Port Moody council adopts zero-emission building policy

Port Moody has committed to building all future civic facilities to net-zero emission standards.

The adoption of the new Zero Emission Municipal Building Policy on Sept. 9 marked a significant climate milestone for the city, but council was divided on approving the policy, which came down to a 5–2 vote. 

All new city buildings, as well as major additions and renovations, are now required to be designed and operated to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. That means meeting the highest tiers of B.C.’s Energy Step Code and Zero Carbon Step Code, mandating all-electric heating and cooling systems, and incorporating measures such as renewable energy generation, low-carbon building materials, and flood and heat resilience.

Mayor Meghan Lahti praised the move as aligning with Port Moody’s strategic plan and climate goals.

“I think it shows good leadership to require the same of ourselves as we do for any other building that’s getting built in Port Moody,” Mayor Meghan Lahti said. “This is something everybody should be doing.”

Port Moody’s Climate Action Plan, adopted in 2020, set ambitious targets of reducing community-wide emissions by 40 percent (from 2007) by 2030, and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

Hitting the city’s targets for building emissions, which account for 46 percent of the city’s total output, could cost as much as $5.9 million.

In 2024, Port Moody moved ahead with environmental requirements for new developments – requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral by early 2025, and to meet the highest efficiency tiers by 2027. 

Critics warn of unclear costs and rigid rules

Couns. Kyla Knowles and Callan Morrison were not totally opposed to the policy, but raised concerns over its language, cost implications, and timing.

Knowles zeroed in on the corporate policy’s prescriptive language, criticizing the repeated use of “must” and “need” throughout the draft rather than softer and more flexible language.

“I much prefer the parts of the policy that say ‘shall prioritize’ or ‘make best efforts to,’” she said, adding that she was uneasy about potential cost offsetting for falling short of the targets.

The policy states that if a city building still produces emissions after all efficiency measures are tried, the city would have to put extra money into its Climate Action Reserve or back into the building for future upgrades.

“It seems like based on this draft policy, we have outlined penalties for ourselves if we don’t achieve these goals, and that includes having to purchase carbon offsets,” Knowles said.

Engineering project manager Sandy Tolentino countered that without such measures, the city would find it “almost impossible” to meet its emissions targets.

Knowles also questioned whether residents see climate leadership as a priority over the city’s financial pressures.

“While we have a part to play in this, this is putting a lot on Port Moody right now . . . I can’t support this draft policy, because the level of commitment being contemplated is significant, and it’s not clear to me how much it’s going to cost the city.”

Coun. Callan Morrison also pressed for more flexibility. 

He argued the policy should explicitly require side-by-side budget comparisons: one showing compliance with provincial minimum codes, the other showing costs to meet Port Moody’s higher zero-emission standard.

“Our public needs to know the cost difference before we get too far down a path,” Morrison said. “To just automatically assign every building to the highest standard . . . without a true analysis of the cost differences, I can’t support that.”

Tolentino said consultants could provide that information on a project-by-project basis, as they did for the Inlet Fieldhouse, which showed a 3.7 percent cost increase. But she cautioned costs vary: studies show between 2 and 8 percent higher, though early design can often make projects cost-neutral or even cheaper over their lifespan.

Supporters cite climate urgency and long-term savings

Several councillors voiced strong support, pointing to both environmental necessity and lifecycle cost savings.

Coun. Samantha Agtarap said she was encouraged by requirements for commissioning and staff training, adding that her colleagues were getting “too hung up on the upfront capital costs.”

“As we heard from staff, we spent $800,000 in energy costs in 2024,” she said. “If you look at the cost over the life cycle of a building, these measures will pay for themselves.”

Coun. Amy Lubik highlighted the importance of designing for both mitigation and adaptation, especially considering the rate of extreme weather effects already affecting Canadians on an annual basis. 

She said the last atmospheric river event cost the City of Coquitlam around $500,000 in repairs, and Canadian municipalities are estimated to spend $5.3 billion annually on climate costs.

Lubik noted the increasing frequency of floods and atmospheric rivers in recent years.

“For the last two years, forest fires across B.C. have not gone out even in the winter. We have those zombie fires,” she said. “If every government was actually trying to be a climate leader and trying to meet those targets, we wouldn’t have any problems. . . . We can show what we want others to do, and that it can be done.”

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki strongly rejected watering down the language. “When I hear, ‘Oh, we should change something to may instead of must,’ I hear ‘won’t,’” she said. “We need to have those ‘musts’ in there as requirements to get the things done in our community that we need to have done.”

Lurbiecki noted the policy flows directly from the city’s own climate strategy: “This is our own goals, our own policy for our own buildings. We’ve already committed to them because we’ve already adopted a climate strategy that we’re funding.”

Coun. Diana Dilworth expressed support for moving forward, but also echoed some of Knowles’ points.

However, she said that technology is evolving quickly and costs continue to be studied by outside parties.

“We don’t always have to be the leader,” Dilworth said. “Does that mean we wait two years to get moving on this? Absolutely not.”

Deferral attempt fails

Knowles moved to defer the decision for more public input and cost analysis, with Morrison in support.

But Lahti and a majority of council rejected the delay. “We are never going to be able to be satisfied with exactly what the cost is going to be, but we cannot afford not to do this,” she said.

Morrison introduced an amendment to introduce side-by-side cost price comparisons with provincial standards, which was also defeated.