In its zeal to lead the nation in “green” policymaking, the Patrick Administration successfully convinced the Massachusetts Legislature to enact a series of bills to promote energy conservation, energy efficiency and the growth of the green technology sector. But critics of these measures, as well as a number of regulatory initiatives, have claimed that the administration is pursing a “green agenda” that fails to adequately consider the cost burden they impose upon businesses and consumers. Now comes the proposed Stretch Energy Code, providing strong evidence of the validity of that claim.
The Board of Building Regulations and Standards, in collaboration with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, as proposed an optional amendment to the 7th Edition Massachusetts Building Code. This optional “stretch” code has been developed in response to pressure by environmental activists and the renewable energy industry. Cities and towns in the commonwealth may adopt the Stretch Energy Code as an alternative to the base energy efficiency requirements of the current code, as well as the forthcoming 8th Edition, which will be based on the recently published 2009 International Energy Conservation Code.
Residential and commercial builders and developers are extremely concerned about the negative impacts of the proposed Stretch Energy Code on their industry and the public. Homebuilders take pride in producing high quality, energy efficient and safe homes at a competitive price. While they support efforts to increase energy efficiency, the additional upfront costs imposed by the Stretch Energy Code greatly exceed the short and medium-term savings to prospective homebuyers.
Stretched Thin
If adopted as currently written, the Stretch Energy Code will substantially increase the cost of housing in Massachusetts and will be a barrier to homeownership for thousands of young families, first-time homebuyers and seniors. The Board of Building Regulations and Standards itself estimates that the Stretch Energy Code will add approximately $10,000 to the cost of a “typical” three-bedroom home. Homebuilders believe that the true cost for a 2,400 square foot home is approximately twice that. Indeed, complying with the strictest provisions of the Stretch Energy Code may require solar panels on all new single-family homes!
Notwithstanding their additional cost, many homebuilders offer higher energy efficient construction technologies to prospective buyers. These homebuyers thoughtfully weigh the cost versus the benefits of energy upgrades and make decisions based upon their own finances and family needs. That choice should be left to the consumer and not dictated by bureaucrats.
The home building industry is committed to a uniform State Building Code. Adopting the Stretch Energy Code would clearly undermine its uniformity and establish a precedent for the adoption of future “local option” codes based upon lobbying by a particular manufacturer, business or special interest group. And in the absence of unique local conditions, where is the justification of having different energy code provisions in different communities? Finally, some communities may also use a local option code as a de facto means of “snob zoning” by pricing homes out of the reach of low and moderate-income families.
Although the proponents of the Stretch Energy Code imply that the state is required to adopt it, that’s simply not the case. The Green Communities Act of 2009 only requires the Board of Building Regulations and Standards to adopt the latest version of the International Energy Conservation Code within one year of its release. The board has yet to adopt the 2009 edition of that code. Consequently, it is premature for the board to even be considering the adoption of any additional energy requirements.
“Green at all cost” is always bad public policy. But it is particularly unconscionable to impose unnecessary financial burdens upon consumers during this economic recession.
For the time being, the Stretch Energy Code should be tossed onto the compost pile.
