(Illustration via Pixabay) field_54b3f951675b3

THE MOMENTUM is undeniable. Over the last 15 months, Massachusetts has begun to face its need for more housing to support our citizens, businesses, and competitiveness. But if we fail to ensure the power necessary to heat and power these homes, it could all be for naught.

Certainly, building single and multifamily housing in Massachusetts has always been challenging. Between byzantine zoning and permitting requirements, and high land and labor costs, housing construction has often been drawn out and expensive. And, with new economic headwinds such as high interest rates and material costs, prices have continued to rise – to the point where it is now a major factor causing 1-in-4 younger workers to consider leaving Greater Boston and Massachusetts.

This is why the Healey-Driscoll Administration has made housing a priority with its ambitious $4 billion plan to build 40,000 new homes, while encouraging development near public transit as part of the MBTA Communities law. This has the double benefit of increasing affordable housing supply while also reducing the need for cars in order to help the state meet its 2050 net zero greenhouse gas goals.

But over the last few years another factor has emerged that poses an existential threat to Massachusetts’ housing progress:

Energy.

Massachusetts has long had among the highest energy costs in the United States, due to a combination of a stressed natural gas system and tight supplies for heating and electricity during the coldest and hottest stretches of the year. As demand for energy surges around the country, prices are sure to keep rising as billions in infrastructure investments are needed to transition to carbon-free generation.

Yet as important as high energy costs are to our ability to build housing is its availability – particularly when it comes to electricity.  

The electrification of buildings—namely using heat pumps for heating and cooling—is often touted as the surest path to meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals. As advocates double down on electrification, there is mounting pressure to abandon the state’s extensive natural gas system, despite its general reliability over the last several decades.

Given that our state must simultaneously build more housing and reduce emissions, such a single-minded approach only increases the likelihood that neither will be realized – stalling developments, increasing prices further, and expanding the use of fuels more carbon intensive than natural gas.

Left unaddressed, the cost and availability of energy are poised to become deciding factors on when, where, and how fast new housing developments are built.

The issue is most acute near transit stations and in densely populated areas where there is simply not enough electrical capacity to fully electrify buildings. Upgrading electrical infrastructure can take years. Combined with the increasing resistance from regulators and town officials to utilize natural gas pipes, housing developers will be left with three alternatives: reduce the size of the development to match the electrical load, rely on fuels delivered by truck such as fuel oil or propane, or build somewhere else, or not at all.

None are good solutions. Housing production must happen quickly and in areas accessible to jobs. Any policy that effectively encourages the use of so-called dispatchable fuels, even for a brief time, is a recipe for environmental and financial disaster, as they must be delivered by truck and are more carbon-intensive.

Additionally, dispatchable fuels require multifamily housing to be designed for two systems – including one that may not have sufficient electrical load for years, possibly decades. Many investors will be unwilling to take on such an uncertain or costly investment.

A far better approach is for state policymakers to consider our environmental and economic needs together. For instance, utilizing the existing pipe infrastructure in certain areas will ensure housing is built faster, cheaper, and in locations where it is needed. Likewise, by beginning to transition from natural gas to the strategic use of renewable biogas or hydrogen, we can meet our net-zero goals without leaving communities vulnerable to using propane or fuel oil or forced to make unnecessary and costly infrastructure improvements.

Building more housing and reducing emissions may represent two different goals – but our pursuit of them cannot be mutually exclusive. By taking steps at the state level to ensure they are working in concert with one another, we can make the housing and climate progress we need – and make Massachusetts a much more attractive place to live, work, and invest.

Greg Vasil is president & CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. Joe Landers is executive officer of the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts.