Lowell sustainability council hears DOER briefing on specialized stretch energy code; members split on cost and housing impacts

Dylan Patel, Green Communities coordinator at the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, told the Lowell Sustainability Council on a guest briefing that the specialized stretch energy code applies only to new construction and is intended to support the Commonwealth’s Climate Act and net‑zero goals.

“The specialized stretch code…only impacts new buildings,” said Dylan Patel, adding that the code builds on the existing municipal stretch code by adding optional appendices that set higher performance pathways for some projects. Patel said about 55 municipalities have adopted the specialized code so far and described three compliance pathways: all‑electric construction (no change from the current specialized pathway), mixed‑fuel construction with required pre‑wiring for future electrification and on‑site solar, and a passive‑house pathway required for larger multifamily projects.

The council’s discussion focused on how the specialized code would affect Lowell. Patel said the code requires exemplary energy performance (passive house) for multifamily buildings greater than 12,000 square feet and generally requires pre‑wiring and on‑site solar where feasible for other multifamily and single‑family construction. For small single‑family homes he said the on‑site solar expectation is typically about 4 kilowatts where roof area and solar exposure allow.

“Pre‑wiring is a consumer protection measure,” Patel told council members, explaining the citywide intent to make future electrification easier and less costly for later occupants. He and other presenters identified Mass Save incentives, the SMART solar incentive program and passive‑house incentives (roughly $4,000 per unit in the state program, as cited during the briefing) as funding sources that reduce upfront cost impacts.

Council members pressed on cost, housing supply and equity. Catherine (identified in the meeting as the city’s sustainability director) said Lowell’s housing stock is largely older and that most emissions come from existing buildings; she said she has “serious concerns that we don't know what we don't know” about how cost increases under the specialized code could affect Lowell’s ability to produce affordable housing.

Andy Kolar, identified as a local architect and certified Passive House consultant, summarized a 121‑page report he cited (prepared, he said, by Wentworth Institute of Technology, MIT and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts) that estimated increases in construction cost in some modeled cases. Kolar said the report’s modeled range put additional costs for single‑family and townhouse construction at roughly 1.8 to 3.8 percent and cited an approximate $10,000–$23,000 range in modeled incremental costs for a median single‑family house depending on pathway chosen.

Other members disputed single‑figure estimates and presented alternative data or experience. John (sitting member) argued the climate urgency and the long‑term cost savings for occupants: “The climate crisis is not going to wait…” he said, and he noted that higher efficiency can sharply reduce heating loads and utility bills for future residents. Dylan Patel and others noted passive‑house buildings can reduce heating loads by roughly 80 to 90 percent compared with typical construction and that passive‑house construction has been used for affordable housing projects in the region.

Members also discussed practical barriers: workforce training and higher soft costs for early projects, tariff volatility affecting material prices, and the difference between new construction and the much larger existing housing stock that will need retrofit. Several council members said they want more up‑to‑date, local cost data comparing the current stretch code to the specialized code in the present economic environment.

The council did not take a formal vote to recommend adoption of the specialized stretch code at this meeting. Council members agreed to continue discussion and to collect additional data and case studies. The council also agreed to table two pending motions to write letters of support for state house and senate bills until the next meeting.

Votes at a glance: the meeting approved the previous meeting’s minutes. Mikaela Hondros McCarthy moved to approve the minutes; William Mefave seconded. The minutes were approved with one recorded abstention by a council member identified in the meeting as AC.

The council indicated they will consider funding, retrofit programs and developer outreach in future meetings and requested follow‑up information from DOER and city staff on incentives, sample project costs and whether large upcoming local projects plan to follow the specialized pathways.