Specialized Code opposition letter missed the mark

By Guest

Note: This letter was incorrectly attributed to SCAP Committee Chair Tom Birmingham in the May 7 print edition. The author of the letter is Jen Wexler, the committee’s vice chair.

Dear Editor:

In last week’s edition of the Citizen, Tim Shanahan offered a 12-point argument for opposing adoption of the Specialized Energy Code at the upcoming Annual Town Meeting. Below is our response to each of Shanahan’s claims.

On his characterization of Article 33 as an example of “pure government overreach,” Shanahan ignores the majority of FinCom members who recognize that this indeed maintains and enhances consumer choice. Builders can still build with mixed fuel (gas) systems, but if they make the short-sighted decision to do so, they have to pre-wire to make it simple for future building occupants to upgrade to more efficient electric systems.

Shanahan himself acknowledges that dozens of towns have adopted the Specialized Code, yet “none have repealed it.” Well said! Regarding his claim that our own consultant called the process “rushed,” I am not sure where he is pulling that quote from, but the professional guidance of our consultant is to adopt the code.

As for the idea that it forces taxpayers into the most expensive form of energy, the current drama with the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates the faulty logic here. Gas is neither reliable nor affordable, and locking future residents and building occupants into unreliable foreign energy sources is the actual risky option. Requiring mixed fuel buildings to install solar panels lowers the energy required to power the building and keeps open the option of easily powering it with in-state renewables in the years to come as gas prices continue to rise and electricity becomes more stable.

On the argument that electrification still does not eliminate fossil fuels, while that is true today, if we do our job, in two decades, electrification will hopefully mean fully eliminating fossil fuels — which is exactly why we want to pre-wire buildings to allow for an easy conversion. One thing that definitely does not eliminate fossil fuels? Building new buildings designed to be only heated with fossil fuels.

In response to claims that we are “selling out” our citizens to chase Climate Leader Community status and more state grant funding, a majority of the current Select Board supports Canton becoming a Climate Leader Community and ensuring our town’s new buildings are built with the future — not the past — in mind.

As for his claims that the electric pre-wiring mandated by the code would add huge up-front costs for home builders, the costs of pre-wiring are just a fraction of the costs homeowners will have to pay to upgrade to electric systems later on. Regardless, over 90 percent of new buildings in Mass. are being built all electric anyway. If you have central A/C, then you already have an efficient system of moving conditioned air through the home. Why not use the same system to move both hot and cold air through the building by installing a bidirectional heat pump?

Shanahan’s claims about “expensive solar mandates” are also misleading. He cites the high cost of adding a battery backup, which is not a requirement of the proposed code. Further, he said all-electric buildings avoid some of the solar requirements, but these buildings avoid all of that requirement. Not to mention that solar is a great investment anyway, as it provides zero-cost electricity for decades that can easily recoup the costs of construction.

In response to other arguments advanced by Shanahan:

* There is no data demonstrating any adverse impact on commercial development in the dozens of communities that have adopted the Specialized Code. If such data existed, communities would be rushing to repeal it.

* A majority of FinCom members endorsed this because there is no projected negative impact on the town’s finances. Commercial tenants are looking for modern, green, and resilient buildings, and adopting the code allows us to remain competitive with other neighboring towns that have already done so.

* If the mandates do prove to be detrimental, we can repeal them at any time. And while the grant funding that this would unlock may not be there in the future, those grants are there now — and available for Canton to claim if we act on this measure.

Contrary to Shanahan’s advice, we strongly urge you to vote ‘Yes’ on Article 33 and to join us in prioritizing Canton’s economic health, public health, and climate stability over developer profits and convenience. Remember that this policy encourages but does not require new buildings to be all-electric. Instead, it builds in protections for future occupants whose near-sighted developers would otherwise fail to allow for an easy and low-cost electrification upgrade.

Jen Wexler, Vice Chair

Sustainability & Climate Action Plan Committee

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=134028