By Max Woolf
Fighting climate change is essential, but how we do it matters.
Watertown is considering new rules that would shift the costs of decarbonization onto property owners, businesses, and renters. The proposed ordinance, known as BERDO, would have Watertown join Boston, Lexington, Cambridge, and Newton by requiring owners of properties 20,000 square feet or larger to track and reduce fossil fuel use — or face fines.
While specific requirements and timelines vary based on building size, under the proposal, all large commercial and residential property owners in Watertown will have to take a combination of the following steps to comply:
● Hire a consultant to measure and benchmark energy use
● Report energy use annually to the city
● Take steps to reduce emissions, such as replacing gas boilers with heat pumps, upgrading HVAC systems and adopting other efficiency measures, or pay fines
● Periodically verify energy data through third-party consultants at the owner’s expense
● Implement efficiency upgrades, like installing new insulation, optimizing building controls, or reducing overall energy consumption, or pay fines
● Possibly install on-site solar panels or instead purchase costly electricity offsets (even after completing retrofits)
On top of that, Watertown’s BERDO rules are different from Boston’s, Cambridge’s, Newton’s, or Lexington’s, and that’s a problem in and of itself because anyone who owns or manages property in multiple communities must navigate a different set of complex rules and deadlines.
Watertown’s proposed ordinance also goes further than Newton’s, Cambridge’s, or Lexington’s, raising concerns about the city’s future affordability and competitiveness, not just against these communities but also communities across the region that have not adopted BERDO rules.
Off-Site vs. On-Site Emissions
For example, Newton’s BERDO focused solely on on-site emissions reductions, like replacing gas boilers, while Watertown’s draft language expands regulations to include off-site emissions. This means large property owners would need to install solar panels, buy costly renewable energy credits (RECs), or implement additional efficiency upgrades.
The primary choice is RECs, which reflect the New England grid’s fossil fuel reliance. Payments subsidize clean power sources like wind farms. This means large apartment buildings, condominium associations, and other property owners must not only retrofit their buildings but also incur extra payments for the same electricity others purchase at standard market rates. Thus, the ordinance effectively becomes not just a building emissions reduction tool but a mechanism requiring businesses and renters to subsidize renewable energy projects.
An Accelerated Timeline
Watertown’s proposed ordinance also sets an aggressive schedule for compliance, mandating that the largest commercial properties reach net zero by 2035 — 15 years sooner than Newton. This significantly compressed timeline forces expensive upgrades in a way that may not be financially feasible for many businesses and property owners.
Even a 2050 net-zero goal timeline would strain Watertown’s biotech sector which contributes an outsized amount to the city’s tax base. An accelerated 2035 deadline only worsens the challenge, likely reducing commercial property values and the city’s long-term tax revenues, both of which will make the city less competitive. This is especially important as neighboring communities like Waltham and Burlington are not imposing such requirements on businesses.
Impact on Apartments, Condos, and Housing Affordability
Finally, unlike Newton and Cambridge, Watertown’s BERDO proposal includes large residential buildings. These apartments and condos house some of the city’s most vulnerable residents and a substantial portion of its workforce. At a time when we need to reduce, not raise, the cost of housing, BERDO will hurt housing affordability.
That does beg the question, how much will rents rise? And what will businesses have to pay for retrofitting their buildings?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Every building is different. However, the City of Newton conducted an economic analysis and case studies, finding that rent increases could reach 4% in a single year—a significant burden for both business owners and renters at a time when so many other costs are rising. Notably, Newton’s estimate does not include off-site emission offset costs, which Watertown’s ordinance does.
Watertown has yet to conduct a similar analysis. If the results were anything like Newton’s, they would demonstrate that these costs will likely be passed on to commercial and residential tenants.
Finding a Balanced Path
Make no mistake: BERDO will require expensive investments and challenging retrofits. It will drive up rents and it will make Watertown less competitive for both owners and tenants.
We must balance doing our part to stem the climate crisis while also keeping Watertown affordable and economically viable.
The Watertown City Council’s Committee on Rules and Ordinances will hold a public hearing on BERDO, March 10, at 6 p.m. The Charles River Chamber urges councilors to carefully consider the costs of this ordinance and its unintended consequences.
Max Woolf is the Public Policy & Government Affairs Manager at the Charles River Regional Chamber. Contact him at mwoolf@charlesriverchamber.com.
This piece is a short-sighted rant that should have started with a few statistics about New England dependence on Canadian energy, such as research like this: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/180501_Us_canada_energy_12.jpg
Do we think these costs are going up, or down?
These “burdens” ironically pay for themselves. If I were critiquing BERDO, I’d focus on supporting owners with the capital necessary to execute, and offer to help finance in return for a slice of the savings. Wonder how many of these owners might decline in order to pocket all the savings for themselves?
In a prior residence, I put in a hybrid water heater that paid for itself in 2 years. (And, conveniently, cooled and dehumidified my home to boot). In my current home in Watertown, owing to efficiency improvements by the previous owner, (confirmed via a visit by a helpful MassSave contractor), I’m paying less to heat and cool 2,200 square feet with exposed walls on 4 sides (vinyl-sided multi-family home) than I did to heat and cool 1,500 square feet with only a single exposed wall that was 2-feet thick of brick. I’m guessing, based on the difference, that the high-efficiency gas furnace and tankless hot water system, at current prices, would pay for itself in fewer than 5 years, and put money in my pocket for every year after that.
Explain to me again how this is a burden? Yes, raising/borrowing the money to pay for things up front could be a burden, and I’d agree with you that improvements to the program are important. Let’s suggest to the City that we combine the BERDO ordinance with readily-available seed capital to execute on the plan. We can ensure businesses remain competitive and eager to locate here in Watertown AND save them, us, and the planet money in the process.