Share This Article
Article 27 should be defeated. It would impose harsh new energy codes on Sudbury, its residents, the Town and businesses. It’s part of the effort to coerce electrification and to punish financially those who choose to use other fuels like natural gas, propane, fuel oil and wood. If these codes are adopted, builders of new homes and those who seek to renovate and substantially enlarge existing homes would be compelled to wire them for heat pumps, solar and electric car chargers and meet rigid new requirements even if these are unwanted and undesirable. The predicted cost increases are between $20,000 to $50,000 per house. Owners and builders of commercial and municipal buildings would face even more burdensome and expensive requirements. There is a concern that because of the complexity of these codes, property owners and builders would need to hire engineers and lawyers at great expense to navigate them. Further, the Town would also have to hire expensive consultants to help the Town Building Inspector understand and enforce these. The complexity and burdens would land directly on the Town if and when we need to construct new buildings or substantially renovate some others. There is then a likelihood of lawsuits about the meaning and application of the new codes. This optional stretch code is different for and more intrusive than the existing stretch code. The existing code focuses on insulation requirements. The optional code would impose wiring, power and equipment requirements.
Supporters of these codes have, unfortunately or intentionally, chosen not to print them in the Warrant. The texts can be found in the codified regulations of Massachusetts at 225 CMR Parts 22 and 23. Anyone who is considering voting for this Article should download them and read them. They are daunting to understand even for someone like me who has decades of experience litigating energy related cases. Be wary that you’ll need to learn the meaning of such terms as “enthalpy recovery”, “fenestration factor”, “air barriers”, “ASHRAE HERS”, “Phius Core”, “Phius Zero” and “RESNET”.
Pity the homeowner who just wants to add 1200 sq ft to an existing modest home or the builder who has to tack on the useless costs of things customers don’t want. There are special problems for the owners of large commercial structures like supermarkets, senior apartments or office buildings if they need to do truly major renovations to accommodate new tenants or retain existing ones. There are circumstances in which the owners cannot make their existing buildings comply with Part 23.
The assumptions of the proponents of Art. 27 are that: (1) We will have an abundant supply of cheap and uninterruptible electricity for the indefinite future and (2) components like heat pumps, transformers, inverters, solar panels, car chargers and related gear will be readily available at modest costs. These assumptions are invalid.
Anyone who’s paid for electricity for heat pumps this year knows that electric rates have increased dramatically. 20% of the power used in New England comes from Hydro-Quebec. The cost and availability of that power are at issue in the tariff dispute launched by the Trump administration. Approximately 20% of our power comes from nuclear plants and almost all of the remaining 60% comes from natural gas fueled plants. This means that we are at risk for cost increases and blackouts. It makes no sense to force electrification.
The proponents of compulsory electrification assume that heat pumps, high voltage electrical gear, solar panels, inverters, batteries and car charging equipment will be available and at a reasonable cost. Anyone who follows current events knows that this is a false assumption. Almost all of this equipment is manufactured in either China or elsewhere in Asia. Availability and price is enmeshed in the Trump tariff battles.
No doubt, the proponents of Art. 27 are trying to make a statement about the fight against climate change and have good intentions but the Road to Hell is paved with such intentions. They argue that some other towns have adopted these optional codes. Those towns do not have enough experience to know how they’ll actually work. Let’s let them learn and endure the consequences before we expose Sudbury. Notably most cities and towns have not gone down this path.
By focusing on requiring electrification, the proponents ignore my grandmother’s advice: Don’t put your eggs in one basket.
This is an unwise Article. It should be defeated.