At the heart of the board’s debate was the future of the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund, a cornerstone of Boston’s strategy to reduce emissions in line with its climate goals. The fund, which is intended to support building decarbonization, particularly in environmental justice communities, was the subject of thorough scrutiny as board members deliberated over the best approach to manage and distribute the resources effectively and equitably.

The first option under consideration involved a grant application process targeting nonprofit organizations with a track record in building decarbonization services. This approach was seen as potentially limiting due to the small pool of eligible nonprofits, exemplified by New Ecology. The second option would allow the review board to exercise more control by directly procuring a contract with a vendor to oversee the decarbonization services. Concerns were raised about the administrative costs associated with managing the fund and the potential impact on smaller organizations.

The discussion took on a legal dimension as the board explored the implications of the anti-aid amendment and the uniform procurement act, which govern the use of operating dollars for the fund. The debate extended to the appropriate use of ACP funds, which some members suggested could be deployed for a broader range of environmental projects, such as tree planting in neighborhoods lacking green space. The inclusiveness and flexibility of the Equitable Investment Fund ordinance were called into question, with the board expressing apprehension over the potential dilution of control and the narrowed field of nonprofit candidates if ACP funds were reallocated to these broader initiatives.

Board members admitted to a lack of detailed knowledge regarding this comparison and invited the commenter to provide additional information.

Moreover, the board faced the challenge of engaging a wider array of voices in the decision-making process. A low response rate to a survey intended to gather stakeholder input prompted the suggestion of a more aggressive outreach campaign. The possibility of extending the public comment period until the end of the month was proposed to ensure that more feedback could be incorporated into the board’s deliberations.

The oversight of nonprofit funding and the selection of projects for the investment fund were also on the agenda. The board acknowledged the difficulty of eliciting useful feedback, citing burnout and capacity issues among stakeholders. Despite a commitment to intentional engagement, the reality of stakeholder fatigue was recognized as a potential barrier to effective participation.

In addition to fund allocation, the board’s operations were a topic of administrative discussion. The city has engaged RDH to provide technical capacity building, and board members were encouraged to complete a survey on technical topics to inform building decarbonization strategies.

The board also touched upon the nomination of Hanan Farooqi to the review board seat and the upcoming Air Pollution Control Commission hearing set to review and vote on updates to regulations. The potential adjustment of the meeting scheduled for May 27th was discussed to avoid conflicts that could hinder participation.