Boston and Cambridge have taken significant steps this year toward developing thoughtful public policy approaches to developing and implementing clean energy practices. The Cambridge Compact for a Sustainable Future is a city-, Harvard- and MIT-led effort to engage stakeholders across the private-public spectrum to recommend policy initiatives on issues from energy efficiency and renewable energy to storm water management.
Just two days after the compact was signed on May 6, Boston’s City Council approved a Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance, proposed less than three months before by Mayor Tom Menino, which will result in energy ratings for all buildings over 35,000 square feet.
Cambridge is a leader in sustainable development. In addition to the Community Compact, Cambridge was an early adopter of the Commonwealth’s Stretch Energy Code and is currently developing a green buildings proposal similar to, and potentially better than, Boston’s ordinance.
Most of Cambridge’s newest buildings have achieved LEED (Leader in Energy and Environmental Design) designations from the U.S. Green Building Council. You can find a 2012 map of LEED registered buildings in Cambridge at www.cambridgema.gov/CDD that conveys the density. Cambridge has more LEED-certified properties than any municipality in Massachusetts. According to research by Joe Halpern earlier this year, Massachusetts trails only two states in LEED-certified space per capita.
The Connolly Petition on net-zero building emissions, which is in the public hearings stage in Cambridge, presents a potential setback to good public policy around sustainability. The petitioner’s website, www.netzerocambridge.org, presents a delightfully well-done video by Nadeem Mazen on how petitioners see net-zero working. New developments over 25,000 square feet would be required to meet a zero greenhouse gas emissions standard, by either using on-site renewable energy sources or purchasing off-site energy from renewable sources. With large buildings producing the lion’s share of emissions in Cambridge, such a requirement would enable Cambridge to act locally against climate change. It sounds easy, but there is a melting glacier full of evidence that suggests adoption of net-zero in Cambridge would have contrary results.
Wind Turbines In Central?
According to a range of experts, some of whom testified against the proposal at a Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee meeting in August, current renewable generation technologies simply don’t enable on-site renewables generation. Wind turbines are unlikely for Central Square and photovoltaic arrays require a far greater acreage than could feasibly be accommodated in Cambridge’s commercial areas. The alternative route of purchasing renewable energy certificates on the private market would add significant operating costs and drive up commercial lease rates, making development of significant buildings cost prohibitive. So, a great concern of opponents to net-zero is that rather than supporting green building construction, the petition’s provisions would effectively end all green building development in Cambridge, driving new construction out of Cambridge and dooming to continued wasteful energy use existing older buildings that would otherwise be candidates for renovation.
The petition fails to distinguish buildings types. Buildings that house the life sciences, for example, have higher energy needs than most office or residential buildings. Driven by a green agenda and economic bottom lines, new buildings coming online that service the life sciences are energy efficient.
Consider the LEED-certified buildings that have been developed for biopharmaceutical users, such as the LEED Platinum Genzyme Center at 500 Kendall; Novartis’ LEED Gold building at 250 Main St.; BioMed’s LEED Gold building at 650 East Kendall; and LEED Silver building at 675 West Kendall. Alexandria Center’s campus on Binney Street, in construction, is LEED registered, as is 400 Technology Square, and 215 First St. Skanska’s new building at 150 Second St. is designed to meet LEED Gold standards. The list includes many renovated buildings, such as Sanofi’s space at 640 Memorial Drive – a building originally constructed in 1913 to make Model T automobiles, now LEED registered.
Some advocates of the proposal hope Cambridge will be the first city in the nation to adopt such a measure. But, it’s better to be right than first. Because of costs associated with meeting the net-zero standard, the provisions of the Connolly Petition would end the development of substantial commercial projects in Cambridge, compelling new energy efficient projects to go elsewhere. Surely there are better pathways to leadership in sustainability than this?
Peter Abair is director of economic development and global affairs at the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council (MassBio).
