Mass Timber At Parity: Fixing Insurance & Code Bottlenecks – CleanTechnica

---

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

---

Last Updated on: 29th August 2025, 11:23 am

Technical feasibility is no longer the primary barrier for mass timber construction. Engineers and builders have proven that tall, strong, and safe structures can be delivered with cross-laminated timber and related products. The real bottlenecks now lie in insurance premiums and building code adoption. Insurers price risk, and without long data histories they assume the worst. Regulators issue permits, and without consistent code adoption across provinces and municipalities, projects face delays and extra costs.

For mass timber to scale into the mainstream, it needs to stop being treated as novel and instead be treated as ordinary. In other words, it needs to become boring. When it is seen as boring by insurers and regulators, premiums fall to parity with concrete and steel, permits are issued quickly, and the advantages of speed and carbon performance can be realized.

The series so far has built a clear case for mass timber as Canada’s fastest lever to address housing, economy, and climate together. The opening article argued that cross-laminated timber (CLT) and modular construction can double housing supply while cutting embodied carbon. The second examined Mark Carney’s Build Canada Homes initiative and showed how government can act as an anchor buyer to turn policy into real housing output. The third mapped out Canada’s mass-timber playbook, stressing the need for an integrated value chain from sawmills to modules. The fourth explored how CLT substitution bends long-term cement and steel demand curves, making heavy industry decarbonization more achievable. The fifth dealt with the carbon sequestration bona fides of CLT. The sixth dealt with decarbonizing the CLT supply chain including sustainable forestry.

Insurers are conservative for good reason. They rely on actuarial data to set premiums, and where that data is scarce they apply multipliers. For mass timber today, builder’s risk insurance is often four to ten times higher than for comparable concrete projects. That difference erodes the financial case for developers even when construction costs and schedules look favorable. Underwriters worry about fire risk during the construction phase, when sprinklers are not yet operational and encapsulation may not yet be in place. They also worry about water damage from sprinklers or leaks, believing that timber may be harder to remediate. Without decades of claims data, they assume those risks will result in higher losses. As a result, many developers find that the project pro forma cannot absorb the insurance premium, and projects that could be built do not move forward.

Codes have advanced but remain inconsistent. The 2020 National Building Code of Canada allows for twelve-story encapsulated mass timber structures. Provinces are slowly adopting those provisions, but unevenly. Some municipalities continue to require projects to go through an alternative solutions pathway, where engineers must present detailed justification and regulators must review case by case.

That undermines one of the chief advantages of modular CLT housing, which is repeatability and speed. Without consistent prescriptive codes, projects face delays and uncertainty. Developers and factory operators cannot count on designs being approved quickly across multiple jurisdictions, and that slows the business case for investing in large scale mass timber factories.

The solution is to normalize mass timber with data, prescriptive standards, and interim measures that cut perceived risk. A national data trust that collects information from every mass timber project would help insurers price risk more accurately. If claims data, fire test results, and performance monitoring are aggregated, insurers can replace assumptions with evidence. Government can also support pooled builder’s risk pilots, where several projects share coverage. This spreads the risk, reduces exposure for individual underwriters, and accelerates the collection of claims data. Over time, with dozens or hundreds of projects logged, premiums will fall toward parity with conventional materials.

Certification reciprocity is another policy lever. CSA A277 provides a path for factory built modules to be certified to code standards, but acceptance is not automatic across provinces. If a module is certified in Ontario, a province like British Columbia may still require additional review. A national agreement on reciprocity would reduce duplication and speed approvals. The current edition of the National Building Code, in force as of January 1st, moved to eighteen-story mass timber provisions, and provinces should adopt the national codes consistently. That will make tall timber routine and remove the uncertainty that drags down adoption.

There are practical measures to address insurer concerns during the riskiest phase of construction. Construction phase fire standards should become mandatory, including requirements for temporary encapsulation, on site fire watches, and real time monitoring. These measures address the risk that insurers worry about most. Inspector and official training is also critical. If local building officials are unfamiliar with mass timber, they may apply inconsistent standards or delay approvals. Training programs at scale can ensure that inspectors are confident and consistent, which improves both safety and predictability.

Charts can make the trajectory visible. A premium multiplier trend line could show builder’s risk insurance starting at four to ten times higher than concrete in 2023 and moving steadily toward parity by 2030 as data accumulates. A code adoption map could show provinces that have moved to twelve- or eighteen-story mass timber provisions and those still lagging. Together, these visuals help stakeholders see both the progress and the gaps. They also show what can be achieved with coordinated action.

The risks to this path are real. A major fire event during construction could harden attitudes and stall adoption. Insurers are slow to change even with data. Provinces can delay code adoption. But the enablers are also strong. Federal and provincial housing targets create pressure to remove bottlenecks. Insurers are already exploring pooled risk models and specialized products. European and American precedents show that normalization is possible. Canada has every reason to move quickly to make mass timber boring in the eyes of insurers and regulators.

The conclusion is that scaling mass timber is not about making it exciting but about making it routine. Normalization is the pathway to lower premiums, faster permits, and wider adoption. When insurers see mass timber projects as just another building type, and when regulators issue permits as readily as for concrete, the industry will reach the tipping point. The goal is to make CLT and modular housing as unremarkable to insurers and inspectors as concrete and rebar. That is when the real advantages of cost, speed, and carbon performance will be unlocked at scale.