For the Home Buyer: An Energy Efficiency “MPG” Sticker
I had breakfast when I was back in New York last week with my friend and colleague Tom Konrad of AltEnergyStocks.com, during which we talked about all the “long-hanging fruit” for reducing the environmental impact associated with generating and consuming energy. Here’s one of Tom’s ideas that I really like: making a home energy audit mandatory whenever a house is sold. What if every home buyer had the equivalent of an EPA miles per gallon sticker — a rating of the energy efficiency of the furnace and the major appliances, as well as a grade for the level of insulation in the walls and roof?
From my business consulting days, I know that the mere fact of focusing attention on an area is the first step in doing something about it. Often just quantifying a certain activity and making the data available to management is sufficient to improve the area — even without taking any actual steps to remediate the underlying condition.
There is no doubt that the same reasoning would come into play here. For the first time, a home-buyer would be forced to look at the ugly facts: my house in an energy sieve. If I don’t do something about this, it’ll cost me a fortune, and contribute to ruining the environment at the same time.
Great thinking, Tom.
The State would be the AHJ, I think the Homeinspectors assoc. would get on board. Green Plumbers Accreditation offers Audit certifying and this cert. is recognized by USGBC and the Plumbing Code (IAPMO). The course is possible in all states now. I have contacts if you are interested
Greg Chick
That proposal has possibilities.
When my new house was in the design phase, I considered using insulated concrete forms, partly because they are more energy efficient than traditional construction. However, I found that I could not justify the cost. The value of the house would not have been any higher than with traditional construction, so the bank would not have permitted a higher construction loan. Also, eventually every house is sold, but there was no indication that superior energy efficiency would have a significant effect on the eventual selling price.
Also, for energy efficiency, I considered a geothermal heat pump, but even though that would have been more energy efficient overall, the cost could not be justified.
I did, however, use 2 X 6 studs instead of 2 X 4 studs for the exterior walls since that provided more space for insulation. I also used zoned radiant floor heating, an efficient condensing boiler, and indirect lighting using traditional fluorescent tubes; that’s better than CFLs. But, because of unrecoverable cost considerations, that was as far as I could go.
It will be very difficult to have more energy efficient homes built until buyers are willing to pay more for energy efficiency and banks are willing to lend more for it. A method to identify how energy efficient homes are is a good first step, but it’s only a first step.
Good Lord. OK Tom, how about this. Many years ago, there was a law written that made it necessary to pay property taxes. What happened in effect however was every single piece of private property was transferred to the government. If you did not pay the assessed ‘rent’ called property taxes, the property went back to the owner, the government, so they could ‘redistribute it’ to someone more cooperative in ‘tax payments’. Now, even when you die, additional ‘rents’ are given to children who ‘inherent’ this state owned property in the form of inheritance taxes. Now you want to mandate more ‘requirements’ to continue to occupy? Wat a kountry you Mericans have built! All property taxes should be abolished and property rights should be protected like the Holy Grail! Tax my wealth, not my children damn it!
Rather than have the government mandate energy efficiency, I’d prefer that home owners and buyers be educated so that they’d understand how they would benefit, via paying less for gas, electricity, etc., by owning a more energy efficient house.
I also believe that part of the tax burden should be transfered from the income tax to a tax on energy derived from fossil fuels. The change could be phased on over a period of a few years to avoid undo disruptions and done in such a way that the total tax burden would be unchanged. That should make the change politically acceptable. And, with the increased cost of fossil-fueled energy resulting from taxing it, there would be a greater incentive to use energy more efficiently.
The increased tax on energy derived from fossil fuels could be justified by the externalities resulting from using fossil fuels.
Government has mandated Seat belts, Smog devices, guard Rails, Highway safety , dated Milk, Gun Laws, speed limits, you name it. The rest of the World has followed our “Wisdom” in most cases. Kicking and screaming they all went, it is status quo now and if somethings that were once allowed then prohibited were now done in public most would be appalled.
The Gov does a very poor job at most of its tasks. At min. it is more costly to have the Gov. do it. I do not like “Big” Gov. but, we are a human breed and not everyone is educated to the best practices. This best Practices thing is the real issue, who is to pay, the ignorant, the common, or the fool? I consider it my responsibility to get smart. I guess we could let fools get smart on their own nickel? I have paid dearly for my mistakes, so should they?
Greg Chick
The problem is externalities. If people don’t use energy responsibly, they are not the only ones affected; people who do use energy responsibly are also affected.
Also, there are some things from which people, regardless of how responsible and how educated they are, cannot protect themselves. That’s why milk and other food products are dated and why the government strives to keep our food safe.
When a driver crosses to the wrong side of a divided highway, he puts others in peril; guard rails are intended to prevent that. Also, guard rails can save the lives of innocent passengers in a car.
Although I do not agree with everything that the government does, much of what it does protects us in ways that we could not protect ourselves by our own actions. Taking reasonable action to improve energy efficiency is something that we can do ourselves only to a limited degree.
Just so long as everyone knows we are told what to do every hr. by the Gov. and we have gotten used to it. I am not suggesting my rights allow me to drive on wrong side of the road, but I like my freedom. I as well see too many suing because the so n so did not stop them from harming themselves! Hot coffee from Mc Donalds etc. There are laws that are not enforced that cant even be enforced and we make more…. I would support a Code to require buildings to be audited before sale.
Sound like I am a “lefty” before you judge ask yourself should the Gas you buy be of a consistent standard? should House Heating be un controlled and kill people from excess CO2? Should a restaurant be able to serve you old food? Think with your heart and your mind not your political party or Radio host as a reference.