the devil is in the doctrine

In 2007 I was working in an office with some elaborate lighting for artwork displayed on the walls. One of the incandescent bulbs burned out, so I offered to replace it, being a handy kinda fellow. At the time, CFLs were becoming available in a variety of sizes, styles etc and because the light was high on a track system I decided to find an appropriate CFL to take advantage of the longer life and lower energy consumption. Getting up on a ladder isn't one of my favorite things, thanks to bad knees and mild acrophobia.

I found a CFL at a local hardware store that seemed OK and clambered up on the ladder--had trouble getting the old bulb out and as I was struggling had an idea.

WHAT if all the houses had CFLs, as if by magic? That would save a huge amount of energy, but there is no magic that could accomplish that swap. How could the most CFLs be placed in the most houses over the shortest time? The prices, even in 2007 were very affordable--subsidized by a local utility company. Price wasn't the answer. What do all, or at least most, houses have in common? When they're sold, there are real estate agents involved in the process. The cost of the CFLs is negligible, even for a big house--what if the real estate agents made a commitment to replace all the bulbs in the house with CFLs? The listing agents could do it before the house came on the market or the buyer's agents could do it before the move in. In the heyday of the bubble era, over 600,000 houses sold every year--closer to 350,000 now. That is a lot of CFLs. Over a million houses sold since 2007. What a possibility for energy savings AND lower utility bills!

That possibility never materialized. Why? It's the good old point of sale doctrine thing espoused by the state and national association trade organizations. The day I had the idea I emailed a local broker prominent in state association leadership--he sounded excited. I also contacted the AE from one of the associations I belong to. She was excited, so excited that the association started a program promoting CFLs within a couple weeks. The president of the local association got on board and soon pallets of CFLs were delivered to the association and made available at a very reasonable price to agents. The agents were also enthusiastic. They took them on listing appointments, installed them in houses, gave them as closing gifts. The program worked very well through 2008. So what was the state association doing during that time. Well, they were thinking about it and I heard that the national association was also thinking about it. Word had spread, because the national association leadership always includes some past state association luminaries. They may have been excited, but in the end nothing happened. I was puzzled for a brief time, but then realized that swapping out the old bulbs was associated with the point of sale and that violated the trade organization doctrine of no point of sale expenses or complications, ever, for any reason---even if they are voluntary. They might give the governmental bodies THE IDEA of making them mandatory.

Is having CFLs and lower energy use and lower utility bills good for the Buyers? Yes. Is it good for the Sellers--there is some cost, but that's minimal and most agents would gladly pay for CFLs during the listing process. It is clearly good for the Sellers to market a home all equipped with CFLs and they save in utility costs during the listing period (that could be a long time). How about the planet? I don't know about the math, but a million houses with CFLs would save the energy in quite a few thousand barrels of oil. None of that happened because the trade organizations put their point of sale doctrine ahead of the interests of the BUYERS, the SELLERS and the PLANET and apparently felt good doing it.

We're all going to be confronting this issue again with home energy ratings. Trade associations don't like them because they typically occur at point of sale and there's a possibility that municipalities may make them mandatory--as is already the case in Austin, Berkeley, other parts of the US and throughout the UK. The interests of the trade organizations will be defended again with lobbying efforts, as they have been in the recently gutted Senate energy bill, which won't move this year anyhow, thanks to Republican obstructionism.

Agents have a fiduciary duty in most states to conduct themselves in ways consistent with the best interests of their clients. The trade associations have no fiduciary duty and defend their doctrines, even though they aren't always in the best interests of the clients their members are representing. In terms of logic, that's a very curious approach to take, particularly when the planet is in peril, as is the quality of life enjoyed by future generations of homeowners.

Although, the conservative right maintains that human activities have nothing to do with climate change--- if there really is such a thing as climate change. Could it be that the trade organizations lean just a bit to the right?

The PUBLIC has the power to change the stage by merely asking the question "what's a home energy report and should I get one to satisfy my interest in the energy efficiency of this house that I may be living in for decades?" Sellers should ask too. Would having a home energy report to offer Buyers help sell my home?

Agents will squirm at first, having been exposed to the aroma of trade organization Kool Aid

The alternative will soon be mandatory home energy reports at time of sale-- produced to satisfy municipal code. The trade organizations will fight and spend huge amounts of money and energy opposing required home energy reports, but I feel they'll loose the battle in the end and further erode their credibility with the public and the members who represent them.

Agents need to ask--what have BUYERS, SELLERS and THE PLANET done for me lately? Then ask, what have the trade organizations done for me lately? Make lists, then pick your path!