1
April 22, 2024
Nyasha Smith, Secretary
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Secretary Smith:
Today, along with Councilmembers Matthew Frumin, Zachary Parker, and Robert C. White, Jr., I
am introducing the “Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act of 2024.”
Please find enclosed a signed copy of the legislation.
Critical to all of our work to address the outsized role buildings play in the District’s greenhouse
gas emissions is reducing barriers or burdens that prevent homeowners, developers, and
business owners from including energy resiliency and energy- and water-efficiency upgrades at
their properties. One barrier that some homeowners face when seeking to implement these
upgrades, including to install solar, are restrictions stemming from their property’s location in a
historic district.
There are currently 70 historic districts in the District, the vast majority of which encompass large
swaths of residential property. Homeowners living in a historic district – rightfully – face a
number of limitations on how they may upgrade or otherwise change historic elements of their
property, including exterior elements that are visible from the roadway. Application of these
standards is at the discretion of the Historic Preservation Review Board (“HPRB”), which has a
legislative mandate focused on the preservation of the character of historic properties and
communities. But its mandate does not include consideration of other compelling factors, such
as how a proposal might promote a property’s resiliency or energy-efficiency.
Unfortunately, this means that the District’s historic preservation efforts may be placed at odds
with property owners’ efforts to make critical climate-focused upgrades to their property—or,
where upgrades have been permitted, those proposals have often been restricted in their scope
or siting, where those changes may result in a diminished benefit to the District in terms of
meeting our RPS and climate goals. It is also worth noting that it is unclear how many property
owners within historic districts decide to not even pursue these upgrades due to the impression 2
that their requests will be denied. Taken together, this approach to historic preservation results
in neighborhood aesthetics and historic character being given absolute precedence over
strategies to mitigate climate change - and the environmental and public health impacts that
come with it.
With this in mind, in December 2019, HPRB updated its sustainability guidelines. These new
guidelines were issued just two months after a widely reported HPRB hearing in which the HPRB
denied a resident’s application for a solar panel installation on their property, located in a historic
district with a front-facing sloped roof. HPRB’s determination was in line with its practice of
denying applications for visible solar installations in historic districts. While the 2019
sustainability guidelines were a step in the right direction, those standards still permit HPRB to
scale back upgrades based on the size, location, and visibility of the installation, and HPRB also
still retains authority to deny applications for critical sustainability upgrades based on these
considerations. The urgency of our work to address climate change demands that we take action
to ensure these upgrades can move forward—but, as much as possible, in a manner that
preserves the historic character of these properties.
This legislation would address this balance by making several small but meaningful changes to
how HPRB reviews applications for resiliency or efficiency upgrades at properties within historic
districts, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure, heat
pumps, and energy- and water-efficiency upgrades, such as appliances, fixtures, insulation,
ventilation systems, windows and door upgrades, and other similar design elements. Specifically,
the legislation clarifies that such upgrades are to be considered by HRPB as within the character
of a historic district; however, under the bill, HPRB would retain the authority to propose
alternatives to a proposed upgrade, where the alternative would provide the same energy
resiliency or energy- and water-efficiency benefits as the upgrade proposed in the property
owner’s application. Of note, this new policy would apply only to properties within historic
districts, not to those properties designated as historic landmarks. The changes in the bill will
help ensure that these critical investments in energy resiliency and energy- and water-efficiency
can move forward at these properties, while retaining the authority of HPRB to provide guidance
on how those upgrades can be implemented such that they do not alter the property’s historic
character.
Please feel free to reach out to me or my Legislative Director, Antonio Nunes, with any questions
or for additional information.
Sincerely,
Charles Allen, Ward 6 Councilmember
Chair, Committee on Transportation & the Environment
1
___________________________ ______________________________ 1
Councilmember Matthew Frumin Councilmember Charles Allen 2
3
4
___________________________ ______________________________ 5
Councilmember Zachary Parker Councilmember Robert C. White, Jr. 6
7
8
9
A BILL 10
11
______________ 12
13
14
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 15
16
_____________________ 17
18
19
To amend the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 to require that the 20
Historic Preservation Review Board consider, for a building or structure in a historic 21
district, proposed alterations that include the installation or construction of design elements 22
promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency as within the character of the 23
historic district, provided that the Board may propose reasonable alternatives that produce 24
energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency benefits that are substantially similar to 25
the proposed design element. 26
27
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this 28
act may be cited as the “Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act of 29
2024”. 30
Sec. 2. The Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, effective 31
March 3, 1979 (D.C. Law 2-144; D.C. Official Code § 6-1101 et seq.), is amended as follows: 32
(a) Section 2(b)(1) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1101(b)(1)) is amended as follows: 33
(1) Subparagraph (B) is amended by striking the phrase “district; and” and inserting 34
the phrase “district while promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency at these 35
properties; and” in its place. 36
2
(2) Subparagraph (C) is amended by striking the phrase “district;” and inserting the 37
phrase “district while promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency at these 38
properties;” in its place. 39
(b) Section 3 (D.C. Official Code § 6-1102) is amended as follows: 40
(1) New paragraphs (4B) and (4C) are amended to read as follows: 41
“(4B) “Electric vehicle charging infrastructure” means the equipment used to 42
charge the battery or other energy storage device of an electric vehicle. 43
“(4C) “Electric vehicle make-ready infrastructure” means the electrical 44
infrastructure, structural upgrades, and other equipment necessary for the installation and operation 45
of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.”. 46
(2) A new paragraph (10B) is added to read as follows: 47
“(10B) “Solar panels” shall include: 48
“(A) Solar panels mounted on the exterior of a building or structure; or 49
“(B) Ground-mount solar panels, where there is a building or structure 50
elsewhere on the property.”. 51
(c) Section 6(f) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1105(f)) is amended to read as follows: 52
“(f)(1) No permit shall be issued unless the Mayor finds that: 53
“(A) Such issuance is necessary in the public interest; 54
“(B) Failure to issue a permit will result in unreasonable economic hardship 55
to the owner; or 56
“(C) For a building or structure in a historic district, the alteration includes 57
the installation or construction of design elements promoting energy resiliency and water and 58
energy efficiency, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure, 59
3
heat pumps, or energy or water efficiency upgrades, or weatherization of the building or structure; 60
provided, that: 61
“(i) The Historic Preservation Review Board may propose 62
reasonable alternatives that produce energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency benefits 63
substantially similar to the proposed design element; and 64
“(ii) The Mayor may limit the scope of work allowed under the 65
permit to the design elements listed in this subparagraph where the Mayor determines that other 66
alterations included in the application are not necessary in the public interest. 67
“(2) For permits issued under paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the applicant 68
shall make best efforts to protect and preserve historic elements.”. 69
(d) Section 8(f) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1107(f)) is amended to read as follows: 70
“(f)(1) The permit shall be issued unless the Mayor, after due consideration of the zoning 71
laws and regulations of the District, finds that the design of the building and the character of the 72
historic district or historic landmark are incompatible; provided, that: 73
“(A) In any case in which an application is made for the construction of an 74
additional building or structure on a lot upon which there is presently a building or structure, the 75
Mayor may deny a construction permit entirely where the Mayor finds that any additional 76
construction will be incompatible with the character of the historic district or historic landmark; 77
and 78
“(B) The Mayor shall find the following design elements compatible with 79
the character of all historic districts; provided, the Historic Preservation Review Board may 80
propose reasonable alternatives that produce energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency 81
benefits that are substantially similar to the proposed design element: 82
4
“(i) Solar panels; 83
“(ii) Electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure; 84
“(iii) Heat pumps; 85
“(iv) Design elements designed to increase the energy or water 86
efficiency of the building or structure, including appliances, fixtures, insulation, ventilation 87
systems, windows and door upgrades, and other design elements. 88
“(2) Notwithstanding a finding of incompatibility, the Mayor may find that the 89
issuance of the permit is necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit.”. 90
(e) Section 9a(f) (D.C. Official Code § 6-1108.01(f)) is amended to read as follows: 91
“(f)(1) No permit shall be issued unless: 92
“(A) The Mayor finds that such issuance of a permit is necessary in the 93
public interest. Upon making such a finding, the Mayor shall issue an order defining the nature of 94
the approved conceptual design and specifying any further consultation the Mayor considers 95
appropriate prior to the submission of the application required in sections 5(b), 6(b), 7(b), or 8(b) 96
of this act, or; 97
“(B) For public safety facilities within a historic district, the renovation or 98
new construction would include the installation of design elements that produce energy resiliency 99
or water and energy efficiency benefits, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-100
ready infrastructure, heat pumps, energy or water efficiency upgrades, or weatherization of the 101
building or structure; provided, that: 102
“(i) The Historic Preservation Review Board may propose 103
reasonable alternatives that produce energy resiliency or water and energy efficiency benefits 104
substantially similar to the proposed design element; and 105
5
“(ii) The Mayor may limit the scope of work allowed under the 106
permit to the design elements listed in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection where the Mayor 107
determines that other alterations included in the application are not necessary in the public interest. 108
“(2) For permits issued under paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the applicant 109
shall make best efforts to protect and preserve historic elements.”. 110
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 111
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Budget Director as the fiscal impact 112
statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, approved 113
October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 114
Sec. 4. Effective date. 115
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the 116
Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of congressional review as 117
provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 118
1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of 119
Columbia Register. 120