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.
Dang! You must have some bloodhound genes in you. Good work!
However, with this group of marxists gangsters, I'm inclined to always believe the worst. They never, never, never, never pass up an opportunity to subvert and/or stifle individual freedom and liberty.
For now, the prudent person would operate on the belief that ALL home-sellers will have to crawl at the altar of government regulation.
Finally, probably because I'm so old and crotchety, I remain suspect of Perez based on both the fact that he is an environmentalist (and therefore prone to believe almost anything) and that he defended Browner's "supposed" integrity...something which is really suspect!
OTOH, keep digging!...{:-)