When does that green glow begin?

Housing stock accounts for 40% (SLO County's CAP cites 43% ) of energy use. It also can supply a significant amount of energy savings at a relatively modest cost--compared to some other ways to reduce green house gas emission (GHG). So how is that going? Not well at all.

The state and national trade organizations want their member agents at the center of every transaction and they apparently want to control how those agents perform in those transactions. They spend millions of dollars to develop and maintain that control, though forms, education, promotion and marketing their products, most of which include not very well hidden agendas.

So when we start looking around for reasons why agents don't seem to care much about green (energy green, not currency green), it's not hard to glance over at the trade organizations. What do you see? NO POINT OF SALE--EVER, NO HOW! There's talk of voluntary retrofits, incentives to retrofit (without any means to pay for the incentives). The mantra contends point of sale is a hardship on the Sellers, because they don't net as much money at close of escrow. Why don't they? Are we to believe that Sellers NEVER factor in point of sale costs when they negotiation the price and that the listing agent doesn't either? Could the cost of point of sale expenses be a total surprise? What about Seller's net sheets? The ones the state association creates.

In the end, the Buyer ends up paying for the house, the retrofit, the commission, title insurance, loan costs, etc. The retrofit provides a house with some benefits to the Buyer who paid for it. The trade organizations apparently feel the Buyer should be compelled to say "I want an unretrofitted house that's cheaper at purchase, but will cost more later on and ultimately harm the planet and the future fate of humanity". How many Buyers would forgo the retrofit to save a little on the price? If the retrofit is done by Seller, the Buyer rolls the cost into the financing at low interest rates. There may be rebates, incentive etc, if the Buyer pays for retrofit later--but there may not.

The argument that point of sale requirements unnecessarily delay time sensitive closing of escrow is hollow. I've had escrows in which $10,000+ of pest work was completed; a landslide removed access to a house--that was repaired during escrow; septic tank/leach field replacement completed; failed furnaces replaced, new roofs installed, the list goes on and on (27 years worth!). ALL those complications exceed most energy retrofits in complexity and expense. The time factor is a thin ruse.

A few days ago, the realization hit that point of sale must work a lot better than the trade organizations are willing to admit. Here's why.

Berkeley, and a several other towns, have had mandatory energy retrofits for some years now.
Surprisingly, property values didn't plummet, people still bought houses AND LOTS of energy was saved.

HERE'S MY POINT
Given the resources within the state trade organization, don't you think if there was any objective measure showing what an absolute failure Berkeley's RECO was and how much damage it had inflicted on real estate and the American way of life, they would have put up billboards and websites proclaiming the evidence? Hasn't happened.

So the big question is how will the state and national associations confront the last chapters of Planet Earth as a habitat for humans? Will they be part of a plan to extend the page count in those chapters or will they be an obstacle aimed at business as usual until the last page turns. So far they're headed in a do as little as possible as long as possible direction.

We have had point of sale in the past---water retrofits are common around here. They work--slowly, but they work. Are they a hardship? Ever heard a Seller say they'd sell, but couldn't or wouldn't pay for the retrofit? Ever heard a Buyer say they'd rather buy in a town without a point of sale provision because they'd rather waste water and pay for it?

We have non-mandated point of sale protocols, too. In areas with septic systems, inspection and certification is pretty much universal and the Seller almost always pays. Pest control used to be that way, but with distressed properties anything goes--usually nothing gets done until the buyer takes ownership.

So is the state trade association part of the solution or part of the problem when it comes to greening the housing stock and prolonging the life of planet earth as a human habitat? Both, but at present there's way more problem going on than solution.

The interesting thing is that the level of passion and energy exhibited by the trade organization faithful in opposing Point of Sale exceeds the level demonstrated in support of greening the housing stock several times over. Assuming that is the intent of the trade association, it raises some hard questions about priorities. Lots of chest pounding from the local state association faithful--all looking over their shoulders to make sure the state association elite are watching--future leadership points are being scored.

Business as usual is ranked more highly than making a positive change in the fate of the planet.
State leadership and staff decided to empower their followers to contest point of sale associated with implantation of AB 32 through CAPs while continuing to soft sell increased energy efficiency to such an extent that there's virtually no more awareness or enthusiasm among most agents than there was 5 years ago. How's that work for the planet and the public?

I've been working on a CAP energy efficiency plan--my second version, so fewer postings. Should post the plan by mid week.