b40253_9952737e60754a948f4fd13e3ef14bef/1080p/mp4/file.mp4

For years, building energy reporting was largely about disclosure: measure energy use, submit the information, meet the deadline.

But what happens after the data is reported?

Increasingly, that is where the bigger story begins.

Across the United States and Canada, governments are using building energy data to inform policies that go beyond benchmarking alone. Energy data can support building performance standards, greenhouse gas reduction requirements, energy efficiency programs and, in some jurisdictions, verification requirements.

The result is a gradual shift in the role of building compliance.

Benchmarking is becoming less of an endpoint and more of a starting point.

For building owners and portfolio managers, understanding that shift may be just as important as understanding the reporting requirements themselves.

From Measuring Buildings to Managing Performance

Benchmarking answers an important question:

How is this building performing?

It provides a consistent way to measure energy use and, depending on the program, compare a building with its historical performance, similar buildings or a defined reference point.

But benchmarking alone does not necessarily require a building to improve.

Building performance standards take the next step.

A building performance standard establishes defined energy and/or greenhouse gas performance levels that buildings must meet over time, often through progressively more demanding targets. Natural Resources Canada describes benchmarking as a key first step in understanding and improving building performance and notes that governments are increasingly coupling benchmarking and reporting with programs such as energy audits, commissioning and building performance standards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency similarly provides guidance for state and local governments developing policies that combine benchmarking with building performance standards.

That distinction matters.

Benchmarking measures performance.

Performance standards establish expectations for performance.

And that changes what the data can mean for a building owner.

What Are Cities Doing With All This Building Data?

This is one of the more important questions emerging from the expansion of benchmarking programs.

Cities and other governments are not collecting building energy information simply to create another database.

Benchmarking can provide the information needed to understand how buildings are performing across a jurisdiction and, in turn, help governments design policies intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's benchmarking and building performance standards toolkit specifically describes benchmarking as a tool that governments can use as a foundation for developing building performance policies.

Canada is following a similar policy direction.

Natural Resources Canada's current toolkit is designed to support provincial, territorial and municipal governments considering policies to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from existing commercial, institutional and multi-unit residential buildings.

This creates a broader policy progression:

Measure → Understand → Set Targets → Improve → Demonstrate Performance

The important point for building owners is that the information submitted today may increasingly be connected to requirements that extend beyond today's reporting deadline.

There Isn't One North American Model

The shift is not happening in exactly the same way everywhere.

That may actually be one of the most important characteristics of the North American market.

Different jurisdictions are developing different approaches, with different building-size thresholds, reporting deadlines, performance metrics and compliance mechanisms.

Toronto offers a useful example.

The City currently requires buildings 50,000 square feet and larger to report energy and water use annually. Beginning in 2027, mandatory municipal reporting will expand to buildings between 10,000 and 49,999 square feet. The City's requirements also include data verification by a certified professional for buildings of 100,000 square feet and larger, once every five years beginning with the first year of reporting.

The important story here is not simply the individual thresholds.

It is the combination of broader coverage and additional requirements.

A building that is not currently within the scope of a particular requirement may become subject to it as programs evolve.

In the United States, the Direction Is Also Broader Than Benchmarking

The U.S. landscape provides a range of examples.

Some jurisdictions have established benchmarking and transparency programs. Others have gone further by introducing building performance standards or greenhouse gas emissions requirements.

EPA's national toolkit recognizes this progression, providing guidance on benchmarking and transparency, building performance standards, coordination between state and local governments, and access to whole-building energy data.

The policy approaches are not identical from one jurisdiction to another.

That is precisely the point.

A building owner with properties in multiple markets cannot necessarily assume that the process used for one building will apply to another.

The same basic benchmarking platform may be used, but the obligations surrounding that data can be very different.

Verification Adds Another Layer

Another development worth watching is the growing role of verification.

Verification is not the same as benchmarking.

Benchmarking involves measuring and reporting building performance data. Verification introduces an additional review of that information to provide greater confidence that the reported values have been entered appropriately and are reasonable for the building.

And in some jurisdictions, verification is already part of the regulatory framework.

Toronto, for example, requires certified-professional verification for buildings of 100,000 square feet and larger once every five years. The City's guidance explains that the review includes checking whether information has been entered appropriately into ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager and whether reported values are reasonable for the building.

This is significant because it illustrates another step in the evolution of building reporting:

The question is no longer only whether data has been submitted.

In some programs, there is also a question of whether the reported data can be relied upon.

That does not mean independent verification is required for every building or every benchmarking program. It means building owners need to know when it applies and understand what is expected before the deadline arrives.

The Portfolio Problem

For a single-property owner, keeping track of changing requirements can already require attention.

For a portfolio owner, the challenge is different.

Imagine a portfolio with buildings in Toronto, Denver, New York and another municipality with its own benchmarking program.

The buildings may all use ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager.

They may all have annual reporting obligations.

But the requirements surrounding those reports may not be the same.

One jurisdiction may require benchmarking and disclosure.

Another may introduce performance targets.

Another may regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Another may require third-party verification at specific intervals.

And the thresholds can differ.

This creates a fundamental distinction between managing reports and managing compliance.

A calendar of deadlines is useful.

But it is not the same as understanding the regulatory framework that sits behind those deadlines.

The Value of Expertise Is Changing

As requirements evolve, expertise in building compliance is increasingly about context.

It means knowing which requirements apply to which buildings.

It means understanding how building size, property type, location and reporting history affect obligations.

It means monitoring changes before they become deadlines.

And it means recognizing when benchmarking is only one component of a broader compliance requirement.

This is particularly important because the regulatory landscape is not static.

Natural Resources Canada identifies several Canadian provinces and municipalities that have already implemented benchmarking or related building-performance initiatives, while its current toolkit is designed to help governments develop and expand these types of policies.

In the United States, EPA continues to provide resources specifically aimed at helping state and local governments develop benchmarking and building performance standards policies.

For building owners, staying informed therefore becomes part of staying compliant.

The Bigger Shift: Reporting Is Becoming a Means, Not an End

The most important change may not be that there are more regulations.

It is that building energy data is becoming more consequential.

The information collected through benchmarking can help establish baselines, identify performance trends and inform broader policy decisions.

That creates a progression that is worth watching:

Benchmarking establishes the baseline.

Performance standards establish the expectation.

Improvements change the building's performance.

Verification can provide additional confidence in reported information where required.

The pieces are increasingly connected.

And that changes the conversation for building owners.

The question is no longer simply:

Did we submit our report?

A more forward-looking question is:

What does this data mean for our building, our portfolio and the requirements that may apply next?

Preparing for What Comes Next

There is no single North American compliance model.

That is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Instead, building owners and portfolio managers are operating in a landscape where jurisdictions are taking different approaches to benchmarking, building performance and emissions reduction.

For organizations with properties across multiple markets, the ability to understand those differences can become an important part of managing regulatory risk.

The organizations best positioned to navigate this environment will not necessarily be those that simply react to each new deadline.

They will be the ones that understand the direction of the market, know what their building data is telling them, and recognize when today's reporting requirement may be connected to tomorrow's performance expectation.

Benchmarking may have started the conversation.

The next chapter is what governments, owners and the industry do with the data.

Staying Ahead of Changing Building Requirements

As building compliance continues to evolve, understanding the requirements that apply to each property is becoming increasingly important.

For owners and portfolio managers, staying ahead means knowing not only what must be reported today, but also what additional requirements may apply as programs develop.

Learn more about building energy benchmarking, reporting, and compliance across North America.

EXPLORE ENERGY BENCHMARKING