The commonwealth’s new Green Communities program has been off to a remarkably successful start, even better than organizers had hoped for: earlier this year, 35 municipalities across Massachusetts qualified for a “Green Community” designation, which allowed them to compete for $8.1 million in grants for energy-saving projects in their communities.
While original plans called for the program—administered by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources—to select only certain projects for funding, in the end, all 35 cities and towns got a chunk of the money, with grants awarded according to a formula based on population. In the Valley, Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, Greenfield, Belchertown, Easthampton, Palmer and Montague all won grants, ranging from a $988,000 check for Springfield (where the money will go, in part, for new energy-efficient heating systems in municipal buildings) to a $155,000 grant for Montague to make its water-treatment system more efficient.
But not everyone is on board with the program, which has been promoted as a key part of the Patrick administration’s “green” agenda. Last week, the Agawam City Council rejected a key—and, it turns out, particularly controversial—aspect of the program. By a 5-to-4 vote, the Council rejected adoption of a “stretch” building code (so called because it stretches beyond existing state building codes) that would require builders to meet higher standards of energy efficiency in new buildings.
To qualify for the Green Community designation—a necessary step to qualify for the grant program—municipalities must meet five criteria. They include amending zoning laws to make it easier for sustainable energy projects to be sited in the community, conducting an energy audit of municipal buildings, and committing to buying fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use. Those provisions have, generally, sparked minimal debate; instead, it’s the stretch code that has proved the poison pill in some municipalities.
In Agawam, councilors opposed to the stricter building code objected that it was an example of undue interference by the state. “It is government micromanaging local communities, dictating what we can and can’t do,” City Councilor Dennis Perry was quoted as saying in the Springfield Republican.
The objecting councilors were also responding to protests by the building industry that the regulations would add untenable costs to construction projects. Critics of the stretch code include local Chambers of Commerce and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Western Mass. Earlier this year, Brad Campbell, executive director of the builders’ group, told the Advocate that his members don’t object to building energy-efficient homes, but they do object to the extra costs the stretch code would add to projects—costs, he noted, that would be passed on to home buyers. (See “Green Rush,” April 29, 2010)
Campbell also warned that raising construction costs would add one more burden to builders who are already struggling in the current market. “We’re dying,” he said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act we’re walking here.”
Catherine Ratte, environment and land use manager at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (which has been working to help local municipalities qualify for the Green Communities program), points to data from the DOER that says the higher energy standards would add, on average, $1,700 to $4,000 in upfront building costs, depending on the size of the building. (Campbell told the Advocate that his members believe the cost would be higher.)
Those added costs, Ratte said last week, would be offset by the annual energy savings in a more efficient building. In addition, she said, PVPC spoke with a number of local banks and gained assurances that they would be willing to loan home buyers additional money to purchase energy-efficient homes, in light of the longer-term savings.
In the end, the battle over the stretch code may prove moot, as the state’s baseline building code moves toward higher energy-efficiency requirements, and as more and more home buyers demand those higher standards. Ironically, while city councilors just rejected the stretch code, the city of Agawam recently applied to the state for assistance funds to prepare an application for the Green Communities program. That means that if the city is to qualify for the grant program, it will eventually have to adopt the stretch code. Meanwhile, the East Longmeadow Town Meeting, which had rejected the stretch code back in May, will take the matter up again on Sept. 27. A second round of Green Communities grants will be awarded to qualifying municipalities next year.
Ratte described the Green Communities program as a fantastic way to help municipalities overcome traditional barriers to energy efficiency and, in the process, provide an important model to businesses and residents.
“The stretch code, I think personally, is a fantastic thing, because it addresses the big issue of building,” she said. “Buildings account for a huge portion of energy use and production of greenhouse gas emissions. … When you have a regulation that can save people money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on such a large scale, it’s hard for me to imagine why everyone isn’t eager to adopt it.”
