Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Code Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Sudbury Select Board a proposed stretch energy code would raise median home cost about $44,000 and have a 43-year payback on energy savings
Summary
Resident Karen Arpino told the Select Board the proposed specialized stretch energy code could add roughly 4% to home-construction costs in Sudbury — an estimated $44,000 on the town's median home price — with small monthly energy savings that produce a long payback period.
Karen Arpino, a Sudbury resident, used her public comment time at the Feb. 4 Select Board meeting to urge caution about a proposed specialized stretch energy code and to share cost estimates she said were derived from a bipartisan MIT and Wentworth study.
Arpino told the board the report estimates the stretch code would increase construction costs by approximately 4 percent. "The average home in Sudbury is over $1,100,000 and that is expected to rise by 3% in 2025. This means an additional $44,000 to the median cost of a single family home," she said.
She also said the study estimated average monthly energy savings of about $48 for a single-family home, which she said results in an average payback period of roughly 43 years when compared to the higher construction cost.
Arpino warned the code would not only affect new construction but also renovations that trigger the code's requirements, saying larger additions or substantial renovations could force homeowners to bring the entire structure up to the new standard, "turning the project into a full gut renovation, adding massive costs, often making the project unaffordable." She added the code often requires removing gas-powered appliances and replacing them with all-electric alternatives.
She also listed several Massachusetts communities she said had repealed or were considering repealing the specialized stretch code and said the Massachusetts Association of Sales, Builders and Remodelers and other industry groups opposed it. Arpino offered to share the studies she cited with board members.
Ending: Arpino asked the board to weigh the trade-offs between long-term energy savings and near-term housing affordability and offered to provide copies of the analysis to board members and staff.
