State officials appear to have significantly scaled back stringent new regulations that would force large-format retail developments to install solar panels. But those gains may be temporary, a Boston attorney told a NAIOP Massachusetts forum this morning.

Speaking at a NAIOP roundtable on Massachusetts’ evolving regulatory climate, Mark Kalpin, a partner in WilmerHale’s Regulatory and Government Affairs practice, said state environmental regulators look to have scrapped the most far-reaching aspects of their new retail solar mandate, which is scheduled to take effect next year.

The Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office (MEPA) have been pushing developers to install photovoltaic solar arrays on all new mall or big-box retail developments bigger than 50,000 square feet, Kalpin said. MEPA had keyed in on solar, he added, in part because Gov. Deval Patrick has pledged to significantly expand the state’s production of solar power. Patrick has also been a vocal backer of the solar panel manufacturing industry. One such manufacturer, Evergreen Solar, has relocated its plant to the state-owned Devens community.

The problem with the solar mandate, Kalpin said, was that it cost more, and achieved less in the way of efficiency, than other energy-saving measures.

"Why should there be an exclusive focus on solar arrays if you could put the money into additional roof insulation and get a greater reduction? There needs to be a recognition that it’s [return on investment], not payback, that drives investment."

Kalpin, who served as a NAIOP representative on a task force reviewing the proposed regulation, said that after a sustained lobbying effort, he believes the state is in the process of dropping the solar mandate. (Final regulations are expected to be released later this month, but may be delayed.)

"It will be a project-specific evaluation," he predicted. He added that when MEPA issues its final regulations, the minimum building size covered by the policies will be 100,000 square feet, up from 50,000. The flipside to the project-specific reviews, he said, will likely be a requirement that project proponents design solar-ready roofs.

In a statement, Tamara Small, NAIOP’s director of policy & public affairs, stressed the fact that state environmental regulators have yet to release any official guidelines.

"NAIOP has been actively involved in the Retail Solar Task Force advisory committee, but to date, no draft regulations or policies have been issued," Small said. "It is our understanding that the administration is now reviewing the notes from the various committee meetings and a draft policy will be issued at some point. We do not know when that will happen or what will (or will not) be included. We continue to urge regulators to consider the costs and various logistical challenges associated with a policy requiring solar panels on all retail properties larger than 50,000 square feet."

Also at the NAIOP forum, Robert Fishman, head of the land use practice at Nutter McClennen and Fish, said a legislative committee is in the process of refining down a pair of zoning reform bills – and he’s not liking the way it’s shaping up. Committee chairs are taking a pair of bills NAIOP opposes – one from the Mass. Municipal Association, and one from the Patrick administration that sought to correct the MMA’s bill – and are cobbling a new bill out of pieces of the two.

"Conceptually, you’re taking stuff out of one bad bill, and stuff out of one not-as-bad bill, and you get a hybrid that’s supposed to make everybody happy," Fishman said. "It seems a little optimistic."

Small again took an official "wait and see" stance on zoning reform that echoed the organization’s position on environmental rules.

"NAIOP has provided extensive comments to the Legislature on several zoning reform bills now before the Joint Committee on Municipalities & Regional Government," Small wrote to Banker & Tradesman. "While we continue to have concerns with aspects of some of these bills, we look forward to a continued discussion on this very important issue as the Committee drafts a final bill. Since the Committee has not issued a draft of its bill, we cannot take a position on something that does not yet exist."