Comment 29147

By grahamm (registered) | Posted February 26, 2009 at 14:21:35

"Let's put it this way, if your home is energy inefficient, it's not the audit's fault, and just because you have a low rating doesn't mean you need to do any upgrades;"

Thats my sense too. I can't see how an getting energy audit necessarily results in sellers being required to upgrade their home.

The audits findings do not require upgrade - its merely information, similar to a home inspection. If a homeowner has to make improvements to their house in order for it to be attractive to buyers, then so be it. But I find it hard to believe that a buyer would expect the same results of an audit on a 100+ yr old house and a 5+ yr old house.

I also hold a larger view. If these audits mean that generally the energy efficiency of houses rises (likely simply due to a new awareness), it is good for everyone - buyers, sellers, observers. As housing stock improves efficiency, energy uses goes down.

While our homes' energy efficiency may improve come from bottom up (ie, individual home owners), I find it short sighted to criticize government efforts to improve our cities. This new program will result in more houses having higher efficiency more quickly. In the end, that is good for everyone.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds