Monthly Archives: June 2016

Senate Energy Bill to Require Home Energy Audits & Labeling

Posted on by
1

Tomorrow the Senate will be voting on its version of an energy bill that passed the House in early June. The bill includes a new requirement that single family homes, multifamily properties with less than 5 units, and condominiums must undergo an energy audit prior to the property being listed for sale. The results of the audit would need to be disclosed when the property is listed. The bill also requires the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) to establish a home energy rating and labeling system, which would be based on, but not limited to, a property’s energy consumption, energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. The property’s energy rating and label would also need to be disclosed. In addition, DOER would track and publicly report the number of home energy audits conducted and energy ratings and labels issued.

NAIOP has serious concerns with the impact this could have on the housing market, particularly in low-income communities where homeowners may not have the means to make upgrades and properties would be potentially devalued with a low score/label. NAIOP supports the Mass Save program and believes that incentives, not penalties, will do more to address energy efficiency in the Commonwealth.

A number of concerning amendments to the bill have also been filed. Amendment #8 is the climate change legislation that was passed by the Senate earlier this year. NAIOP is strongly opposed to this language due to the confusing and vague language it contains and the substantial adverse impact it would have on development. It would require all “commonwealth certificates, licenses, permits, authorizations, grants, financial obligations, projects, plans, actions, and approvals for any proposed projects, uses, or activities in and by the commonwealth” to be consistent “to the maximum extent practicable “with a yet to be developed climate plan. Clearly, this language could delay and potentially halt countless public and private projects.

Amendment #68 would mandate electric vehicle charging stations. NAIOP does not believe the building code is the right place to advance the growth of specific technologies or sectors of the economy.

Following the Senate’s vote, the bill will go to conference committee where members will have to agree to compromise language. That version of the bill would then need to go back to the House and Senate for a vote before the end of the session on July 31.

NAIOP Supports Privatization of MBTA Services

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, NAIOP testified at the MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board meeting to urge the Board to support the proposed privatization of MBTA services allowed under Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2015. As one of the organizers of the Coalition for a World-Class Public Transit System, NAIOP supported the passage of this important legislation in response to the MBTA’s complete shutdown last winter.

Many of the T’s operational impediments have originated from the inability to efficiently manage many of the non-core services. By looking at the privatized options for some of these services, the MBTA can focus on those operations of greatest value throughout the organization.  Utilizing all the tools that are available to the Board at this time is critical to balancing the operating budget and achieving necessary efficiencies.

At the hearing, NAIOP urged the Board to stay on course. There has been, and will continue to be, considerable pushback. However, getting the T back on sound financial footing and increasing the system’s reliability, should be the top priorities.

NAIOP thanks the members of the Board for all the good work they have done and their tireless commitment, focus, expertise and long-term vision to fix the T once and for all.

ViewPoint: A new stretch energy code is not justified

Posted on by
Reply

This OpEd appeared in the Boston Business Journal on June 3, 2016.

In March 2015, Governor Charlie Baker signed Executive Order 562, initiating a comprehensive review process for all regulations. Only those regulations which are mandated by law or essential to the health, safety, environment, or welfare of the Commonwealth’s residents would be retained or modified, making Massachusetts a more efficient and competitive place to live and work.

Agencies must demonstrate, in their review, that there is a clearly identified need for governmental intervention; the costs do not exceed the benefits; a regulation does not exceed federal requirements; less restrictive and intrusive alternatives have been considered and found less desirable; and the regulation does not unduly and adversely affect the competitive environment in Massachusetts.

Based on these specific criteria, the business community is concerned that the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) is currently considering a new Stretch Energy Code as it develops the 9th edition of the statewide building code. Besides the fact that this Stretch Code undermines the statutory requirement that there be a uniform State Building/Energy Code, there is no good reason for it. This proposed energy code is unnecessary and fails the regulatory review standards, and the Baker Administration and the BBRS should not advance it.

The Stretch Energy Code was originally adopted in May 2009, despite strong opposition from the business community.  The code required commercial and residential construction in those communities that voted to adopt it to be approximately 20% more energy efficient than the statewide code. The new stretch energy code would require a 15% increase in energy efficiency over the current code. The Stretch Code has caused confusion among local building inspectors and developers.  Due to this and several other reasons, a new version of the Stretch Energy Code has never been adopted, even when the statewide code changed.  In fact, at the close of the Patrick Administration, the BBRS voted not to advance a new draft of the Stretch Energy Code.  However, in April 2015, this decision was reversed.

Massachusetts is already the most energy efficient state in the nation, with the most aggressive energy efficiency targets.  Furthermore, Massachusetts will be one of only a handful of states in the nation to adopt the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) statewide.  Since the Green Communities Act requires the adoption of the latest IECC (every three years), the Commonwealth’s position as a national leader in energy efficiency will be ensured even without a Stretch Code.  Anything beyond that is overly burdensome and creates a significant competitive disadvantage for Massachusetts.

It is important to note that there is no statutory requirement to adopt or update a Stretch Energy Code.  There is no mention of it in any statute, and it is only the Department of Energy Resources’ (DOER) policy that encourages the creation of this code.

According to DOER, the changes to the Stretch Code would take effect automatically in stretch code communities without any local vote.  Many municipalities had no idea they would be subject to an automatic upgrade.

The business community continues to support a uniform statewide building and energy code.  We believe a new Stretch Energy Code is unnecessary, will hinder economic development, and would impose an unfair and difficult burden on local building officials and the construction industry.  We urge the Baker Administration and the BBRS to eliminate the Stretch Energy Code, once and for all, and acknowledge the latest version of the IECC as the only energy code in Massachusetts.

David Begelfer is the CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

Federal “Tenant Star” Report Promotes Energy Efficiency in “Next Gen” Commercial Leased Spaces

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) just published its Energy Efficiency in Tenant Leased Spaces feasibility study that highlights both opportunities and barriers to implementing energy efficient technologies in multi-tenant commercial spaces.

The study was required by Congress as a part of the Energy Efficiency “Tenant Star” legislation that was passed into law last April. The hope is that this voluntary program will encourage higher energy performance in leased spaces in commercial buildings. Market driven branding incentives have worked well with building owners through the voluntary Energy Star program. Now, this program will attempt to motivate building tenants to increase their energy efficiencies and reduce their energy consumption.

The DOE study finds that “American businesses can occupy more energy-efficient spaces that help improve their bottom line, attract and retain the best workers, and increase their competitiveness.” About half of commercial real estate is occupied by tenants, who could directly benefit from greater energy efficiency. The study further finds that tenant space can be built to save 10-40% energy compared to a typical space.

The study also examined the persistent problem of a lack of energy data. It was determined that a significant increase in sub-metering of tenant spaces would help overcome this barrier. Another persistent problem is the “split-incentive” issue between owners and tenants, with owners paying for the improvements and the tenants benefitting. Accelerated 15-year depreciation of leasehold improvements, can potentially provide real estate owners with greater certainty to undertake property improvements over the typical lease term and economic life of those assets (7-10 years).

Furthermore, the DOE report also encouraged the creation of a federal tenant space recognition system, similar to Energy Star.

The real estate community is supportive of these voluntary, market driven programs that have already shown tremendous results across the country.