The Home Builders Association of Massachusetts is a statewide trade association that is affiliated with both local homebuilder associations and the National Association of Home Builders. The more than 1,700 member companies of the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts, Inc. are involved in all aspects of the development, construction and sale of new single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and apartments.

The HBAM is committed to a State Building Code that ensures public safety, promotes cost effectiveness and furthers energy efficiency in all buildings and structures built in the commonwealth. For those reasons we wish to share with you our concerns about the proposed amendments to the State Building Code, the so-called “Stretch” Energy Code.

Although well intentioned, the “Stretch” Energy Code undermines the integrity of the uniformity of the State Building Code. It’s provisions—particularly as they apply to single-family home construction—will add substantial upfront cost to a new home without any immediate and measurable energy cost savings to homeowners, and may well prove to be an economic barrier to homeownership at a time when securing mortgage financing is particularly onerous for all but the very wealthy.

Background

Prior to the early 1970s, Massachusetts had a costly and outdated building regulatory system. Each of the 351 cities and towns had its own building construction standards that were enforced by untrained and uncertified individuals.

A study done by the Department of Community Affairs in the Sargent Administration had concluded that a mandatory, uniform set of housing and building regulations were required to correct the then existing fragmented system. The study also recommended that such a uniform code be promulgated by a diverse group of construction industry professionals who could, in part, be responsible for allowing the use of new building materials and techniques that would facilitate the production of affordable housing without compromising public health and safety.

With the support of a broad coalition that included architects, engineers, builders, developers, housing advocates, local building officials, fire chiefs, the Massachusetts League of Women Voters and the League of Cities and Towns, the recommendations contained in that study were enacted into law as Chapter 802 of the Acts of 1972.

That landmark legislation established the State Building Code Commission (the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) was established as the successor to the State Building Code Commission by Chapter 348 of the Acts of 1984) whose members produced the first edition of the State Building Code that became effective on January 1, 1975.

The State Building Code (780 CMR) is a mandatory uniform code for the construction of all buildings and structures in the commonwealth. No city or town may impose more restrictive construction standards than set forth in the State Building Code without the prior approval of the BBRS. (See G.L. c. 143, §98).

During the course of the past thirty years, Massachusetts has been recognized nationally for many innovations and advancements in the State Building Code and the regulation of building construction. Some of these innovations include:

• The early adoption of energy conservation/efficiency provisions
• The development of standards for the rehabilitation and reuse of existing buildings
• The development of fire safety requirements in buildings, including the mandatory installation of smoke detectors and the use of fire suppression systems
• The development of reasonable provisions for the housing of mentally ill and mentally retarded individuals in group residences
• The licensing of construction supervisors

In addition, Chapter 802 enabled the commonwealth to design and implement a program to educate and certify all local building officials and building inspectors where none had existed previously.

780 CMR 120.AA

Because of our long-standing support and defense of a uniform building code, the HBAM is strongly opposed to the “Stretch” Energy Code because it allows individual cities and towns to adopt its provisions for all construction within their borders. That would result in some municipalities requiring homebuilders comply with the energy provisions of the 7^th Edition of the One and Two-Family Dwelling Code and others mandating the “stretch” energy code. Such an outcome—no matter how laudatory in its intent to promote energy conservation—will have the effect of undoing the uniformity of the State Building Code and will serve as a precedent for the BBRS to adopt other “local option” provisions in the future, depending upon the lobbying strength of any particular manufacturer, business or interest group,

Such a result would return the commonwealth to a fragmented building regulatory system such as existed prior to 1972. That would lead to confusion in the design and construction industry, added time and delay in the design and construction of buildings, increased cost of construction to businesses and potential homebuyers, uneven code enforcement, a weakening of public safety standards and the arbitrary approval or denial of the use of certain materials or construction methods.

Further, if adopted as currently written, the “Stretch” Energy Code will significantly increase the cost of building homes within the commonwealth and will be a barrier to homeownership for thousands of young families, first-time homebuyers and others. The BBRS itself estimates that the “stretch” energy code will add approximately $10,000 of additional cost to a new home. The HBAM believes the actual cost will be significantly greater than that estimated by the BBRS.

The HBAM supports and encourages its members to build Energy Star Homes. However, the State Building Code should not mandate Energy Star certification. That should be a choice left to the customer. And although many prospective homebuyers do choose such homes, surveys have found that 70% of all homebuyers nationwide turn down energy upgrades when offered by homebuilders. Their reason? The upfront cost is too high and the cost savings too little to justify the added expense.

The reality is that today’s homes are already incredibly energy efficient. And with the adoption of the latest edition of the International Energy Conservation Code they’ll be even more so.

Although energy conservation is an important consideration when designing and constructing buildings, it is only one of a number of considerations that must be taken into account. For example, the need to ensure an adequate flow of fresh air for the health of the occupants or residents of today’s increasing “tight” buildings may require a trade-off of maximum energy savings. Other factors such as noise suppression and adequate lighting may also negate optimal energy conservation.

Energy conservation cannot be the single overriding consideration when revising the State Building Code.

Conclusion

With our state and national economy in recession and the housing market in shambles, this is the worst possible time for the Patrick Administration to be imposing costs on prospective homeowners that they cannot afford.

The Home Builders Association of Massachusetts urges the Board of Building Regulations and Standards to reject the “local option” approach of the “Stretch” Energy Code and indefinitely delay the possible adoption of its provisions as part of the State Building Code until the true cost impact upon homebuyers, businesses and others can be determined.

Submitted: March 10, 2009