Among the many facets of AB32 (passed back in 2006!!) is a requirement that municipalities formulate and approve a Climate Action Plan to reduce green house gas emissions (GHG). The formulation part goes easier and cheaper if you use a template plan, plug in some local statistics and get someone else to pay for the whole package by giving you a grant.
Many cities and counties did just that. There are several templates out there in various stages of approval. The one we ended up in SLO County doesn't seem to be one of the better off the shelf plans, but that isn't going to change at this point.
Few people have read the whole document and fewer still have checked numbers and assumptions. I listened to some of the Planning Commission's first swing at review on the 29th. Predictably, County staff is discouraging making "major" changes. That means there should be an opportunity to slide it through the review process and stay in the running for federal and state funds.
The climate? It's changing anyhow, not to worry! The economy? Planning decisions seldom consider their economic implications and this consideration will probably follow that trend. It's someone else's job to worry about the economy--hey they take the same approach in DC!!
The problem with templates prepared by others (thinking in one size fits all mode) using numbers dropped in from local jurisdictions, is that the reviewers, i.e. county staff, planning commission and board of supervisors didn't write it, may not understand it and certainly aren't comfortable making major changes, even it they are needed. With the CAP process the actually implementation is down the road, so there's plenty of incentive to move the process forward and hope that the down the road part isn't THAT bad or that no one remembers who approved the CAP next time an election rolls around.
The devil is in the details part is that housing stock is different in every community and the provisions contained in the CAP make some very general assumptions about potential energy savings possible with retrofits and apply those assumptions indiscriminately. In fairness, the assumptions are valid in some neighborhoods of some communities, but there are all those other neighborhoods where they just don't work.
The big question is whether AB 32 and the CAP requirements are intended to satisfy the terms of the legislation, thereby keeping the municipality eligible for funding, or whether the is a sincere intent to make a positive difference in the future of the planet. No answer to that question is expected anytime soon, but it is worth remembering that mother nature (AKA the planet) is the final judge of CAPs, AB32, intent and political motivation.
There will be a reckoning. Individuals, neighborhoods, communities, states and nations will possibly ponder whether they did everything reasonably in their power to extend the ability of the planet to support human life.
That sort of soul searching will not enter the arena of CAP review.
Facebook Badge
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
How Green?
The state association meetings certainly reinforced my belief that the organization is in climate change denial. Short term commission flow apparently takes precedence over all else. Any complication that would obstruct or complicate the business of selling houses is to be avoided at nearly any cost. Interestingly, the state association attorneys have created a set of "standard" forms that have done more to complicate and obstruct the flow of business than any point of sale provision, but that's a different story. Back on topic--forms are destined for another blog post.
One of the motions passed with no discussion on the floor, and very little in the Land Use and Environment or Legislative Committees, focused on creating a definition for "cost effective" energy efficiency improvements that is carefully devoid of any implication of societal benefits, i.e. requiring that costs of energy efficiency improvements, including maintenance costs, be less than the present total value of the energy saved during the useful life of the improvement.
That would take pressure off point of sale benefits--relatively few upgrades will qualify as cost effective and those will tend to be inexpensive. How does that philosophy match up with decisions by the public? Not that well. People buy hybrid cars that costs substantially more than those with gas engines, they put photovoltaics on their houses, they recycle--not because it's cost effective, but because they feel it has societal benefits. So should all matters green be purely personal choice?
While sitting listening to the "OMG, not point of sale" rhetoric, I had an idea for a green strategy that could be the best compromise, but would never happen because the state association lives in its own special world and will not change its doctrine for a mere global climatic event. One tends to forget that when the "no point of sale", never, no how doctrine was codified there was little understanding of global warming, green house gases etc. Scientific discoveries pale in comparison to national association doctrines in the world of real estate. Science sometimes requires thinking and that gets in the way of sales production.
Here's one of my WHAT IF scenarios. What if the ONLY point of sale requirement in the green realm the state association and national association would support is energy labeling. For example HERS II ratings on each residential 1-4 property. That's ALL. No upgrade requirements, just labeling. Buyers could see the rating before they reach a decision concerning which house to purchase. Just like they see the ocean views, the amount of living area, the color and all sorts of other attributes. Energy efficiency should be considered along with other characteristics that may or may not represent material facts in the purchase decision. Cost of a HERS II rating per property would probably drop below $300 due to inspection volume. The rest of the story would be written by free market factors. How much is a better HERS II rating worth? The market would determine that amount. It would take some time and it would vary by location, climate, etc. The HERS II reports also give some solid guidance about what upgrades are best (most cost effective--LOL) for each house--something many one size fits all point of sale upgrade programs don't.
The down side would be houses that are not very energy efficient would experience a loss in value, BUT why should they maintain a value level based on a suppression of information? Why should the state/national association support that lack of transparency? Because they believe it's good for business to keep Buyers uninformed about energy efficiency until AFTER they choose the house? Eventually, Buyers will learn more about typical HERS II ratings, but it sure isn't happening very fast. There are very few more ratings being performed now than there were two years ago.
What about societal impacts? Those aren't on the table. What if housing was a major contributor to GHG emissions and what if reducing those emissions was critical to prolonging the ability of the planet to support human life with reasonable quality into the next century? Both those "what ifs" are true, but the real estate industry is apparently more concerned about how many sides close next quarter than what happens to humankind in the next century.
There is always the argument that point of sale works very slowly and incentives are more effective, but there's not much traction with incentives either. Slowly is better than nothing when a global event is unfolding in which the tipping point has already come and gone. Incentives work pretty slowly too and they still require some participation from the property owner. Incentives and HERS II ratings would be a nice combination. Do the improvements and get a better HERS II rating, which raises the value of the property. What a concept!
A problem is that at present there is little incentive from the real estate industry to pursue outstanding energy efficiency--the treatment of green features and energy efficiency is not handled effectively or in a uniform manner in MLS data or by the national property resource. Is that intentional, or? Appraisers are all over the place in how they address energy efficient attributes. Finally, few brokers seek to get out front on climate change and the greening the industry. There are opportunities to differentiate marketing and promotion with little downside. Not many folks would exclude a brokerage from consideration because it espoused green consciousness.
The long term mismatch between brokers, agents and the public continues with the net result being that a Seller who expends an exceptional amount of time, planning and expense into creating an unusually energy efficient house probably will NOT receive the value he or she should get upon resale. The point of sale doctrine suggests that energy inefficient houses will loose value with labeling, but what about the highly energy efficient houses that will never reach their optimal value because of a lack of labeling. You probably guessed how this plays out--there are many more energy inefficient homes to sell than energy efficient ones. Follow the commission checks to discover the policy path.
Lots of lip service is paid to giving the public what they want, but does it really happen very often? There's a greater interest in giving the public more of what's easy to give them, just make sure it doesn't inhibit the smooth flow of transactions.
This returns us to the RIGHT HOUSE/RIGHT BUYER concept. Is there an energy efficiency component in defining the RIGHT HOUSE? The industry isn't making it very easy to incorporate that consideration into the decision process. I feel the demand is there, at least for a substantial number of Buyers.
The Buyers and Sellers can speed the process, if they become educated, but that education won't likely be coming from the real estate establishment.
This post is a little long--sorry. I'll try for shorter on the next few re the meetings.
Next post is related to this--regarding Climate Action Plans--mandated by AB 32 and coming to a California town near you very soon, if it's not already there.
One of the motions passed with no discussion on the floor, and very little in the Land Use and Environment or Legislative Committees, focused on creating a definition for "cost effective" energy efficiency improvements that is carefully devoid of any implication of societal benefits, i.e. requiring that costs of energy efficiency improvements, including maintenance costs, be less than the present total value of the energy saved during the useful life of the improvement.
That would take pressure off point of sale benefits--relatively few upgrades will qualify as cost effective and those will tend to be inexpensive. How does that philosophy match up with decisions by the public? Not that well. People buy hybrid cars that costs substantially more than those with gas engines, they put photovoltaics on their houses, they recycle--not because it's cost effective, but because they feel it has societal benefits. So should all matters green be purely personal choice?
While sitting listening to the "OMG, not point of sale" rhetoric, I had an idea for a green strategy that could be the best compromise, but would never happen because the state association lives in its own special world and will not change its doctrine for a mere global climatic event. One tends to forget that when the "no point of sale", never, no how doctrine was codified there was little understanding of global warming, green house gases etc. Scientific discoveries pale in comparison to national association doctrines in the world of real estate. Science sometimes requires thinking and that gets in the way of sales production.
Here's one of my WHAT IF scenarios. What if the ONLY point of sale requirement in the green realm the state association and national association would support is energy labeling. For example HERS II ratings on each residential 1-4 property. That's ALL. No upgrade requirements, just labeling. Buyers could see the rating before they reach a decision concerning which house to purchase. Just like they see the ocean views, the amount of living area, the color and all sorts of other attributes. Energy efficiency should be considered along with other characteristics that may or may not represent material facts in the purchase decision. Cost of a HERS II rating per property would probably drop below $300 due to inspection volume. The rest of the story would be written by free market factors. How much is a better HERS II rating worth? The market would determine that amount. It would take some time and it would vary by location, climate, etc. The HERS II reports also give some solid guidance about what upgrades are best (most cost effective--LOL) for each house--something many one size fits all point of sale upgrade programs don't.
The down side would be houses that are not very energy efficient would experience a loss in value, BUT why should they maintain a value level based on a suppression of information? Why should the state/national association support that lack of transparency? Because they believe it's good for business to keep Buyers uninformed about energy efficiency until AFTER they choose the house? Eventually, Buyers will learn more about typical HERS II ratings, but it sure isn't happening very fast. There are very few more ratings being performed now than there were two years ago.
What about societal impacts? Those aren't on the table. What if housing was a major contributor to GHG emissions and what if reducing those emissions was critical to prolonging the ability of the planet to support human life with reasonable quality into the next century? Both those "what ifs" are true, but the real estate industry is apparently more concerned about how many sides close next quarter than what happens to humankind in the next century.
There is always the argument that point of sale works very slowly and incentives are more effective, but there's not much traction with incentives either. Slowly is better than nothing when a global event is unfolding in which the tipping point has already come and gone. Incentives work pretty slowly too and they still require some participation from the property owner. Incentives and HERS II ratings would be a nice combination. Do the improvements and get a better HERS II rating, which raises the value of the property. What a concept!
A problem is that at present there is little incentive from the real estate industry to pursue outstanding energy efficiency--the treatment of green features and energy efficiency is not handled effectively or in a uniform manner in MLS data or by the national property resource. Is that intentional, or? Appraisers are all over the place in how they address energy efficient attributes. Finally, few brokers seek to get out front on climate change and the greening the industry. There are opportunities to differentiate marketing and promotion with little downside. Not many folks would exclude a brokerage from consideration because it espoused green consciousness.
The long term mismatch between brokers, agents and the public continues with the net result being that a Seller who expends an exceptional amount of time, planning and expense into creating an unusually energy efficient house probably will NOT receive the value he or she should get upon resale. The point of sale doctrine suggests that energy inefficient houses will loose value with labeling, but what about the highly energy efficient houses that will never reach their optimal value because of a lack of labeling. You probably guessed how this plays out--there are many more energy inefficient homes to sell than energy efficient ones. Follow the commission checks to discover the policy path.
Lots of lip service is paid to giving the public what they want, but does it really happen very often? There's a greater interest in giving the public more of what's easy to give them, just make sure it doesn't inhibit the smooth flow of transactions.
This returns us to the RIGHT HOUSE/RIGHT BUYER concept. Is there an energy efficiency component in defining the RIGHT HOUSE? The industry isn't making it very easy to incorporate that consideration into the decision process. I feel the demand is there, at least for a substantial number of Buyers.
The Buyers and Sellers can speed the process, if they become educated, but that education won't likely be coming from the real estate establishment.
This post is a little long--sorry. I'll try for shorter on the next few re the meetings.
Next post is related to this--regarding Climate Action Plans--mandated by AB 32 and coming to a California town near you very soon, if it's not already there.
Friday, September 23, 2011
State Association Meetings, San Jose
No, I'm not going to cover the entire event--whew!! As the business seems to get more complex, so do the meetings and the discussion. Then there's the big business aspect getting folded into the mix. The state association is BIG business.
San Jose is warm, but downtown area is very interesting. Lots of art, many restaurants and a more cosmopolitan feel than the coastal resorts areas have. I'm staying in a 1911 vintage hotel all renovated and very comfortable.
Seth wrote a blog today about writer's block and why writers should write every day. They won't all be gems, but you don't improve by not writing and there are those odd times that the process itself offers insights totally new.
I will be better about blogging. Have some things to say about green issues, real estate stuff and technology triggered by thoughts during the meetings. I'll explore those in the next few days.
Looking forward to returning to cool foggy coastal climate!!
San Jose is warm, but downtown area is very interesting. Lots of art, many restaurants and a more cosmopolitan feel than the coastal resorts areas have. I'm staying in a 1911 vintage hotel all renovated and very comfortable.
Seth wrote a blog today about writer's block and why writers should write every day. They won't all be gems, but you don't improve by not writing and there are those odd times that the process itself offers insights totally new.
I will be better about blogging. Have some things to say about green issues, real estate stuff and technology triggered by thoughts during the meetings. I'll explore those in the next few days.
Looking forward to returning to cool foggy coastal climate!!
Sunday, September 18, 2011
the closing of the year
I know, it's early for that, but the final state association meetings are this week up in San Jose and local associations are wrapping up the charity events, seminars and forming next year's committees.
In the past I've often held a year end presentation to highlight what I learned over the course of the year. I don't go to many seminars anymore, preferring to pursue independent study. I focus on non-real estate sources and extrapolate the information to fit the rather odd real estate environment. It's a jungle out there.
Late last year I did a talk on photos, statistics and the Right House/Right Buyer concept. Those topics are perhaps more relevant today. Our MLS now allows 25 photos, there are more readily available analytical tools and the metrics of success still have nothing to do with Buyers or Sellers maximizing their benefits.
New wrinkles for 2011 include hedonic adaptation, further insights into decision making and the widening gap between the amount and speed of delivery of information and the almost mythical realm of wisdom.
It is easy to obtain more information and push it out faster to more different platforms. Wisdom remains illusive, largely because it's defined, not by the pusher, but by the recipient. Wisdom is a tool set and blue prints, not a bigger pile of lumber. It is so easy to deliver a bigger pile of lumber. The right pieces could be in there somewhere, so bigger is better, right?
By the time I return from San Jose, I'll decide if I'm game to throw another year end presentation together. The Mac presentation application looks pretty cool, so that may weigh in the decision. Much of the motivation arises from forcing myself to attain coherence in explaining the fruits of my random studies. It's good to create a benchmark--my intellectual progress was HERE on these topics near the end of 2011.
Seth has recently blogged about WONDER--and how rare it is these days. When's the last time you experienced wonder while in a seminar? Seminars are entertainment, but like most entertainment these days, there is little effort to surprise, amaze and astound. Why? Are things so bad that people desire reassuring predictability rather than a portal to a never before experienced landscape of discovery?
What if that landscape held the secret to a brighter future? Are we better off finding comfort in our discomfort?
Looking at the political scene is not reassuring!
In the past I've often held a year end presentation to highlight what I learned over the course of the year. I don't go to many seminars anymore, preferring to pursue independent study. I focus on non-real estate sources and extrapolate the information to fit the rather odd real estate environment. It's a jungle out there.
Late last year I did a talk on photos, statistics and the Right House/Right Buyer concept. Those topics are perhaps more relevant today. Our MLS now allows 25 photos, there are more readily available analytical tools and the metrics of success still have nothing to do with Buyers or Sellers maximizing their benefits.
New wrinkles for 2011 include hedonic adaptation, further insights into decision making and the widening gap between the amount and speed of delivery of information and the almost mythical realm of wisdom.
It is easy to obtain more information and push it out faster to more different platforms. Wisdom remains illusive, largely because it's defined, not by the pusher, but by the recipient. Wisdom is a tool set and blue prints, not a bigger pile of lumber. It is so easy to deliver a bigger pile of lumber. The right pieces could be in there somewhere, so bigger is better, right?
By the time I return from San Jose, I'll decide if I'm game to throw another year end presentation together. The Mac presentation application looks pretty cool, so that may weigh in the decision. Much of the motivation arises from forcing myself to attain coherence in explaining the fruits of my random studies. It's good to create a benchmark--my intellectual progress was HERE on these topics near the end of 2011.
Seth has recently blogged about WONDER--and how rare it is these days. When's the last time you experienced wonder while in a seminar? Seminars are entertainment, but like most entertainment these days, there is little effort to surprise, amaze and astound. Why? Are things so bad that people desire reassuring predictability rather than a portal to a never before experienced landscape of discovery?
What if that landscape held the secret to a brighter future? Are we better off finding comfort in our discomfort?
Looking at the political scene is not reassuring!
Sunday, September 11, 2011
10 years is a long time, sometime
This anniversary is pretty strange for many people for many different reasons. The world certainly changed, and we still don't know exactly how. A huge lump of money was dumped into security measures that mostly aren't. Afterwards wars seemed much easier to start, although finishing them remains illusive.
The event and that period in personal history seems recent in some ways and distant in others. Those my age, or thereabouts have experienced frame shifts due to age, loss of parents, employment taper and the ever louder ticking of the clock. What cool things can still be accomplished in the time left? How to choose? How hard to push? Kicking back is always an option, but if you didn't do it earlier in life, you probably won't later on.
The Mac Book Air is two weeks old--now has a external hard drive friend with the important contents of old laptop. Purchased Notes and Numbers and the presentation app--haven't used that yet. Numbers is sure different than the spreadsheets I've used before--I see a trip to buy a book on iWork. I'm a book learner. Online tutorials seem to find me looking at stuff I already know and never seeing the stuff I need. Books have indexes and stuff.
The portability is amazing and I'm still happy with the keyboard. Display is small, but I'm adjusting. Waiting to see what the Thunderbolt display is all about before I buy one.
Did first photo editing job last week. Came out well--using Photoshop Elements with just a touch pad was an adjustment, but I'm already trying to scroll when sitting in front of PCs.
The 30 day escrow is oozing along, but push time is upon us. They often fall in the category of things that sound really good at the time they open--and not so good as the closing date nears.
The event and that period in personal history seems recent in some ways and distant in others. Those my age, or thereabouts have experienced frame shifts due to age, loss of parents, employment taper and the ever louder ticking of the clock. What cool things can still be accomplished in the time left? How to choose? How hard to push? Kicking back is always an option, but if you didn't do it earlier in life, you probably won't later on.
The Mac Book Air is two weeks old--now has a external hard drive friend with the important contents of old laptop. Purchased Notes and Numbers and the presentation app--haven't used that yet. Numbers is sure different than the spreadsheets I've used before--I see a trip to buy a book on iWork. I'm a book learner. Online tutorials seem to find me looking at stuff I already know and never seeing the stuff I need. Books have indexes and stuff.
The portability is amazing and I'm still happy with the keyboard. Display is small, but I'm adjusting. Waiting to see what the Thunderbolt display is all about before I buy one.
Did first photo editing job last week. Came out well--using Photoshop Elements with just a touch pad was an adjustment, but I'm already trying to scroll when sitting in front of PCs.
The 30 day escrow is oozing along, but push time is upon us. They often fall in the category of things that sound really good at the time they open--and not so good as the closing date nears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
