A Massachusetts building energy code overhaul proposed by Gov. Charlie Baker's administration drew disappointment from supporters of building gas bans and concern from building and labor groups.

Climate activists and their Democratic allies in the statehouse were unhappy that the proposal did not give local governments long-sought authority to restrict natural gas use in new buildings. Meanwhile, developers and labor representatives said they would work to ensure the final codes do not hamper construction or cost the state union jobs.

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, or DOER, on Feb. 8 proposed changes that would favor all-electric building construction in an update to the state's optional stretch energy code, used by about 85% of towns and cities. DOER also proposed a separate, more stringent stretch code, which stemmed from a 2021 climate law and which would give climate-focused towns and cities a third code option.

The proposed updates "strike an important balance between energy efficiency in residential and commercial building construction and continued housing production across the Commonwealth as the state works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve net-zero by 2050," Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs spokesperson Troy Wall said in an email.

Lawmakers see red flags

Massachusetts Rep. Tommy Vitolo, a Democrat, said DOER's proposal failed to fulfill the legislative intent of the 2021 climate law: Providing a third code option that allows towns and cities to explicitly prohibit gas hookups in new buildings. Brookline, Mass., which Vitolo represents, passed the first East Coast gas ban, but Attorney General Maura Healey's office struck it down because it conflicted with state law.

In directing DOER to develop a third code option, the legislature's intent was "to allow ambitious communities to lead the way on bringing buildings in compliance with the 2050 statewide net-zero emissions requirements," Vitolo told S&P Global Market Intelligence. "The specialized stretch energy code should not permit fossil fuel systems anywhere electric systems can be used."

Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Michael Barrett, who co-sponsored the 2021 climate legislation, said he liked some aspects of DOER's approach but saw several red flags. In his view, the proposal would allow too much new natural gas infrastructure, even in towns and cities that opt into the new energy code.

In an interview, Barrett said he was not fully convinced that the obstacles enshrined in DOER's proposal are substantial enough to prompt builders to choose electric over gas heating. He had hoped the proposal would send a clearer market signal in line with the state legislature's intent to phase out gas infrastructure, he said.

"Government policy is supposed to take a position and nudge things along," said Barrett, who co-chairs the legislature's Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. "I don't know if enough nudges exist in this draft."

If the code development process does not satisfy the state legislature, which Democrats dominate, lawmakers could advance a bill that would give all towns and cities authority to pass gas bans, Barrett said.

Grassroots groups disappointed

Members of grassroots movements also expressed disappointment. Jesse Gray, a member of the local legislature who developed the Brookline gas ban in 2019, called the proposal a missed opportunity to clearly grant local governments the authority to prohibit new gas hookups.

"There's no way we're going to solve this problem unless we accelerate the climate action, so there is a political acceleration that needs to happen in general on this issue," Gray said in an interview.

The proposal failed to produce a clear definition for net-zero buildings and net-zero building performance standards, as mandated in the 2021 climate bill, according to Lisa Cunningham, a Boston area architect and co-facilitator of the Massachusetts Building Electrification Accelerator at sustainability group RMI.

Fully electric homes would meet the definition of net-zero because they are "consistent and compatible with achieving net-zero emissions in our economy in 2050," DOER Energy Efficiency Division Deputy Director Ian Finlayson said in a Feb. 8 presentation. To meet the net-zero definition, new homes that use fossil fuels will need to take additional steps, including installing solar panels and wiring for future conversion to all electric.

But Cunningham said the proposal does not actually require on-site renewables, because builders only have to install them on unshaded rooftops with adequate space.

Barrett expressed concern that construction of "McMansions" with ornate rooftops would not create feasible conditions for solar panel installation, creating a loophole for builders.

Builders wary of impacts

Organizations that represent developers and building trades workers have warned that restrictions on gas use could throttle affordable housing development. Following the proposal, they expressed concerns about potential impacts.

"There is no doubt that the updates outlined will have an impact on development across the state," NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents major commercial and residential developers, said in an email. The group said it looks forward to working with DOER "to ensure any negative impacts on economic development and housing are mitigated to ensure a practical achievement of the state's climate goals."

The process could "catastrophically" affect tens of thousands of workers in good-paying jobs, Andrew DeAngelo, executive director of the Greater Boston Plumbing Contractors Association, said in an email.

"Without input from industry experts, there could be far-reaching consequences for both workers and consumers alike," DeAngelo said. "We plan on reviewing the draft language at length, but we recognize that what we have seen so far will have a significant impact on construction across the state."

Massachusetts gas distributors National Grid PLC and Eversource Energy did not respond to requests for comment by press time.