Mandatory Compliance with Massachusetts Large Building Energy Reporting (LBER): Requirements for Condominium Associations

Troy Tanzer

Is Your Condominium on the List? Important LBER Reporting Obligations for 2025

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER or Department)

has implemented new energy reporting requirements that directly impact condominium associations across the Commonwealth. If a building is 20,000 square feet or more, the Large Building Energy Reporting (LBER) law applies.

What Buildings Are Covered by LBER?

LBER was established by An Act Driving Clean Energy and Offshore Wind (Chapter 179 of the Acts of 2022, § 41), codified as M.G.L. c. 25A, § 20. The law applies to any building, including condominiums, with a Gross Floor Area of 20,000 square feet or more, located on one or more parcels.

Under LBER, “Distribution Companies” of utilities (electric, gas, steam) are required to report a building’s energy usage annually. However, building owners or their agents are responsible for submitting usage data for other energy sources like oil, propane, wood, and on-site renewable energy systems.

The DOER has released the final Covered Buildings List identifying all properties with reporting obligations due by June 30, 2025.

What Are the Reporting Requirements?

LBER imposes annual reporting duties on several parties:

1.    Distribution Companies- Annually by May 30^th, each Distribution Company shall report to the Department all Energy Usage provided by the Distribution Company for all Covered Buildings for the previous calendar year. Such Energy Usage shall be reported at the meter level for each Covered Building unless an exception is approved pursuant to 225 CMR 27.04(1)(c). Such Energy Usage shall be provided for each Covered Building and shall be submitted in a manner established by the Department in its Distribution Company Reporting Guideline.

2.    Municipal Utilities- Annually by May 30^th, each Municipal Utility shall report to the Department all Energy Usage provided by the Municipal Utilities for all Covered Buildings for the previous calendar year. Such Energy Usage shall be reported at the meter level for each Covered Building unless an exception is approved pursuant to 225 CMR 27.04(2)(b). Such Energy Usage shall be provided for each Covered Building and shall be submitted in a manner established by the Department in its Municipal Utility Reporting Guideline. A Municipal Utility may request to submit Energy Usage aggregated to the Building level for a Covered Building or group of Covered Buildings. Such a request shall detail why the submission of meter level data for the Covered Buildings is not possible or practicable. The Department shall review such requests on a case-by-case basis

3.    Building Owners (Including Condominium Associations)- Annually by June 30^th, building owners shall provide all Energy Usage that is not provided by a Distribution Company or Municipal Utility for all Covered Buildings where they are listed on the Covered Buildings List as the building owner. Energy Usage shall be reported using Energy Star Portfolio Manager or any other Department-approved program in a manner to be specified by the Department in its Building Owner Reporting Guideline.

1.    Building Owner- The person, persons, entity, or entities listed in the Covered Buildings List as the owner or designated building owner of a Covered Building.

2.    Designated Building Owner- A person or entity that has been designated by the building owner pursuant to 225 CMR 27.06(2)-(3) as responsible for compliance with 225 CMR 27.00

4.    Campus Designations- building owners that have received approval to designate a collection of Buildings as a Campus pursuant to 225 CMR 27.03(5) shall report Energy Usage for all Buildings on that Campus pursuant to the plan approved by the Department under 225 CMR 27.03(5).

Alternative Compliance Options

If your building cannot comply by June 30^th, you may request a deadline extension or modification of reporting requirements (requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis).

If you already report under Boston’s Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO), or Cambridge’s Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (BEUDO), then no additional reporting is required under LBER. Your municipal reports will satisfy LBER’s requirements.

How to File/Comply

All building owners must file through the Massachusetts BEAM Portal, which provides tools for:

• Uploading building lists
• Entering and validating energy data

Visit the DOER’s Building Owner Guidance page for step-by-step instructions. Additional resources will be made available, including one-page sheets and tutorials.

What If You’re Not Sure Your Condominium Is Covered?

In February 2025, the DOER mailed notification letters to building owners listed on the Covered Buildings List. If you’re unsure:

• Search the list on DOER’s website or through the BEAM Portal.
• If your condominium is under 20,000 sq. ft. and appears on the list in error, you may submit a Dispute Inclusion Form by April 30, 2025.
• You may also apply for an exemption if the building was:
• Vacant for a full calendar year
• Demolished in the previous calendar year
• Vacant more than 50 percent of the year due to natural causes (fire, flood, damage, etc.)
• Filed or been dissolved in bankruptcy
• Affected by other unique, documented circumstances

What Happens If You Don’t Comply?

Failure to report by June 30^th may result in:

1.    A written notice from the DOER.

2.    A daily fine of up to $150, beginning 30 days after notification.

A building owner may not pass through a fine assessed pursuant to 225 CMR 27.11(3)(a)2. to a lessee of a unit within a Covered Building that comprises less than five percent of the total Gross Floor Area of the Building. If a lessee that comprises greater than five percent of the total gross floor area of a Covered Building fails to respond within 30 days to a written request for Energy Usage information submitted by a building owner pursuant to 225 CMR 27.04(3)(a), the Department may take the following enforcement actions:

1.    A written notice from the DOER.

2.    A daily fine up to $150, beginning 30 days after notification.

Key LBER Timeline

• March 30, 2025 – Final Covered Buildings List published
• April 30, 2025 – Deadline to dispute inclusion in the List. Building owners can enter a dispute within the BEAM Portal.
• June 30, 2025 – Reporting deadline for all utilities and building owners.
• October 31, 2025 – Public release of building energy data and greenhouse gas emissions reports.

The October release will include a searchable online database and map, showing each Covered Building’s reported energy use and emissions profile.

Your Next Steps

1.    Check the Covered Buildings List and confirm if your condominium is listed.

2.    If listed, begin gathering non-utility energy data and register with BEAM.

3.    Submit your report by June 30, 2025.

An associate in the Boston and Quincy-based firm of Moriarty Troyer & Malloy LLC, Troy handles a variety of real estate matters with an emphasis on zoning and land use.  Troy can be contacted at ttanzer@mbmllc.com 

  

Environmental Justice and the Legal Profession (Video)

10 Things to Know About the Hampden County Registry of Deeds

1. We have TWO (2) FULL-SERVICE OFFICES (Record in Both Recorded and Registered Land and Record Plans):

 

• Springfield – 436 Dwight Street, B42, Springfield, MA 01103 

• Westfield – 59 Court Street, Rm#104, Westfield, MA 01085

 

2. We have Historical Documents (images) going back to 1636.

 

3.    We have Indexed Documents going back to 1947.

 

4. E-Recording is available for BOTH Recorded and Registered Land.

 

5. You can E-Record Multifunctional Documents in our Recorded and Registered Land departments up to 10 notations (check with your E-Recording company for participation and availability and check with our Office for filing fee determination).

 

6.    We offer FREE Public Notary service for anyone who wishes to record a Declaration of Homestead form with our Office.

 

7.1Emailing complicated documents in advance for our review is HIGHLY recommended and encouraged to avoid unnecessary rejections and delays.

 

8.   We have a FREE FRAUD ALERT SERVICE, the Consumer Notification System – sign up and be alerted immediately should any document that includes your name be recorded at our Registry.

 

9.    Our Registry offers FREE workshops (Registry on the Go!) to any of the 23 Cities and Towns within Hampden County where we discuss the following topics:

 

• What we do and where we are located

• Declaration of Homestead 

• Consumer Notification System – Free Fraud Alert

• Free Certified Copy of Deed and Declaration of Homestead to any Hampden County resident

Just contact us to schedule a workshop in your City and Town!

 

10.  We are constantly working with the newest technology to improve our images and records.  We are currently partnering with Boston University to create a transcription program to digitize our historical records. The goal is to transcribe the Old English Script which was used in the early 17^th Century to digitized print…Stay Tuned!!! 

Massachusetts High Court Clarifies Zoning Rules for Sober Homes: What Property Owners and Municipalities Need to Know

Stephanie T. Reed

In a decision with statewide impact, the SJC recently clarified how zoning laws apply to sober homes. In Bak Realty, LLC v. City of Fitchburg, the Court ruled that a sober home may not be excluded from a residential

neighborhood if the residents are functionally the equivalent of a family. This standard focuses not on blood or marriage ties, but on whether the individuals live together in a stable, cohesive household. This means sharing meals, responsibilities, routines, and exhibiting a commitment to communal living, much like a traditional family.

The case arose after the City of Fitchburg tried to block a sober home from operating in a single-family residential zone. The SJC held that Fitchburg could not use its zoning code to exclude housing for people in recovery when the residents function like a family and are protected under federal anti-discrimination laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This ruling has important implications for both property owners and local governments. For owners and operators of sober homes, it offers support, but also a reminder that the household must be genuinely cooperative and not just a group of individuals living under the same roof. For cities and towns, it signals the need to revisit zoning definitions that narrowly define “family” in ways that may violate federal law.

Communities across Massachusetts have grappled with similar issues, sometimes facing lawsuits or HUD complaints. In Worcester, for instance, the city has been involved in litigation with sober house operators that raises the question whether lodging house requirements discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Similarly, in New Bedford, the city has taken steps to regulate sober homes and lodging houses, prompting discussions about the balance between local control and federal anti-discrimination laws. The Bak Realty ruling provides clearer guidance, but also raises new questions about how municipalities can regulate group housing without crossing legal lines.

Legal guidance is especially important in areas like this, where zoning codes, disability rights, and federal protections intersect. Whether you’re a property owner planning a new use, or a municipality trying to enforce local ordinances, it’s best to get ahead of issues before they turn into a dispute.

Stephanie is an associate in the litigation practice group, at Prince Lobel Tye LLP. In her practice, Stephanie defends companies and individuals in high stakes matters, including commercial and business litigation, construction, intellectual property, insurance defense, media and privacy law, and other areas of complex civil litigation.  Stephanie can be contacted at sreed@princelobel.com.

Have questions about zoning and sober homes in your community? Contact Ann Sobolewski or any member of Prince Lobel’s Real Estate group to learn how this decision may affect your rights and responsibilities. 

The Fundamentals of Negotiating Subordination, Recognition and Non-Disturbance Agreements

 

Appeals Court Holds Denial of Jury Trial Not Immediately Appealable

 Adam F. Braillard

 In April of this year, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a bank suing a property owner for unjust enrichment could not immediately appeal from the denial of its request

for a jury trial. The court concluded that the “doctrine of present execution” does not apply and that the bank’s claim can be addressed by appeal after final judgment, through remand and a new jury trial, if appropriate. The court further emphasized that piecemeal appeals are disfavored unless compelling policy considerations warrant immediate appellate review—none of which UniBank demonstrated.

 Background:

In 2018, GCP Newton Hotel, PL (“GCP Newton”) became a leaseholder and secured financing from UniBank for Savings (“Unibank”) to renovate a hotel located on property owned by Commonwealth Development LLC (“Comm Development”). In 2020, GCP Newton defaulted on both the UniBank loan and its lease obligations. In 2021, GCP Newton filed suit against Comm Development, seeking a declaration that it was not in default. Comm Development responded by terminating the lease and filing a summary process action, which was later consolidated with GCP Newton’s case.

UniBank intervened in September 2021, alleging that Comm Development had been unjustly enriched by renovations funded by UniBank without offering compensation. UniBank demanded a jury trial on its unjust enrichment claim, arguing that it presented a legal, not merely equitable, issue. Comm Development moved to strike the jury demand, which the judge granted without issuing a written opinion. UniBank appealed.

The Law and the Analysis:

This case addresses several key principles under Massachusetts appellate and civil procedure law, specifically:

·       Final Judgement Rule and Interlocutory Appeals:  The general rule is that appeals can only be taken from a final judgment (i.e., when the trial court has finished all proceedings on the matter). An ”interlocutory” order is an order made by a court during the course of a case, before final judgment or resolution. 

·       Doctrine of Present Execution: This is an exception to the final judgment rule allowing for immediate appeal of some interlocutory orders provided (i) the order is collateral to the main dispute, and (ii) the party would suffer harm that cannot be remedied later on appeal from a final judgment.

·       Unjust Enrichment: This is a remedy that can be used in Massachusetts to prevent unjust outcomes when one party unfairly benefits from another's loss.  However, there must be a valued benefit to the party, that party must know of that benefit, and it would be unjust for the benefiting party to retain the benefit.

The court addressed UniBank's appeal of the interlocutory order denying a jury trial on its unjust enrichment claim. It noted that normally, appeals can only be made from final judgments, but there is an exception under the "doctrine of present execution" for orders that are collateral to the underlying dispute and cannot be remedied later. UniBank argued that the denial of a jury trial could not be fixed after judgment. The court disagreed, noting that if UniBank's appeal after judgment is successful, the case could be remanded for a new trial with a jury, addressing all issues in a single appeal. The court rejected UniBank's claim that the denial of a jury trial would cause irremediable harm.

UniBank's unjust enrichment claim, which sought to recover loan proceeds from a third party, was also examined. The court found the claim novel and not supported by precedent, as it did not involve a contractual relationship with the third party and was not based on tort or property principles. The court clarified that unjust enrichment claims typically require some wrong or duty, which was lacking in UniBank's case. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that UniBank could raise the issue of unjust enrichment in the trial court.

Also noteworthy: the court also stated that "Unjust enrichment is not a concept to be cut loose from the moorings of claims recognized at common law.” In other words, unjust enrichment is not a free-floating catch-all equitable remedy available to address all perceived unfairness.  The court concluded that UniBank’s theory, if accepted, would dramatically expand unjust enrichment liability and lacked support in Massachusetts case law.

Conclusion:

The Appeals Court dismissed UniBank’s interlocutory appeal, holding that (i) the denial of a jury trial is not immediately appealable under the doctrine of present execution, (ii) unjust enrichment must be grounded in recognized legal or equitable claims, and (iii) while the right to a jury trial is fundamental, it does not justify immediate appellate intervention absent irreparable harm.

With more than 20 years of experience in transactional and commercial land use development, Adam is a partner in Prince Lobel’s Real Estate and Telecommunications practices and is at the forefront of the firm’s Renewable Energy and Cannabis practice groups. For questions about this case, please contact abraillard@princelobel.com.

 

 

The Facts of Life Estates (Video)

PDF