22
T
he Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER)
recently announced that it has started the process of developing a
revised Stretch Energy Code that would be more energy efficient
than the current Stretch Energy Code (780 CMR, Appendix 120.AA).
DOER officials estimate that this revised Stretch Energy Code would
be 10% to 20% more energy efficient than the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) 2012. The DOER plans on submitting this
revised Stretch Energy Code to the Board of Building Regulations and
Standards (BBRS) for possible adoption before the end of the year.
The Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, the
Greater Boston Real Estate Board, the Massachusetts Association of
Realtors and NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Association, are all
strongly opposed to a revised Stretch Energy Code because of their
belief that it is unnecessary, burdensome and costly to both consumers
and businesses.
The Green Communities Act of 2008 mandated that Massachusetts
adopt the latest version of the IECC within a year of its publication. The
BBRS voted on July 9, 2013 to adopt the IECC 2012 with Massachusetts
amendments as the updated Massachusetts Baseline Energy Code, with
a concurrency period that ends on July 1, 2014. It is the position of the
DOER that when the Base Code is updated, the Stretch Energy Code
should also be updated.
The adoption of the IECC 2012 created a burden for homebuilders,
remodelers, contractors, subcontractors, engineers, architects and local
building officials, to learn yet another code. Massachusetts has had three
major building code changes in the past five years that have impacted the
design and construction of both commercial and residential structures.
Combined with the widespread adoption by many cities and towns of
the current Stretch Energy Code, these frequent changes are resulting in
“code exhaustion” that is costing the industry time and money, as well as
creating uneven enforcement by local building departments.
Whatever the worthy goals of energy conservation and environmental
protection that might be achieved by the adoption of the IECC 2012 and
a revised Stretch Energy Code, the financial impact upon homebuyers,
especially those of average means seeking to purchase their first home,
will be great. Given the rapidly rising cost of lumber and other materials,
as well as escalating labor costs due to the scarcity of skilled tradesmen,
the incremental additional expense of complying with the IECC 2012,
together with an even more efficient Stretch Energy Code, will surely
exacerbate the growing housing affordability gap confronting most
Massachusetts residents.
In this regard, the HBRAMA retained the energy-consulting firm of
Ekotrope, Inc. to quantify the added costs to homebuyers of ever
increasing energy code requirements in Massachusetts. In preparing its
study, Ekotrope calculated final homebuyer cost estimates using a typical
1,924 square foot single-family house designed to meet four recent
Massachusetts energy codes, as well as a possible revised Stretch Energy
Code. Component cost estimates were made by HBRAMA member,
Stephen Dixon, a custom homebuilder in Southeastern Massachusetts
and a former member of the BBRS. The components included
insulation, windows, lumber, heating and cooling equipment, as well as
labor required.
Based upon their analysis, Ekotrope concluded that the total added cost
to a homebuyer of the 8
th
Edition Base Code, the 8
th
Edition Stretch
Energy Code and the IECC 2012, when compared to the 6
th
Edition Base
Code, was a whopping $16,049. That cost increased by another $1,377
with the addition of a revised Stretch Energy Code. In addition, Ekotrope
also examined the energy and capital costs of each code compliant design
and found the maximum annual energy savings over the 6
th
Edition Base
Code was $696.
These findings proved that ever more stringent energy building codes
come at a very high price to homebuyers. And, importantly, the annual
savings in energy costs fort those same homebuyers are relatively
low, requiring many years to recapture the additional upfront cost of
purchasing a new home. Forcing a homebuyer to wait ten years or more
before he or she begins to achieve a net savings doesn’t make sense,
especially when most homes change ownership every six years.
It is important to note that the commonwealth is not a laggard when it
comes to energy conservation. Massachusetts was the first state to include
energy conservation provisions in its State Building Code. The American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy named Massachusetts the most
energy efficient state in the nation in 2011. And Massachusetts is only
one of three states to adopt the IECC 2012.
With the commonwealth just beginning to recover from the Great
Recession and its housing affordability gap widening, now is the worst
time to impose additional costs on young couples and middle income
families desperately trying to buy their first home. The Stretch Energy
Code and the IECC 2012 have already substantially increased the cost
of building new homes in Massachusetts. To make the Stretch Energy
Code even more stringent is both environmentally unjustified and
economically indefensible.
Benjamin Fierro, III is a partner in the Boston law firm of Lynch & Fierro LLP and serves as
counsel to the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts.
REVISED STRETCH ENERGY
CODE IN THE OFFING
By Benjamin Fierro, III
