Co-authors
Grace Hut, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
James Burton, Jessica Miller, Rajiv Ravulapati, Institute for Market Transformation
Daniel Carpenter-Gold, Ernesto Villaseñor, Public Health Law Center
Abstract
Governments across the U.S. are increasingly exploring the use of Community Accountability Boards (CABs) to guide the design and implementation of climate policies, such as Building Performance Standards (BPS). These boards are intended to ensure that communities that have been historically excluded from policymaking, such as residential tenants, EJ communities, and low-income laborers, have the power to make decisions on policies and procedures that impact their communities. Yet, few studies examine whether these boards meaningfully shift power to frontline communities or merely provide symbolic participation. To date, only Boston, Massachusetts, and Evanston, Illinois have a formally established CAB for their BPS. In Boston, the Review Board’s role is to ensure the equitable implementation of the city’s BPS, with the Healthy Buildings Accountability Board in Evanston playing the same role respectively. Seattle’s Green New Deal Oversight Board is similar; it broadly represents the aforementioned communities but falls short of granting members decision-making authority.
This paper presents a dual case study of the respective boards in Boston and Seattle, two of the nation’s most established models. We evaluate each board’s legislative authority, transparency, influence, and shifts in representational makeup. We also assess design choices, membership selection, data access, and how much staff support and compensation they receive. We conclude with design recommendations for evolving these bodies into enforceable accountability structures. By analyzing these two models, this paper offers actionable lessons for governments seeking to embed equity in climate governance and institutionalize community power.
