Replies

ping

I am a member of the American Issues Project and saw this post this morning on facebook. I’ve been engaged in an email discussion with Austin Perez, Environmental Policy Representative for the National Association of Realtors about this. He has continued to assure me that these sections do not apply to any housing except for new construction. But I haven’t gotten confirmation from him on that just yet. Here’s our exchange:

Me:
In reading your article posted on your site (http://www.realtor.org/fedistrk.nsf/currwklyrpt/government+affairs+weekly#report_3_06_29_2009) related to the referenced legislation, you indicate that existing homes are exempt from the legislation. However, it sounded to me upon hearing Rep. John Boehner reading the last minute amendment added at 3:00 am the day of the vote, that existing homes would not be exempt from the energy requirements. Can you please confirm that this last minute addition did not alter your efforts to exempt existing homes from this energy standard legislation?

Thanks

Perez:
On page 392 of the bill:
23 (m) NEW CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall apply
24 only to construction beginning after the date of enactment
25 of this Act.

Mr. Boehner staff didn’t give him the latest information...

Me:
I don’t think even the Energy Czar, Carol Browner, has read the whole thing. There’s no complete final copy available anywhere for anyone to read. I would appreciate you checking to make sure that the data you referenced on page 392 wasn’t overturned or changed in the last minute changes. We really have no assurance that it wasn’t changed since no copy has really been published for public perusal.

Thanks for your dedication to protecting home owners and the industry. It would behoove the NAR to make sure this deal didn’t change in the final hours.

Thanks

Perez:
I’m not sure how well you know Carol Browner. But if it will help, you can confirm if you go to thomas.loc.gov, search for hr 2454, click on the link to the third (House passed) version and goto p 392.

Me:
Thanks for the link. That would help, however currently, the bill is not available to be read, only the House Reports. When you click on the actual bill, you get an error message. As to Carol Browner, I was just referring to the interview I saw in which she said she had read “vast portions” of the bill, but would not admit to having read all of it.

Perez:
Didn’t see the interview but she was at EPA when I represented the Small Business Admin. She’s the type that won’t take another’s word for it.

Just tried it and successfully pulled up the bill on my blackberry. I didn’t click on the link at main page. I searched by bill no hr 2454, clicked on text of the bill, clicked on third version (as engrossed...). Click on the top left for the GPO (Govt printing office) for the PDF format.

If that doesn’t work I’ll send you the bill directly. Just think it might help if you’re able to go straight to the bill online. So there’s no question about the source (Library of Congress)

Me:
Thanks for all the information, but I have an additional concern
regarding Section 204 that amends the current. “Building Energy
Performance Labeling Program”. In paragraph (h) Implementation of
Labeling Program, it outlines situations in which an existing building
can be audited for energy performance labeling. It includes in
subparagraph (3) A, terminology which indicates that when a sale of an
existing building for tax and title purposes or when ownership changes
for utility billing, that building’s energy audit should be recorded.
How can it be recorded if it isn’t done?

I think the NAR needs to clarify this.

Perez:
Great catch!

Answer is before the “3 am” amdt, the section applied to existing homes and buildings (hence, energy audit was one of several optional times when a state may provide labeled information).

When the amendment was added at the 11th hour, no one had time to re-write the section to reflect this change. But I’m not sure this is a distinction with effect — the section doesn’t apply to existing buildings so states can’t take money under that section in first place, either to label or disclose the label. But a technical amdt is in order.

The audit reference is not as a basis for labeling. There’s an earlier section (202) where states are funded to provide grants to property owners that voluntarily decide to retrofit. As a condition for funding, a state must meet a federal guideline that retrofits/energy savings be documented and verified (via energy audit).

Were a home owner to take a grant under the sec 202 state program, s/he would have to audit which could be a time when a state provides the label information. But again, sec 204 labeling can’t apply anyway. Appears to be a moot point.

Me:
Thanks again for the reply. I’m not sure I understand, though, why
your reading of the section suggests that it doesn’t apply to
existing buildings. I know the earlier language you sent me to stated
that, but if it’s in the language elsewhere, you agree that a
technical amendment needs to be filed to clarify.

I understand that there is money set aside for reimbursement grants
for homeowners who retrofit, but I think the greater concern becomes
potential abuse by local, state and federal governments if an existing
home doesn’t meet a certain ‘REEP’ standard. Couldn’t this section
open the door for existing homes to have to essentially have a ‘cap
and trade’ requirement imposed by government entities? What would
prevent a government from stating that in, say Dallas, where I live,
because we have such pollution problems, that all homes in Dallas
County have to either retrofit to bring them within the standard or
pay a ‘fine’ (fee, tax, call it whatever) in order to be in
compliance. I’m not so much concerned that the language exists in
this bill, but I see potential problems down the road for existing
home owners if the government has the ability to place an ‘energy
efficiency’ label on a home. Not only would this make home ownership
of existing homes more expensive for energy tax reasons, it would also
make reselling an existing home more disadvantageous than buying a
newer home. It seems to me that it bodes poorly for the existing
residential real estate market.

What are your thoughts?

No reply yet, but maybe this is a route we as citizens have failed to take. Maybe we need to start lobbying the lobbyists. They are the ones with the money and the clout, not us. This guy seems genuinely interested in responding to my concerns. Just wanted to pass this exchange along to my fellow freepers.

I just got his reply. Here it is:

Perez:
Because it states in subsec m that sec 204 — all of it — does not apply to new construction after the date of an enactment. An audit can’t become a trigger for disclosing a label if the labeling provisions don’t apply in the first place. It was simply a late nite staff error to leave that trigger point in. And no, the REEP stds wouldn’t open up homeowners to cap and trade rqmts to be added down road. One, a single owner wouldn’t have a ton of co2-equivalent to trade. But most importantly, the sec 202 does not authorize epa to set such a requirement or require anything of a homeowner at all, and EPA can’t do so without additional authorization of congress. Where the federal guidelines apply are to states that take federal dollars (not homeowners). The guidelines are specific to the state documenting an verifying that the money they take goes to retrofits that save money. The pgm is voluntary in the first place so if a homeowner doesn’t want to follow what the state lays out as the conditions for a grant, the home owner can just exercise his/her right to walk away.