Comment 29175

By arienc (registered) | Posted February 27, 2009 at 14:06:33

Mike B...I still don;t see what the big deal is.

Here's a scenario.

Joe Shmoe's house down the street is the same house as mine. Everything looks the same. Yet Joe's house has better insulation in the walls than mine does, and all the gaps were recently caulked. However since the houses appear identical, both houses end up selling for the same price. Joe loses out on the value of the upgrades that were made to his home. Therefore the person who acted most responsibly is the one who loses out. Not the ideal situation.

Now let's look at the same transaction with a mandatory audit. Joe's house scores a 75 on the audit, while mine scores a 70. The audit tells me that I have to install new insulation and re-caulk to bring my score up to 75. If that work costs $2,000, I either accept that my home is worth $2,000 less than Joe's is, or I put in the $2,000, get the work done, and get the auditor to recertify (earning me an EcoAction tax credit to help pay for the upgrades). Either way, the value goes to the homeowner who acts more responsibly, which is exactly the way things should be.

Actually, I would go the government one further and make the energy audits mandatory for all homeowners every five years, whether selling or not. It's rather annoying that if you don't get all the work done within 18 months of the audit, you lose out on any possible tax credits. The program should be run continuously, as the process of making buildings greener is a continuous one.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds