A Building Performance Standard (BPS) is a local or state law that sets a required energy or emissions target for existing buildings, backed by annual benchmarking and, in many places, a periodic retro-commissioning or tune-up cycle to prove the building meets that target. More than 50 U.S. states and cities have adopted one, and the list keeps growing.
If your building sits in one of these jurisdictions, retro-commissioning is often the fastest, lowest-capital way to close the gap between what your equipment was designed to do and what it is doing today. Below is a plain-language guide to what these laws require, who they cover, and how a monitoring-based approach to commissioning keeps a building on the right side of the deadline.
A BPS combines three elements: mandatory energy and water benchmarking (usually reported through ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager), a performance target expressed as energy use intensity or greenhouse gas emissions per square foot, and an enforcement mechanism such as fines or an alternative compliance payment for buildings that miss the target. Some jurisdictions add a required audit, tune-up, or retro-commissioning cycle as a compliance pathway or a standalone obligation. The ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool is the platform most of these programs point to for annual reporting.
As of 2026, eight states have statewide benchmarking or performance requirements: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. At the city level, more than 50 jurisdictions have enacted their own ordinances, including New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Denver, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia, according to Facilities Dive's 2026 map of building performance standards. The Institute for Market Transformation tracks adoption through the National Building Performance Standards Coalition, which launched in 2022 to help states and cities share a common framework.
Most programs share a similar structure, though the specifics vary by jurisdiction:
Penalty structures differ widely by jurisdiction, and building owners should confirm exact figures with their local program office, but reported ranges include: New York City assesses $268 per metric ton of CO2 over the building's cap under Local Law 97, Boston allows a compliance payment of roughly $234 per metric ton under BERDO 2.0, Philadelphia charges an initial penalty of about $2,000 followed by $500 per day of continued noncompliance, Boulder charges up to $0.0025 per square foot per day (capped at $1,000 per day), and Seattle's benchmarking violations run $2,000 to $4,000 annually, per figures compiled by Envigilance and EnergyCX. For a portfolio of buildings, these figures compound quickly, and a missed deadline in one city does not excuse the requirement in another.
| Jurisdiction | Benchmarking Requirement | Performance Target / Deadline | Retro-Commissioning or Tune-Up Cycle |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York City (Local Law 97 / 87) | Annual, via ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager | 40% emissions reduction by 2030, 80% by 2050 | Energy audit and retro-commissioning every 10 years |
| Boston (BERDO 2.0) | Annual | Net zero emissions by 2050, interim caps every 5 years | Compliance payment option (~$234/metric ton) if targets are missed |
| Philadelphia | Annual | Building-specific energy targets | Tune-up required every 5 years |
| Los Angeles | Annual | Energy and water performance targets by building type | Energy audit, water audit, and retro-commissioning every 5 years |
| Boulder, Colorado | Annual | Energy performance targets by building type | Tune-up every 10 years using measures with a 2-year or shorter payback |
| Seattle | Annual | Energy use intensity targets by building type | Compliance pathway varies by building performance history |
Figures above are compiled from publicly reported sources current as of 2026. Confirm exact requirements and deadlines for your specific address with the local program office before making compliance decisions.
Retro-commissioning identifies where a building's HVAC, controls, and mechanical systems have drifted from their original design intent and corrects those issues, often without major capital investment. A one-time retro-commissioning project can recover a meaningful share of a building's energy waste, but it also gives you a single point-in-time snapshot. Systems drift again as sensors age, setpoints get overridden, and occupancy patterns change.
Monitoring-Based Commissioning (MBCx) extends that same diagnostic process into an ongoing, data-driven cycle. Instead of waiting for the next mandated audit cycle to discover a fault, MBCx uses continuous fault detection and analytics to flag equipment operating outside its intended parameters as soon as the drift starts, so corrections happen throughout the year rather than only when a compliance deadline forces the issue. For a BPS with a benchmarking requirement every year and a formal retro-commissioning cycle every five or ten years, that continuous verification is what keeps the annual benchmarking numbers moving in the right direction between audits, rather than sliding backward until the next mandated tune-up catches it.
Coverage thresholds vary by jurisdiction, but most programs apply to commercial, multifamily, or municipal buildings between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet and larger. Smaller buildings are often exempt, though thresholds can be lower in some cities, so owners should check the specific ordinance for their address.
No. Benchmarking is the annual measurement and reporting step, usually done through ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. Compliance means the building also meets its assigned performance target or emissions cap for that reporting period. A building can benchmark every year and still face penalties if its energy or emissions numbers exceed the target.
An energy audit typically identifies a list of potential upgrades, some of which require capital investment. Retro-commissioning focuses specifically on existing equipment and controls, correcting how systems operate against their original design intent, often at a lower cost since it uses equipment already in place.
Monitoring-Based Commissioning works alongside a jurisdiction's mandated cycle rather than replacing the filing requirement. MBCx keeps performance on track between mandated audits through continuous fault detection, which makes each formal retro-commissioning or tune-up filing easier to pass because the building has been tracked and corrected all year rather than left to drift.
Consequences vary by jurisdiction and can include a per-day fine, a per-square-foot annual penalty, or an alternative compliance payment calculated per metric ton of emissions above the cap. Some cities also allow extensions or compliance plans for buildings actively pursuing upgrades, so it helps to engage with the local program office as soon as a shortfall is identified.
Targets are typically designed to tighten on a set schedule, often every five years, to drive continuous improvement rather than a single compliance event. Owners should expect their emissions or energy use caps to become stricter over time, which makes an ongoing monitoring approach more valuable than a one-time fix aimed only at today's threshold.
A building's first move should be confirming which benchmarking and performance requirements apply to its address, since thresholds, targets, and retro-commissioning cycles differ from one jurisdiction to the next. From there, a facility team can compare current energy use intensity against the applicable target and decide whether a retro-commissioning project, an ongoing monitoring program, or both make sense for the timeline involved.
Aero Performance Group's Monitoring-Based Commissioning (MBCx) services are built around exactly this problem: keeping a building's actual performance aligned with its target year-round, rather than only at the moment a mandated audit is due. Our team combines continuous fault detection with hands-on retro-commissioning expertise, so a building stays ahead of its benchmarking numbers instead of scrambling to explain them after the fact.