Passipedia EN

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: Passipedia - The Passive House Resource » Policy » Mandatory Passive House – The Massachusetts Story
policy:massachusettes

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
policy:massachusettes [2024/07/24 16:15] – created yaling.hsiao@passiv.depolicy:massachusettes [2025/03/20 15:04] (current) – yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
Line 21: Line 21:
 Having had more than a decade of experience with adoption of optional codes, municipalities and citizen-advocates were highly organized to rapidly bring the Specialized Code, and thus the Passive House mandate, to their community. Citizen-advocates had become familiar with Passive House and knew the benefits that Passive House can bring to the communities. Within a year of becoming available, four major cities and 27 other smaller communities adopted this tier, comprising 25% of Massachusetts population [DOER 2024]. Each month brings additional adoption. Having had more than a decade of experience with adoption of optional codes, municipalities and citizen-advocates were highly organized to rapidly bring the Specialized Code, and thus the Passive House mandate, to their community. Citizen-advocates had become familiar with Passive House and knew the benefits that Passive House can bring to the communities. Within a year of becoming available, four major cities and 27 other smaller communities adopted this tier, comprising 25% of Massachusetts population [DOER 2024]. Each month brings additional adoption.
  
-===== Part 2: “Crushing” Space Heating: The Key to  Decarbonization =====+===== Part 2: “Crushing” Space Heating: The Key to Decarbonization =====
  
 Massachusetts’ Passive House story is not complete without understanding building space heating and the electric grid. Rapid transition to a renewably generated electric grid has created new opportunities to decarbonize building space heating by swapping from fossil fuel to electric. However, this swap has been met with concerns about imposing new demands on an already stressed electric grid. Massachusetts’ Passive House story is not complete without understanding building space heating and the electric grid. Rapid transition to a renewably generated electric grid has created new opportunities to decarbonize building space heating by swapping from fossil fuel to electric. However, this swap has been met with concerns about imposing new demands on an already stressed electric grid.
  
-In local vernacular, Passive House is described as something that “crushes” space heating. This is because it doesn’t just reduce space heating incrementally, but near eliminates it [Zimin 2022]. Passive House’s ability to “crush” building space heating to near elimination enables a “grid friendly” swap from gas to electric space heating, unlocking decarbonization of building space heating previously not thought possible. +In local vernacular, Passive House is described as something that “crushes” space heating. This is because it doesn’t just reduce space heating incrementally, but near eliminates it [Zimin 2022]. Passive House’s ability to “crush” building space heating to near elimination enables a “grid friendly” swap from gas to electric space heating, unlocking decarbonization of building space heating previously not thought possible. 
 + 
 +[{{ :picopen:m2.png?600 |Source: Picture is from the presentation of 27th International Passive House Conference 2024}}]
  
 Prior to Passive House, space heating reduction was not a priority in Massachusetts. Codes and popular rating systems like LEED targeted reductions in total building energy and were neutral as to what was improved or reduced (e.g. gas, electricity, lighting, heating, cooling, fans, envelope, etc. were all treated the same). Indeed, it was not uncommon for designs to increase space heating. This was happening because energy code allowed, for example, swapping reduced envelope performance for improved lighting performance. Code was satisfied so long as total energy use was reduced. Prior to Passive House, space heating reduction was not a priority in Massachusetts. Codes and popular rating systems like LEED targeted reductions in total building energy and were neutral as to what was improved or reduced (e.g. gas, electricity, lighting, heating, cooling, fans, envelope, etc. were all treated the same). Indeed, it was not uncommon for designs to increase space heating. This was happening because energy code allowed, for example, swapping reduced envelope performance for improved lighting performance. Code was satisfied so long as total energy use was reduced.
  
-Further, for many Massachusetts commercial building types, space heating makes up only a small part of total building energy use. In office buildings, for example, space heating makes up less than 10% of the total energy use [Zimin 2022]. Because total energy reduction is the goal, there was little reason to go to extraordinary lengths to reduce something which makes up only a small part of the total.   +Further, for many Massachusetts commercial building types, space heating makes up only a small part of total building energy use. In office buildings, for example, space heating makes up less than 10% of the total energy use [Zimin 2022]. Because total energy reduction is the goal, there was little reason to go to extraordinary lengths to reduce something which makes up only a small part of the total.
  
 Then, toward the mid-2010’s two significant trends converged which elevated the importance of space heating reduction. First, Massachusetts was on its way to a renewable electric grid with near 100% generation from wind, solar, and hydroelectric. [Massachusetts 2022]. Second, by the mid 2010’s, “cold climate” air source heat pumps had become available in Massachusetts [NEEP, 2024]. These devices enabled, for the first time, an affordable and feasible swap from fossil fuel to electric heat pump heating despite Massachusetts’ cold winters [Johnson, 2013]. Then, toward the mid-2010’s two significant trends converged which elevated the importance of space heating reduction. First, Massachusetts was on its way to a renewable electric grid with near 100% generation from wind, solar, and hydroelectric. [Massachusetts 2022]. Second, by the mid 2010’s, “cold climate” air source heat pumps had become available in Massachusetts [NEEP, 2024]. These devices enabled, for the first time, an affordable and feasible swap from fossil fuel to electric heat pump heating despite Massachusetts’ cold winters [Johnson, 2013].
  
-The convergence of these two trends provided an opportunity to ubiquitously electrify, and thus decarbonize, building space heating which was previously unattainable. In 2024, electric grid emissions rates are such that space heating with electric heat pumps has less than half the emissions of on-site fossil fuel combustion. By 2050, once renewables are fully in place, space heating with electric heat pumps will have 95% less emissions [Ormond 2022]. +The convergence of these two trends provided an opportunity to ubiquitously electrify, and thus decarbonize, building space heating which was previously unattainable. In 2024, electric grid emissions rates are such that space heating with electric heat pumps has less than half the emissions of on-site fossil fuel combustion. By 2050, once renewables are fully in place, space heating with electric heat pumps will have 95% less emissions [Ormond 2022].
  
-However, a fossil fuel to electric swap without significantly reducing the space heating demand itself first would introduce a large new, very costly, peak load on the electric grid. By the early to mid 2010’s, it become clear that heating load reduction would be crucial to facilitate a grid friendly fossil fuel to electric swap.    +[{{ :picopen:m1.png?600 |Source: Presentation of 27th International Passive House Conference 2024 }}]
  
-Fortunately, at about the same time (mid-2010’s), large, commercial-scale Passive House projects began to be built in the Unites States. What was most notable about these projects was that they demonstrated that it is possible to reduce space heating to such an extent that a swap from gas to electric space heating can be made without necessarily resulting in large new peak electric loads, and in some building types, it’s even possible to have no increase in electric peak loads [Zimin 2022]. Passive House challenged the “conventional wisdom” that a gas to electric transition would require massive electric grid upgrades and costs.  +However, a fossil fuel to electric swap without significantly reducing the space heating demand itself first would introduce a large new, very costly, peak load on the electric grid. By the early to mid 2010’s, it become clear that heating load reduction would be crucial to facilitate a grid friendly fossil fuel to electric swap. 
 + 
 +Fortunately, at about the same time (mid-2010’s), large, commercial-scale Passive House projects began to be built in the Unites States. What was most notable about these projects was that they demonstrated that it is possible to reduce space heating to such an extent that a swap from gas to electric space heating can be made without necessarily resulting in large new peak electric loads, and in some building types, it’s even possible to have no increase in electric peak loads [Zimin 2022]. Passive House challenged the “conventional wisdom” that a gas to electric transition would require massive electric grid upgrades and costs.
  
 The heat-crushing performance of Passive House, which solved the gas to electric grid concerns, was hard to ignore and the DOER, Massachusetts’ utilities, and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MCEC) began to seriously look at whether and how Passive House could be adopted in Massachusetts. Passive House comfort and resilience benefits were also hard to ignore. Its cost effectiveness soon became clear, as well, as described in Part 3. The heat-crushing performance of Passive House, which solved the gas to electric grid concerns, was hard to ignore and the DOER, Massachusetts’ utilities, and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MCEC) began to seriously look at whether and how Passive House could be adopted in Massachusetts. Passive House comfort and resilience benefits were also hard to ignore. Its cost effectiveness soon became clear, as well, as described in Part 3.
 +
  
 ===== Part 3: Laying the Passive House Foundations ===== ===== Part 3: Laying the Passive House Foundations =====
-Passive House had been an optional energy code pathway since 2012. However, few developers availed themselves of this pathway for many years. Massachusetts first Passive House (a single family) was not built until 2011. Little was known about Passive House in the local industry, a void which was quickly filled by fear of costs and risk. Perhaps the biggest misconceptions at this time keeping Passive House being “taken seriously” was the notion that Passive House was for small, single family homes only and that cost premiums were in the 15% range as compared to standard construction.  
  
-Then, in 2015 the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority (PHFA) introduced Passive House into their competitive selection process for multifamily developments. Developers responded rapidly. In 2015 and 2016, 18 winning projects, about 20% of all winning projects, were Passive House. Cost was also notable. In 2015, PHFA Passive House buildings cost just 2% more than conventional buildings. In 2016, Passive House buildings cost the same as conventional [Semke 2020].  This experience alleviated fears about construction costs and rapid adoption.  +Passive House had been an optional energy code pathway since 2012. However, few developers availed themselves of this pathway for many years. Massachusetts first Passive House (a single family) was not built until 2011. Little was known about Passive House in the local industry, a void which was quickly filled by fear of costs and risk. Perhaps the biggest misconceptions at this time keeping Passive House being “taken seriously” was the notion that Passive House was for small, single family homes only and that cost premiums were in the 15% range as compared to standard construction.
  
-In 2016, a second Massachusetts Passive House building generated significant interest, being the first multifamily. This building had a profound impact on the Massachusetts design and development community. Taking a tour of the 110,000-sf “Distillery” project in Boston became a rite of passage for many in the development community seeking way to decarbonize and improve comfort and resilience. Energy performance for the Distillery, once complete and occupied, did crush heating demand, proving wrong the Massachusetts sceptics jaded by poor energy performance of some LEED certified buildings. The 2020 energy reporting data shows the Distillery with 60% lower energy use (and its associated utility costs) as compared to other non-Passive House multifamilies built to the LEED standard [Simmons 2022]. +Then, in 2015 the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority (PHFA) introduced Passive House into their competitive selection process for multifamily developments. Developers responded rapidly. In 2015 and 2016, 18 winning projects, about 20% of all winning projects, were Passive House. Cost was also notable. In 2015, PHFA Passive House buildings cost just 2% more than conventional buildings. In 2016, Passive House buildings cost the same as conventional [Semke 2020]. This experience alleviated fears about construction costs and rapid adoption.
  
-In 2016 and 2017, projects in New York City and Boston demonstrated that downtown high rises can be built to Passive House standards. In New York City, the 26-story, 352-unit, 272,000-sf “House at Cornell Tech” apartment building was completed in 2017.  In Boston, the 53-story, 812,000-sf Winthrop Center began in 2016 (completed in 2023). +In 2016, a second Massachusetts Passive House building generated significant interest, being the first multifamily. This building had a profound impact on the Massachusetts design and development community. Taking a tour of the 110,000-sf “Distillery” project in Boston became a rite of passage for many in the development community seeking way to decarbonize and improve comfort and resilience. Energy performance for the Distillery, once complete and occupied, did crush heating demand, proving wrong the Massachusetts sceptics jaded by poor energy performance of some LEED certified buildings. The 2020 energy reporting data shows the Distillery with 60% lower energy use (and its associated utility costs) as compared to other non-Passive House multifamilies built to the LEED standard [Simmons 2022].
  
-In 2016 and 2017, projects in New York City and Boston demonstrated that downtown high rises can be built to Passive House standards. In New York City, the 26-story, 352-unit, 272,000-sf “House at Cornell Tech” apartment building was completed in 2017.  In Boston, the 53-story, 812,000-sf Winthrop Center began in 2016 (completed in 2023). +In 2016 and 2017, projects in New York City and Boston demonstrated that downtown high rises can be built to Passive House standards. In New York City, the 26-story, 352-unit, 272,000-sf “House at Cornell Tech” apartment building was completed in 2017. In Boston, the 53-story, 812,000-sf Winthrop Center began in 2016 (completed in 2023).
  
 In 2017, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MCEC), launched the Passive House Design Challenge, offering an incentive of $4,000/dwelling unit for affordable housing developers to build to Passive House to help jump start Passive House in Massachusetts and better assess Passive House costs. Eight buildings were accepted into the program, ranging in size from about 50,000-st to 150,000-sf. Average construction cost increase to achieve Passive House standard over required code was under 3% [Simmons 2022]. In 2017, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MCEC), launched the Passive House Design Challenge, offering an incentive of $4,000/dwelling unit for affordable housing developers to build to Passive House to help jump start Passive House in Massachusetts and better assess Passive House costs. Eight buildings were accepted into the program, ranging in size from about 50,000-st to 150,000-sf. Average construction cost increase to achieve Passive House standard over required code was under 3% [Simmons 2022].
  
-In 2019, Massachusetts’ utilities launched a statewide Passive House incentive, providing $3,000 per unit for residential buildings with 5 or more units. This incentive was launched in conjunction with funding for design professional and contractor training. This incentive was funded by Massachusetts’ nation-leading energy efficiency program MassSave®.  Uptake of the incentive was significant. By 2023, completed Passive House certified buildings reached over 1 million square feet in 30 buildings with another 160 buildings with over 13,000 dwelling units underway [Craig 2024]. This dramatic uptake was occurring prior to any Passive House mandate in the energy code. Passive House at this point was still entirely optional. +In 2019, Massachusetts’ utilities launched a statewide Passive House incentive, providing $3,000 per unit for residential buildings with 5 or more units. This incentive was launched in conjunction with funding for design professional and contractor training. This incentive was funded by Massachusetts’ nation-leading energy efficiency program MassSave®. Uptake of the incentive was significant. By 2023, completed Passive House certified buildings reached over 1 million square feet in 30 buildings with another 160 buildings with over 13,000 dwelling units underway [Craig 2024]. This dramatic uptake was occurring prior to any Passive House mandate in the energy code. Passive House at this point was still entirely optional.
  
 During this time, the community of citizen-advocates mobilized by the GCA were taking note of Passive House’s rapid adoption and cost-effectiveness. Local training and advocacy groups like Passive House Massachusetts and Built Environment Plus emerged during this time. During this time, the community of citizen-advocates mobilized by the GCA were taking note of Passive House’s rapid adoption and cost-effectiveness. Local training and advocacy groups like Passive House Massachusetts and Built Environment Plus emerged during this time.
policy/massachusettes.1721830535.txt.gz · Last modified: by yaling.hsiao@passiv.de