Not a fan of forced energy upgrades
On June 1, the city of Austin, Texas, began requiring residents who are selling homes built more than 10 years ago to obtain an energy audit before any sale is completed. Owners are not required to make upgrades after the audit (like they are in San Francisco and Berkeley, Calif.), but failure to comply results in a being charged with a misdemeanor.
As expected, some people like the new law and others don’t.
Opponents say the $200 to $300 cost for the audit is a burden during this recession and at a time when homes are already difficult to sell. They also fear buyers will use the results of the audit to negotiate a lower selling price.
Supporters say the law is intended to reduce energy use and ultimately avoid building a new power plant by 2020. Supporters also hope homeowners will be encouraged to upgrade their homes with more-efficient air conditioners, better windows and insulation.
An article in the Wall Street Journal states that in more than 300 audits already completed, Austin Energy found that, on average, homes had duct systems that leaked more than double what was recommended and attic insulation that was six inches thinner than ideal.
So what if an owner opts not to perform recommended upgrades, and the buyer asks for a few thousand bucks be knocked off the price in compensation, and the deal gets done. Sure, the home is sold, but there’s no guarantee that the upgrades will ever be done. In this situation, the only winner is the company that performed the energy audit.
On the other hand, if buyers are trying to choose between two 15-year-old homes which need similar energy upgrades, do you think they’ll pick the one whose owners have done the upgrades or the one whose owners have no intention of dishing out more money for the upgrades? Right – they’ll pick the one with the upgrades. So even though the law lacks sharp teeth by not requiring owners to make any upgrades, it creates fear of losing buyers to sellers more willing invest in energy savings.
Some people say an incentive-based program is the best and most fair way to encourage homeowners to improve the efficiency of their homes. This makes sense.
Ultimately, I like the Austin law for two reasons: 1) it has the future in mind by encouraging energy conservation, and; 2) it doesn’t force owners to make recommended repairs. Let the free market determine what happens to each home. Stick with enforcing laws and codes on new construction.
What do you think? Send me an email and let me know.