A year and a half since Massachusetts introduced an optional new building code aimed at lowering fossil fuel use, climate activists are heartened by how quickly cities and towns are adopting the new guidelines. 

The new code, known as the specialized stretch code, became law in 2023. Since then, 45 municipalities representing about 30% of the state’s population have voted to adopt its guidelines. The code is already active in 33 of these communities and scheduled to take effect over the next year in another 12.

“That is just an astounding statistic to me,” said climate advocate Lisa Cunningham, one of the founders of decarbonization nonprofit ZeroCarbonMA. “The rollout has been, quite frankly, amazing.”

Massachusetts has long been a leader in using opt-in building codes to push for decarbonization of the built environment. In 2009, the state introduced the country’s first stretch code, an alternative version of the building code that includes more stringent energy efficiency requirements. Municipalities must vote to adopt the stretch code, and the vast majority have done so: As of June, just 8.5% of residents lived in the 50 towns and cities without a stretch code. 

The specialized stretch code takes this approach a step farther. The goal is to create a code that will help achieve target emissions reductions from 2025 to 2050, when the state aims to be carbon-neutral. In 2021, the legislature called on the state to create an additional opt-in code that would get close to requiring net-zero carbon emissions from new construction. 

“We want to work towards decarbonizing those buildings, right from the start, as we look to a future in 2050 while we are net-zero in greenhouse gas emissions,” said Elizabeth Mahony, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources.

At the same time, electrified, energy-efficient homes will mean lower energy costs for residents over time, more comfortable and healthier indoor air, and more stable indoor temperatures when power outages occur, she said. 

The construction industry, meanwhile, has concerns about the measure’s impact on upfront costs. 

Getting to net-zero buildings

The resulting code doesn’t require buildings to achieve net-zero emissions right away, but attempts to ensure any new construction will be ready to go carbon-neutral before 2050.

There are a few pathways for compliance. A newly built home can use fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, cooking, or drying or be built fully electrified. If the new home uses any fossil fuels, however, it must be built to a higher energy efficiency standard, be wired to ready the house for future electrification, and include solar panels onsite where feasible. In all cases, homes must be wired for at least one electric vehicle charging station.

Larger, multifamily buildings must be built to Passive House standards, a certification that requires the dramatic reduction of energy use as compared to similar buildings of the same size and type. Single-family homes can also choose to pursue Passive House certification. 

Decarbonization advocates are pleased with the rollout so far. The state’s major cities, including Boston, Worcester, and Cambridge, were all quick to adopt the code. In most municipalities the vote to adopt the specialized code has been near-unanimous, said Cunningham.

And more communities are considering the specialized code.

“We’re talking to a lot of communities that are contemplating it for their town meetings this fall,” Mahony said. “We know there is a growing sense out there of wanting to do this.” 

 The key to convincing cities and towns that the code is a good idea is for municipal governments to understand and frame the code as a consumer protection measure, rather than an added burden, Cunningham said. The requirements of the specialized code along with state and federal incentives can save on construction costs upfront, and will ensure buildings cost less to operate during their lifetime, offering significant benefits to residents, she said. 

“At the point of construction this is an incremental expense – it’s barely even a blip,” she said. “Then it directly reduces your future electricity bills.”

A troublesome transition?

Many in the construction industry, however, disagree with Cunningham’s take. Emerson Clauss III, a director with the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, has found the equipment needed to reach the high standards in the code is more expensive than its authors counted on, and supply chain issues are causing even higher prices.  

“It’s had quite a rough start to it,” Clauss said. “It’s adding considerable cost to new housing.” 

He also worries that the high cost of electricity now — Massachusetts electricity prices are the third highest in the country — spells near-term financial trouble for homeowners that feel forced to go all-electric. 

“The idea that it’s going to cost less 20 years from now — what does that do for people who need to get into a house now?” he asked.

Furthermore, the creation of a new optional code, he said, adds another variable for builders already jumping between the basic code and the previous stretch code, as well as learning the new rules in ten communities banning fossil fuels as part of a state pilot program. Even municipal building directors aren’t able to keep up, Clauss said, recalling a confused call with a suburban building inspector who needed 20 minutes to confirm it was OK to install a natural gas line in a new home. 

In Cambridge, one of the first cities to adopt the specialized code, Assistant Commissioner of Inspectional Services Jacob Lazzara noted there was some confusion at the outset, but time and proactive communication from the city helped ease the transition. The city has held trainings, created materials to hand out to builders and design professionals, and fine-tuned internal communications to make sure the staff is all well informed. 

“There was a little bit of shock for everyone at first, but I think we’re in a good place right now,” Lazzara said.

Massachusetts cities are quickly embracing new emission-slashing building code option is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A bill introduced in the California legislature proposes to slash hundreds of millions of dollars from programs that help schools replace worn-out HVAC systems, low-income households install batteries, and affordable housing projects deploy solar panels — all for what would amount to a one-time rebate of no more than $50 for customers of the state’s three major utilities.

Lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom’s office have crafted the legislation, which they are calling the ​“affordability project,” in response to fast-rising utility rates at the state’s three large investor-owned utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric.

But community groups, environmental advocates, and clean energy industry groups say the cuts will cause immediate and severe harms to those relying on them while doing next to nothing to fulfill their purported goal of reining in the state’s sky-high electricity rates.

“It’s not a way to solve the problem, and you’re hurting programs that are working,” said 

Merrian Borgeson, policy director for California climate and energy at the nonprofit environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, told Canary Media in an interview.

AB 3121 emerged late Wednesday evening after weeks of backroom negotiations over how best to control rate increases for customers. But the reforms proposed by the bill do little to address the primary drivers of those increases, which come down to the investments utilities are making in their power grids to meet rapidly rising electricity demand, and also to harden them against the risk of sparking deadly wildfires.

Another bill introduced late Wednesday, SB 1003, would call on state agencies to increase oversight over utilities’ wildfire-mitigation spending, which could lead to cost reductions. And another bill, AB 3264, would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to assess and analyze total annual energy costs for residential customers, with the goal of finding ways to shift some costs from ratepayers.

“California’s high electricity prices are a decade in the making,” Borgeson said in a Thursday statement. ​“We need an overhaul that targets the root causes of this surge: wildfire spending, capacity constraints, insufficient regulatory oversight, and the need for funding sources beyond consumer-paid utility rates to address the climate crisis. This policy proposal will move the needle on some of these challenges, but it also includes damaging cuts to important programs that benefit vulnerable communities.”

NRDC has estimated that the cuts being proposed would yield only about a $50 one-time rebate for the average residential customer of the state’s three major investor-owned utilities. A report from Politico this week cited an unnamed California lawmaker who estimated the cuts would provide customers as little as $30 each in one-time rebates.

A Wednesday letter signed by NRDC and more than two dozen other groups warned Newsom, California Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas against cuts to ​“critical programs that advance energy affordability, reliability, and climate resilience for vulnerable communities.”

“Focusing on short-term tactics will not resolve California’s affordability crisis,” the groups wrote. ​“Instead, it will exacerbate it, making our energy system more expensive, polluted, and dangerous — especially for our most vulnerable communities.”

The pushback comes as lawmakers are scrambling to address unfinished business before this year’s legislative session ends at midnight on Saturday — including a June pledge from California Assembly Utilities and Energy Chair Cottie Petrie-Norris, sponsor of AB 3121, to cut the bills of customers of the state’s three big utilities by $10 per month. (Petrie-Norris’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.)

The high cost of electricity has become a pressing problem for low-income Californians struggling to pay their utility bills, and is threatening to derail the state’s broader electrification efforts by dramatically increasing the costs to consumers of switching from fossil fuels to electricity to power their cars and provide household heating.

In the past 10 years, average electrical rates have risen by 110 percent for residential customers of PG&E, 90 percent for those served by Southern California Edison, and 82 percent for customers of SDG&E, according to data compiled by state regulators. The past three years alone have seen average residential rates jump by 51 percent for PG&E and SCE and 20 percent for SDG&E.

And more rate hikes are looming at PG&E, the state’s biggest utility, which serves about 16 million people in Northern and Central California. In November, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a rate case adding about $32.50 per month to customers’ bills, followed by a further rate hike in March of about $5 to $6 per month starting this spring.

In a July report, the CPUC forecasted average annual electric rate increases of 10.8 percent for PG&E, 6.8 percent for SCE, and 5.6 percent for SDG&E, compared with an assumed inflation rate of 2.6 percent.

This chart from the CPUC’s July report breaks out the proportion of the state’s three big utilities’ ​“revenue requirement,” or how much money they must bring in from ratepayers to cover their costs. The biggest increases are coming from distribution-grid investments, primarily driven by PG&E’s program aimed at burying power lines, clearing vegetation, and installing technology to reduce wildfire risks.

According to reporting from The Sacramento Bee citing anonymous sources familiar with the negotiations, earlier versions of the affordability package included proposals to reduce broader grid expansion costs via ​“securitization” — financing some portion of utility spending through debt, rather than by passing them on to ratepayers.

But those components, which could reduce the profits that utilities earn for investments in their capital infrastructure, were dropped from the bill, the Bee reported last week.

With the potential savings from the wildfire-mitigation cost controls and broader energy cost analysis as yet unclear, the only immediate savings from the legislative package would come from cuts to programs that serve ​“people who don’t have political power,” said Beckie Menten, senior regulatory and policy specialist at the nonprofit Building Decarbonization Coalition.

“We’re really supportive of solutions that address affordability,” she said. But ​“what we’re seeing on the table for the most part are pretty reactive and not very comprehensive of our systemic solutions.”

On the chopping block: School HVAC retrofits and solar and batteries for low-income residents 

AB 3121 proposes to provide utility customers with rebates by clawing back unspent and ​“unencumbered” funds from three programs: California Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency (CalSHAPE); the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP); and Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing (SOMAH).

The CalSHAPE program, administered by the California Energy Commission, was created by a law passed during the Covid pandemic to help schools repair HVAC systems to improve health, and it has disbursed 646 grants totaling $421 million in funding for the ventilation upgrades.

Roughly $250 million remains in the program, and many schools were in the process of applying for funding, said Stephanie Seidmon, program director of nonprofit advocacy group Undaunted K12. But AB 3121 would retroactively set the deadline for those applications at July 1, 2024, and return any funds not disbursed to utility ratepayers.

But the one-time rebates per customer that would result aren’t worth the loss of funding for schools that need the money to improve air-conditioning and ventilation systems, Seidmon contended. ​“It’s really important for low-income schools that can’t raise a bond measure to upgrade their HVAC systems, or schools facing these wildfire and heat risks,” she said.

Much of CalSHAPE’s remaining $250 million in funding ​“is for schools that are replacing their HVAC as we’re going to be facing wildfires this fall,” said NRDC’s Bergeson. ​“It’s crazy to me we’d be taking away that money, especially when many of these schools are in disadvantaged communities and were depending on this.”

The SGIP program provides incentives for low-income customers to purchase batteries to provide backup power during power outages. In a March decision, the CPUC allocated $280 million to the program’s current grant cycle, and lawmakers pledged in a 2022 budget and climate law, AB 209, to provide $350 million to the program over the next several years.

Returning unspent portions of those funds to utilities would provide a minimal one-off rebate to individual customers at the cost of undermining a program that ​“helps both rural and disadvantaged communities” obtain batteries that are increasingly valuable in a state experiencing heat- and wildfire-driven grid emergencies, said Edson Perez, California policy lead for clean energy industry trade group Advanced Energy United.

The batteries installed through the program also help store solar power for use in evenings, when grid power tends to be dirtier and more expensive, which ​“helps the grid as a whole,” he said. A May report to the CPUC found that batteries installed through SGIP have reduced utility costs by roughly $27 million, primarily during a September 2022 heat wave that threatened to overwhelm California’s grid.

The SOMAH program has a budget of $100 million and a legislatively mandated goal of installing 300 megawatts of solar by 2032, and is ​“California’s landmark program for multifamily affordable housing access to affordable solar and affordable storage,” said Steve Campbell, western regulatory director for nonprofit Vote Solar.

AB 3121 doesn’t call for reclaiming the entirety of that funding stream. But it would require the CPUC to credit ​“no more than 1/2 of the program funds that are unencumbered as of January 1, 2025,” back to utilities to return to customers as rebates.

SOMAH was created in 2019 and saw a significant slowdown during the Covid pandemic, Campbell said. In the past year, however, applications and projects have picked up steam. 

“When a low-income program starts to work again is the worst time to pull the rug out from underneath it,” he said. 

California electric bill relief plan would gut low-income energy programs is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Construction is underway in St. Paul, Minnesota, on a major affordable housing development that will combine solar, geothermal and all-electric appliances to create one of the region’s largest net-zero communities.

Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity broke ground in June on a four-block, 147-unit project on the site of a former golf course that’s being redeveloped by the city and its port authority, which made the decision to forgo gas hookups. 

Affordable housing and Habitat for Humanity builds in particular have become a front line in the fight over the future of gas. The organization has faced criticism in other communities for accepting fossil fuel industry money and partnering with utilities on “net-zero” homes that include gas appliances. It’s also built several all-electric projects using advanced sustainable construction methods and materials.

The scale of the Twin Cities project is what makes it exciting, according to St. Paul’s chief resilience officer Russ Stark. 

“We’ve had plenty of motivated folks build their own all-electric homes, but they’re one-offs,” he said. “There haven’t been many, if any, at scale.”

Stark added that the project, known as The Heights, was made possible by the federal Inflation Reduction Act. 

“I think it’s fair to say that those pieces couldn’t have all come together without either a much bigger public investment or the Inflation Reduction Act, which ended up being that big public investment,” he said.

A vision emerges

Port Authority President and CEO Todd Hurley said his organization bought the property in 2019 from the Steamfitters Pipefitters Local 455, which maintained it as a golf course until 2017. When no private buyers expressed interest in the property, the Port Authority bought it for $10 million.

Hurley said the Port Authority saw potential for light industrial development and had the experience necessary to deal with mercury pollution from a fungicide the golf course staff sprayed to kill weeds.

“We are a land developer, a brownfield land developer, and one of our missions is to add jobs and tax base around the creation of light industrial jobs,” Hurley said.

The Port Authority worked with the city’s planning department on a master plan that included housing, and it solicited developers to build a mix of market-rate, affordable and low-income units. The housing parcels were eventually sold for $20 million to a private developer, Sherman Associates, which partnered with Habitat and JO Companies, a Black-owned affordable and multi-family housing developer.

“Early on, we identified a very high goal of (becoming) a net zero community,” Hurley said. “Everything we have been working on has been steering towards getting to net zero.”

Twin Cities Habitat President and former St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman said the project met his organization’s strategic plan, which calls for building bigger developments instead of its traditional practice of infilling smaller lots with single-family homes and duplexes. The project will be the largest the organization has ever built in the Twin Cities.

Coleman said the Heights offered an opportunity to fill a need in one of St. Paul’s most diverse and economically challenged neighborhoods and “be part of the biggest investment in the East Side in over 100 years.”

The requirement for all-electric homes merged with Habitat’s goal of constructing more efficient and sustainable homes to drive down utility costs for homeowners, he said. Habitat built solar-ready homes and sees the solar shingles on its homes in The Heights as a potential avenue to producing onsite clean energy.

Zeroing in on net zero

Mike Robertson, a Habitat program manager working on the project, said the organization worked with teams from the Minneapolis-based Center for Energy and Environment on energy modeling.

“The Heights is the first time that we’ve dived into doing an all-electric at scale,” Roberston said. “We have confidence that these houses will perform how they were modeled.”

Habitat plans to build the development to meet the Zero Energy Ready Home Program standards developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Habitat will use Xcel Energy’s utility rebate and efficiency programs to achieve the highest efficiency and go above and beyond Habitat’s typical home standards.

The improved construction only adds a few thousand dollars to the overall costs and unlocks federal government incentives to help pay for upgrades, he said.

The nonprofit will receive free or reduced-cost products from Andersen Windows & Doors and other manufacturers. GAF Energy LLC, a solar roofing company, will donate solar shingles for over 40 homes and roofing materials. On-site solar will help bring down energy bills for homeowners, he said.

Chad Dipman, Habitat land development director, said the solar shingles should cover between half and 60% of the electricity the homes need. Habitat plans to use Xcel Energy incentive programs to help pay for additional solar shingles needed beyond those donated. 

Habitat will install electric resistance heating technology into air handlers to serve as backup heat for extremely cold days. Dipman said that the air source heat pumps will also provide air conditioning, a feature not available in most Habitat properties in Minnesota.  

Phil Anderson, new homes manager at the Center for Energy and Environment, has worked with Habitat on the project. He said the key to reducing the cost of heating and cooling electric homes is a well-insulated, tight envelope and high-performance windows. Habitat will build on its experience with constructing tight homes over the past decade, he said.

“Overall, the houses that we’ve been part of over the last almost ten years have been very tight homes,” Anderson said. “There’s just not a lot of air escaping.”

Habitat’s national office selected The Heights as this year’s Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project, named after the former president and his wife, two of Habitat’s most famous supporters. The work project begins September 29^th and will receive as visitors Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood, who now host the Carters’ program.

Robertson said thousands of volunteers from around the country and the world will help put up the homes. The Heights project “raises a lot of awareness for Habitat and specifically for this development and the decarbonization efforts that we’re putting into it,” he said.

The Heights’s two other housing developers continue raising capital for their projects and hope to break ground by next summer. Habitat believes the project will meet its 2030 completion deadline.

A St. Paul, Minnesota Habitat for Humanity project will offer affordable housing without fossil fuels is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Sophie Loeb, policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, and Michelle Carter, director of clean energy campaigns at the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

If your energy bills seem high this very hot summer, brace yourself. Without drastic measures to curb pollution, summers will be hotter and staying cooler will be more expensive. Unfortunately, the biggest strain on our future electricity bills isn’t our air conditioning, our electric cars, or even our businesses — it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Data centers have been consuming power all over the country since the 1960s. As the Internet has rapidly been integrated into our lives, so too have data centers. Big data’s assault on North Carolina continues unabated, creating more demand on our energy system and raising our bills.

The new wave of artificial intelligence has the power to change the very nature of our society, in many ways for the worse. Data centers running AI require a constant and consistent power supply, something the utilities in the Southeast have struggled with for decades. These centers raise our bills while providing virtually no benefits to our communities.  Data centers across the nation have been given tax incentives, lower electricity rates, and have created few jobs for the amount of resources they use.

As more energy intensive industries take root, we must protect our residents from both the increases in our power needs and our monthly power bills. Unfortunately, Duke Energy’s plans to meet the growing needs of industry expose us to further financial and health risks. Duke Energy claims that their plan, which proposes the biggest methane gas build out in the nation, is needed to meet growing demand, particularly for data centers.

Duke has also warned that ratepayers’ bills will rise if they don’t build these plants, but the opposite is true. Building out solar and utility-scale battery storage instead of gas would yield $8 to $12 billion in electricity savings by 2030 and $18 to $23 billion in savings by 2050. An Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) analysis shows that, for Duke Energy Carolinas customers, increases in fuel costs account for roughly 67 percent of rate increases since 2017. The research is clear: more dirty methane gas means higher energy bills, both now and in the future.

According to Goldman Sachs, data centers will require a $50 billion expansion in electricity generation infrastructure to meet the industry’s demand. This money to build big power plants will come directly from North Carolina consumers like you and me without proper protections from the state.

Why should residential customers, particularly those who struggle to pay their energy bills, pay for these costly plants? Who really benefits from the environmental, social, and economic burdens of artificial intelligence?

Unfortunately, protections from the pressures of data centers are nowhere to be found — for now. Duke Energy has undertaken deals with Microsoft, Google, and other major power consumers to expand renewable generation and protect our grid. Through these agreements, large customers can transition to clean energy while lessening the burden of their power demands on the rest of Duke’s consumer base.

Data centers must be subject to these same agreements — and more — to keep North Carolina ratepayers safe from massive price increases. Consumers deserve transparency and accountability with any new data center project in our state.

In lieu of data centers, North Carolina should invest in good, clean energy manufacturing jobs that promote economic development, resilience, and environmental sustainability. Already, the Inflation Reduction Act is slated to create almost 40,000 jobs by 2030. Tech companies could support these efforts with electric vehicle manufacturing plants, solar panel and battery storage manufacturing facilities, and further build the Southeast as a hub of clean energy manufacturing.

To better center people over tech companies and promote an affordable energy transition:

1. Utility commissions should require utilities to highlight explicit data on load growth from data centers so additional capacity is not passed on to residential customers.
2. Regulators should prohibit data centers from receiving subsidized industrial use rates.
3. The General Assembly should pass legislation enhancing stronger consumer protection laws for electricity ratepayers.
4. The state should form an Office of the People’s Counsel to protect customers from absorbing rate increases from industrial customers like tech companies.

As temperatures get hotter, there is no doubt our energy bills will go up. However, we must do everything we can to prevent massive projects from raising our bills even more. Investing in energy-draining artificial intelligence data centers not only increases electric rates for everyone, it takes away valuable jobs for rural communities. It’s time to invest in people over profits in North Carolina!

Commentary: Footing the power bills for AI is anything but smart is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Massachusetts has awarded $53 million — and announced plans for additional funding — to allow affordable housing operators to execute energy efficiency retrofits that are expected to reduce carbon emissions, cut energy bills, and create healthier, more comfortable homes for residents. 

The state in late July announced the second round of awards in the Affordable Housing Decarbonization Grant Program, allocating $26.1 million to five organizations to improve insulation, tighten building envelopes, and switch to heat pump heating and cooling systems. These grants come seven months after an initial round of $27.4 million was awarded to seven affordable housing operators statewide. 

“This has been a really critical funding stream for moving forward critical energy projects at some of our family public housing sites,” said Joel Wool, deputy administrator for sustainability and capital transformation at the Boston Housing Authority, which received grants in both rounds.

Along with the most recent round of awards, the state also announced it would invest another $40 million into the program in anticipation of giving out another set of grants in the fall.

The program was designed to address two major policy goals: decarbonization and addressing the state’s affordable housing crisis. 

Massachusetts has set the ambitious goal of going carbon-neutral by 2050. Buildings — which contribute 35% of the state’s carbon emissions — are a particularly important sector to target for decarbonization. This means finding ways to retrofit the state’s existing housing stock, much of which is drafty, heated by fossil fuels, and decades — or even centuries — old. 

At the same time, Massachusetts is experiencing an acute housing crisis. State officials estimate at least 200,000 new homes are needed to accommodate demand by 2030. Finding an affordable home is even more challenging for lower-income residents faced with soaring rents and home prices — and often, high energy bills. 

“We have such a housing crisis in Massachusetts that we want to do anything we can to create more housing, but also to make the housing we have now a better place to live,” said state Energy Department Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony. “These are investments in our infrastructure.”

Nonprofit Worcester Common Ground received an $820,000 grant in the latest round that it will use to complete deep energy retrofits on four buildings that were last updated some 30 years ago. The money will allow the renovations to include air sealing, more energy-efficient windows, and extra insulation. The grant will also allow the buildings to go fully electric, including with air source heat pumps that will provide lower-cost, more comfortable heating and cooling.

“Even though it’s a higher upfront cost, the hope is that maybe it reduces expenses going forward,” said Timothy Gilbert, project manager for Worcester Common Ground. “It might sound a little cheesy but we really do care about the well-being of the folks who live in our houses.”

In most cases, the grant money is being combined with other funding to allow more complete — and even downright ambitious — upgrades. In Worcester, other funding sources will pay for rooftop solar panels that will make the newly energy-efficient buildings even more cost-effective and environmentally friendly. The Boston Housing Authority is using its latest $5.8 million award as part of a larger project that aims to completely decarbonize the Franklin Fields housing development in the Dorchester neighborhood by combining energy efficiency upgrades and Boston’s first networked geothermal system. 

In the Boston neighborhood of Roxbury, the Madison Park Development Corporation is receiving $13.5 million from the Affordable Housing Decarbonization Grant Program to do work at its 331-unit Orchard Gardens development. But it is also seeking out other sources to meet the $20 million expected cost of the planned sustainability upgrades.

“It’s a big property and the heart of one of Boston’s oldest, most diverse, most underserved neighborhoods,” said Oren Richkin, senior project manager for the organization. “This grant money is pivotal for this project.”

Supporters of the program are expecting it to strengthen the state’s ability to respond to climate change in the future as well. Switching affordable housing units from fossil fuel heating to heat pump heating and cooling will allow residents to stay comfortable and safe in their own homes during increasingly hot summers, Wool said. 

The funding could also help nudge the ideas of deep energy retrofits and electrification more into the mainstream, Mahony said. 

“We are essentially socializing these programs — the more we do it, the more people will get used to the ideas,” she said. 

As the recipients of the first round of grants begin their projects, the state is starting to learn how to operate the program more effectively. The state has already, for example, started providing some technical assistance to organizations interested in applying for future rounds of funding. Continued conversations with building owners and nonprofits will be essential to creating an even stronger program moving forward, Mahony said.

“We’re setting ourselves up for success in the future,” she said.

Massachusetts awards $53 million to help affordable housing operators cut emissions and make homes healthier is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.