Today I called the Mayor's office and asked them to reply to some of
the accusations and allegations that are flying around and below is the
response from Matt Watson. I urge you all to read this material and
consider it along with the other things that are being circulated.
Girard Kinney
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: Re: Homeowners Can't Sell Without
Energy Compliance??]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:50:19 -0500
From: Watson, Matt <
Matt.Watson@ci.austin.tx.us>
To: <
girard@kinneyarchitects.com>
Girard,
You're right -- there is a huge amount of misinformation and
disinformation circulating right now. Certain groups have launched a
campaign that includes email blasts, blogs, radio ads and a website.
Unfortunately, the claims they're making are not true. From what I've
seen so far, here's what they're saying:
1) The City Council has a proposal that would require homeowners to
get a "certificate of compliance" proving they had made certain
efficiency retrofits before they would be allowed to sell their home.
2) These upgrades could cost homeowners $15,000 or more.
3) This would require more than 25,000 compliance inspections
annually. The City can't handle this, so thousands of closings will fail.
All of this is incorrect. I'll come back to these claims, but first
some background:
The Council is months away from considering any proposal. All that has
happened so far is Council has established a task force to develop
recommendations for an energy efficiency upgrades policy for existing
homes and buildings. The task force is in the very early stages of its
work, and all it has had time to do so far is organize itself and work
through a draft menu of potential efficiency measures. Once the task
force does produce recommendations, those recommendations will go
through the City boards and commissions process -- and very likely some
additional, extended public awareness and feedback process -- before
anything ever comes to Council.
The task force has not had an opportunity yet to start thinking about a
framework for how a program could be administered. However, in working
on the menu of efficiency measures, they found that it was useful to
have a conceptual framework as a backdrop (this has to do with the fact
that they were trying to devise a flexible menu of efficiency measures
that people could choose from, and they needed a framework to see how
the menu could function). The erroneous claims outlined above fly in
direct contrast to the ideas outlined in the conceptual framework.
Rather, the framework reflects the direction Council gave the task force
in its enabling resolution. In its resolution, Council said the task
force should produce recommendations that:
1) Will save energy.
2) Are cost effective.
3) Will not hold up property closings.
4) Will take into account the energy savings accruing to home buyers.
This conceptual framework (the one that hasn't been discussed or debated
by the task force yet) does, in fact, seem to meet those criteria. It
prioritizes "low hanging fruit" efficiency measures -- things like
weather stripping, attic insulation, solar screens for windows, HVAC
tune-ups, etc. These are items with very short simple-payback periods
and which, when financed, create positive cash-flow for home owners in
the very first month. That is, they are cost effective, and they make
home ownership more affordable. This not-yet-discussed framework does
not require people to invest in more expensive efficiency measures like
replacement of HVAC systems, windows or roofing materials.
Moreover, the framework doesn't say anything about requiring upgrades to
be made before someone could sell their home. Quite to the contrary --
it contemplates a situation where the ultimate responsibility would rest
with the buyer. Finally, the task is working to figure out how an
initial energy performance inspection could be incorporated into the
normal home inspection already required by any mortgage lender. And it
is perfectly conceivable that a verification process -- showing that
upgrades had eventually been made -- could be as simple as providing
copies of receipts for services or materials.
So, let's review the claims:
THE CLAIM: The City Council has a proposal....
THE FACTS: The City Council isn't considering anything at this point,
and it will be months before they do. There's a task force that hasn't
even been given a chance yet to produce recommendations.
THE CLAIM: ...that would require homeowners to get a "certificate of
compliance" proving they had made certain efficiency retrofits before
they would be allowed to sell their home.
THE FACTS: Council specifically instructed the task force to make
recommendations that won't hold up property closings, so it's not
conceivable that the task force would recommend requiring upgrades be
made before a house could be sold.
THE CLAIM: These upgrades could cost $15,000 or more.
THE FACTS: The task force is looking at low-cost/high-return efficiency
measures that create positive cash flow for home owners, making housing
more affordable. These are measures that cost in the hundreds of
dollars, not thousands -- and they pay for themselves from Day 1.
THE CLAIM: This will require 25,000 or more additional inspections
every year, which will hold up property closings.
THE FACTS: The task force is working on ways to seamlessly incorporate
this program into the existing inspection process.
What's perhaps most disappointing is the fact that the groups making
these claims have their own designee on the task force. So, none of the
above is foreign to them. And yet, they're choosing to cause a great
deal of unwarranted alarm among the general public and even their own
membership rather than participate in a collaborative way. Our hope is
that they will reverse course and be part of a cooperative process. If
they choose to do so, any constructive ideas they have to offer will be
a welcomed part of the dialogue. It's difficult to imagine, though,
that one could simultaneously attack from the outside and collaborate
from within.
We're dealing with critical issues here, and we need the benefit of
everyone's best efforts and advice. We have an opportunity to make home
ownership more affordable, attainable and secure. We can take this most
important step toward reducing peak electric demand -- mitigating the
need for expensive new power plants and spot-market power purchases, and
helping keep rates lower for everybody. We can help protect our
environment, economy and quality of life. We can do all of this if we
can just set aside our preconceived assumptions, our suspicions and our
shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitudes. We're all in this together.
We need to act like it.
*Matt Watson*
*Policy Director*
*Austin Mayor Will Wynn*