BUILDING CODES

& ENERGY EFFICIENCY:

MASSACHUSETTS
Updated February 17, 2010

B
uildings account for roughly 40 percent of the
total energy use in the United States and 70
percent of our electricity use, representing a
significant opportunity for energy savings. Energy effi-
ciency—through the adoption and enforcement of
strong building energy codes – is the quickest, cheap-
est, and cleanest way to reduce energy consumption
and achieve a sustainable and prosperous future. For
most states, the first step has been to adopt the U.S.
model energy codes – the 2009 International Energy
Conservation Code (2009 IECC) and ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2007.
In February 2009, the American Recovery and Rein- By implementing standards equivalent to the na-
vestment Act (Recovery Act) – the federal stimulus tional model code beginning in 2010, Massachusetts
legislation appropriating funds for a variety of state homeowners will save an estimated $42 million
initiatives – allocated $3.1 billion for the U.S. Depart- annually by 2020 and an estimated $78 million an-
ment of Energy’s State Energy Program (SEP) to assist nually by 2030 in energy costs (based on 2006 en-
states with building energy efficiency projects. As one ergy prices).
of the requirements to receive this funding, Gov. Deval
Patrick certified to DOE1 that Massachusetts would Additionally, implementing these new codes will
implement energy standards of equal or greater strin- help avoid more than 4 trillion Btu of primary
gency than the latest national model codes – the 2009 annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of
edition of the IECC and Standard 90.1-2007. Having roughly 450,000 metric tons of CO2 by 2030.
already received $27.45 million2 out of a total $54.9
million in SEP funds, Massachusetts has highlighted OTHER BENEFITS OF THE 2009 IECC
the Commonwealth’s best economic interest by adopt-
The successful implementation of and compliance
ing the 2009 IECC & Standard 90.1-2007. with the national model codes also produces multiple
THE IMPACT OF THE MODEL ENERGY CODES economic and environmental benefits and gains for
the building and utility industries:
Massachusetts’s most recent code adoption improved
upon the Commonwealth’s previous residential code New and renovated construction over 30 percent
by adopting residential and commercial energy stan- more energy efficient than typical buildings not con-
dards that are equivalent to the 2009 IECC3 and Stan- structed to meet national model energy standards
dard 90.1-2007. A limited DOE analysis4 of the
Expansion of the state economy by keeping local
changes from the previous residential code to the 2009
dollars in Massachusetts
IECC resulted in estimated energy savings ranging
from 13 percent, or about $171 to $230 per year for Simplified guidelines for builders and designers,
an average new house at recent fuel prices. cost-effectiveness optimization, and uniformity
throughout the state
According to models created by the Building Codes
Assistance Project, Massachusetts’s latest residential Improved indoor/outdoor air quality and reduced
code update will bring substantial economic and envi- greenhouse gas emissions from lower demand for
ronmental gains in the next two decades: electricity, natural gas, and heating oil
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-ocean.org
 MASSACHUSETTS: BEYOND THE MODEL ENERGY CODE
Cliffs near Aquinnah on Martha’s Vineyard
(Credit—Creative Commons)
T
he Bay State’s minimum mandatory energy stan-
dards are codified in the Massachusetts State
Building Code (780 CMR), Chapters 13 and
61.5 Effective January 1, 2010, the most recent update of
the 7th Edition of this code improved the residential en-
ergy chapter from the 2006 IECC to the 2009 IECC with
Massachusetts amendments (the commercial chapter al-
ready referenced ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007). The
upcoming 8th Edition will also likely incorporate the
2010 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
Massachusetts has demonstrated national leadership in
energy efficiency by adopting policies that go beyond
the baseline standards found in the model codes. Re-
cently developed policies include an automatic code up-
date statute and a uniform voluntary ―stretch code‖:
The Green Communities Act of 2008 requires the Mas-
sachusetts Board of Building Regulations and Stan-
dards (BBRS) to adopt each new IECC edition within
one year of its publication.6 When states regularly up-
date and enforce their energy codes, they ensure the
consistency and continued enhancement of the benefits
of model building practice. The 2012 edition of the
IECC is expected to be published in January 2011.
In 2009, Massachusetts approved Appendix 120AA as
an optional amendment to its mandatory statewide
building energy code.7 The appendix, which includes
both residential and commercial code language, is de-
signed to be about 30 percent more stringent than the
** NOTES **
1 7
US DOE (http://www.energy.gov/media/4242PatrickMassachusetts.pdf)
2 8
US DOE (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=211)
3 9
BCAP (http://bcap-energy.org/node/330)
4 10
US DOE (http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/state_codes/reports/
11
residential/Residential_Massachusetts.pdf)
5
BCAP (http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/massachusetts)
6
(http://bcap-energy.org/files/MASS_GreenCommunitiesAct_S2768_0.pdf)
2006 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. This
optional "stretch code" was developed in response to
the call for improved local building energy efficiency.
Towns and cities may adopt the appendix as a uniform
alternative to the base energy efficiency require-
ments of the state code, easing future transitions to
strengthen the mandatory code.
Adoption, however, is only the first step. The state
must now implement its new energy codes. As another
condition of accepting the Recovery Act SEP funds,
states must achieve compliance with these new standards
in 90 percent of new and renovated residential and com-
mercial building space by 2017.8
Additionally, Massachusetts should consider following
the example of other states that are proven leaders in en-
ergy efficiency by continuing to develop and adopt inno-
vative policies that go beyond the national model codes.
REMOVE CONTRADICTORY COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
Many states have adopted the 2009 International Resi-
dential Code (2009 IRC) along with the IECC. For vari-
ous reasons, however, many builders use the energy effi-
ciency standards (Chapter 11) of the IRC, which DOE
has stated is not equivalent to the IECC and does not
comply with Recovery Act requirements.9 States can
avoid contradictory compliance options by deleting
Chapter 11 of the IRC and replacing it with a refer-
ence to the 2009 IECC, as the 2010 Maryland Building
Performance Standards (MBPS) has done. The MBPS
also explicitly prohibit local amendments to the state
code that weaken the stringency of its energy efficiency
standards.10
MANDATORY GREEN BUILDING CODE
In January 2010, California adopted the nation’s first
mandatory green building standards, known as CAL-
Green.11 Effective in 2011, the new code will require all
new buildings to reduce indoor water use by 20 percent
and divert 50 percent of construction waste from land-
fills. CALGreen also mandates inspections of energy
systems for large nonresidential buildings and the use of
low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as
paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board.
For more information, please visit www.bcap-ocean.org.
Massachusetts BBRS (http://bcap-energy.org/node/418)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Sec. 410 (2) (c)
US DOE (http://www.energycodes.gov/news/irc_iecc_arra.stm)
Maryland Codes Admin. (http://mdcodes.umbc.edu/dhcd2/mbps.html)
CA BSC (http://bcap-ocean.org/news/2010/january/21/california-adopts-
nations-first-mandatory-green-building-standards)
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-ocean.org