The HVAC systems on the roof of 888 Boylston St. in Boston. Photo by James Sanna | Banker & Tradesman Staff
New Boston developments will be required to comply with new clean energy regulations likely to increase project and long-term operating costs.
The Boston Zoning Commission approved the new net-zero carbon zoning Wednesday morning by an 8-3 vote, after rejecting the proposal last summer.
Commissioner Ricardo Austrich said Boston needs to redouble its commitment to reducing greenhouse gases as the Trump administration seeks to roll back clean energy targets.
“To step away from this at a time we’re hearing so much negativity at the federal level would be a bad signal,” Austrich said.
The vote sets new standards for developments submitted to the city beginning July 1. The net-zero carbon zoning code applies to projects that include at least 15 housing units or 20,000 square feet of construction, and additions to existing buildings of 50,000 square feet or more.
The vote followed testimony that included a mix of support and opposition from within both the commercial and nonprofit affordable development industries. Some developers warned that unpredictability of renewable energy credit prices will expose the industry to additional financial burdens.
Christina McPike, a vice president for Boston-based WinnCompanies, urged a delay of the new standards for affordable housing projects. Samuels & Associates Principal Abe Menzin suggested that the ordinance periodically be updated if renewable energy credit prices rise.
The new zoning is designed for most buildings to attain net-zero energy standards by 2030. The deadlines are set at 2035 for laboratories and 2045 for hospitals and manufacturing buildings, all of which typically have higher energy usage.
Property owners can comply by including renewable energy sources such as solar arrays on-site, by purchasing renewable energy credits, or contributing to an equitable emissions investment fund administered by the city.
The building sector accounts for more than two-thirds of carbon emissions in Boston, according to city environmental studies, making it a target of attempts to limit fossil fuel usage linked to climate change.
$925K More Per Year for Some
Administration officials gave examples of the projected additional costs, although they acknowledged that the cost of energy credits fluctuates depending upon market conditions.
As an example of a large project, a 1.6 million-square-foot office-residential tower would have additional annual operating costs of $925,000 this year, according to a presentation at today’s meeting by Boston Planning Department Senior Infrastructure and Energy Planner Travis Anderson.
Chief of Housing Sheila Dillon said additional housing subsidies from her office will be made available for income-restricted projects to help developers complete financing.
Some commissioners still questioned the costs of hiring environmental consultants during permitting along with the ongoing compliance costs.
“We need more housing of all levels being built in Massachusetts and the city of Boston,” Commissioner Drew Leff said. “Why do we need to make it even more complicated for developers?”
Commissioner Michael DiMella was unpersuaded by the arguments, predicting that the new rules will make it more difficult to finance small residential projects.
“I have concerns this is causing more problems than it’s solving,” DiMella said before casting one of the four “no” votes.
In August, the commission rejected the new emissions standards a 6-4 vote that failed to attain a supermajority, after members wanted they would increase project costs and make developments harder to finance.
Real estate industry groups opposed the measure’s implementation, citing the high interest rate and inflationary construction cost environment.
Since the August meeting, the commission’s membership has changed. Mayor Michelle Wu did not reappoint the previous chair, Jay Hurley, who opposed the new regulations.
Editor’s note: This report has been updated to correct the number of Zoning Commissioners who voted against the proposal today and in the previous vote.
