Deanna Moran

Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring buildings are prepared for climate change?  

That’s the question facing design professionals and other decision makers, as cases are popping up across the country in the aftermath of extreme weather about the liability of these professionals in light of increasingly public information on the foreseeability of climate risks.  

While architects and engineers are responsible for designing new buildings and other infrastructure, they are ultimately accountable to their clients who make final decisions – especially when it affects the project budget. For many developers, that means complying with code requirements and nothing more.  

But compliance with codes alone is not necessarily a liability shield, which may leave those design professionals asking: why don’t state codes account for climate change?  

Current Code Has Serious Shortcomings 

In Massachusetts, the state building code is the minimum standard for public health and safety and the decision to incorporate any measures beyond its requirements is left up to individual property owners and developers. For cities and towns, the state building code is also a ceiling. Cities and towns do not have the authority to adopt building code standards that are inconsistent with the state code, even if they are more stringent.  

In a new report, “The Massachusetts State Building Code & Climate Change,” the Conservation Law Foundation looks at how the current Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC) falls short on responding to the realities of climate change.  

Specifically, the MSBC relies entirely on historical meteorology to regulate the built environment and ignores increasingly sophisticated and accurate climate modeling of future conditions. We know that climate change will make conditions much worse than the historical data imply. This method presents a significant barrier for cities and towns engaged in local adaptation planning efforts under the state’s newly minted Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness program. Even if they want to include new standards that address climate change, they cannot.    

The MSBC also fails to establish the minimum energy and efficiency standards we already know are needed for the commonwealth to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction mandate under the Global Warming Solutions Act.  

The building sector accounts for over half of all energy consumption in Massachusetts, and a third of all direct greenhouse gas emissions. The commonwealth’s once nation–leading “stretch energy code,” established under the Patrick administration, is in desperate need of reinvigoration or even wholesale revision to address the impact that buildings have on the environment.  

Updates Crucial for Health, Safety 

Despite the current challenges, the MSBC could be the starting point for protecting the region’s economy, and the health and safety of our communities.  

Design and construction standards, material specifications, validated climate projections and updated siting criteria can help communities become more resilient and recover more quickly after extreme weather events. More efficient energy systems, distributed generation, microgrids, and standards for protecting energy equipment and utilities can dramatically increase the resilience of the built environment to extreme weather.  

But changing a slow and incremental codification process to one that can respond to rapidly evolving conditions remains a significant challenge.  

The good news is that there are pathways for change.  

Some Massachusetts cities, including Boston and Cambridge, have already begun to pursue non-code alternatives to encourage adaptation and mitigation. Meanwhile, there are opportunities at the state level to update the code, through either the Board of Building Regulations and Standards or the legislature. Gov. Charlie Baker has even indicated his support for building code changes.  

At the same time, Massachusetts can have an impact on a national scale and influence the International Code Council’s model codes by registering municipal officials to vote for better, safer, and more efficient standards.   

This is more than a liability issue for design professionals – it is critically necessary to ensure the safety and health of commonwealth residents. Whichever option is chosen, we have no time to waste in addressing this challenge.   

Deanna Moran is director of environmental planning at the Conservation Law Foundation.