Bill would mandate home efficiency disclosure

A bill that would require homeowners to disclose the efficiency of their homes to prospective buyers will likely see debate in the Senate Finance Committee this week.

S.143 squeaked out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy on a 3-2 vote Friday. The finance committee should decide on it by the end of the week.

The bill mandates that, upon request, a home seller must disclose information such as the house’s age, when it was last insulated, when windows were last replaced and other information that shows the home’s energy efficiency. A state program would rate homes and a database would allow buyers to compare homes. Appraisers could use the database as well.

Committee chair, Sen. Ginny Lyons, said the bill will help identify which homes in the state need to tighten up their thermal efficiency and demonstrate the value of efficiency in real estate prices.

“This bill is absolutely critical for us if we’re going to start moving away from inefficient over-utilization of fossil fuels in heating our homes and businesses,” Lyons said.

Homeowners would submit information and a computer program would calculate the home’s efficiency score. In theory, this efficiency rating would help determine the property’s cost since it would indicate the home’s energy costs.

George Twigg, co-chair of the state’s Building Energy Disclosure Working Group, said disclosing a building’s efficiency puts a dollar value on efficiency. The working group proposed the idea to the Legislature.

Twigg, who is deputy policy director for the Vermont Energy Investment Corp., said the disclosure is like a miles-per-gallon sticker for a home. Having that information will help consumers determine which home is the best value.

“The basic concept in why we’ve been involved in supporting this proposition is that energy efficiency unlike other attributes in a home like a granite countertop or a remodeled bathroom is that it’s largely invisible in the marketplace,” Twigg said.

Putting some sort of objective value on efficiency may encourage homeowners to invest in efficiency measures because, theoretically, they will be able to recoup those costs when they sell.

Sen. Randy Brock, one of the two members of the committee to vote against the bill, is not convinced. He said it’s not a good use of taxpayer money. Developing a system to compile and organize all the information would cost the state an estimated $100,000.

Given the small number of houses sold in the state each year, Brock said, Vermont would not be able to obtain enough information to have an accurate picture of enough homes in the market to be useful.

According to the Vermont Association of Realtors, there are around 5,000 homes sold annually in the state out of about 314,000 total. If half of those sold used an energy audit, it would still constitute less than 1 percent of the housing stock.

Brock said at that rate it would take more than 100 years to compile data for all the homes in the state.

“The whole idea is for people valuing houses to have a basis for which to compare them,” Brock said. “It’s a small number, used sporadically but made mandatory. It’s not a wise use of tax money or a wise expenditure in general.”

Brock said he was also disturbed by the error rate in determining the efficiency of a home. It’s likely to be off by around 30 percent on either end.

Dennis Brown, president of the Vermont Association of Realtors, said his group is opposed to the bill so far as it makes the disclosure mandatory.

Brown said requiring the disclosure could taint older properties.

“About 30 percent of the housing stock in Vermont is pre-1940s,” Brown said. “We’re afraid an energy audit, especially on older properties may stigmatize properties and make them stay on the market longer. That’s exactly what we don’t need especially in this marketplace.”

Brown said the Vermont real estate market continues in a trend of decreased number of sales and decreased average price for the homes that do sell.

The bill as passed out of the Senate committee would also double the gross receipts tax to 1 percent of the retail sale of heating fuels to fund low-income weatherization.

Lyons said the increase will help replace federal funds that will run out this year. With funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the state has been able to ramp up its weatherization program.

With the dip in federal funding, the state would have to pull back on the program without an additional funding source.

“All these people are ready to go to work, but there’s no money for weatherization,” Lyons said.

Matt Cota, executive director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, said the increase in the tax will mean consumers could pay five cents a gallon in tax for fuels like heating oil with the petroleum cleanup fee included.

“For people who are just making ends meet, five cents a gallon is a lot,” Cota said.

He said it’s also a hidden tax since fuel dealers are not allowed to itemize it on customers bills.

Alan Panebaker

Leave a Reply

23 Comments on "Bill would mandate home efficiency disclosure"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
MJ Farmer
4 years 2 months ago
4 years 2 months ago

This is a recurring myth. There is a tax yes, but it will affect very few people. Please see snopes.com for details

Pam Ladds
4 years 2 months ago
While I am a big supporter of energy efficiency and try really hard to make my home as “tight” as possible this piece of legislation blows my mind! Or it would if my mind wasn’t so well insulated! I live in house built in 1820 and while I can make it as energy efficient as possible it will never be perfect and nor will most other houses. This seems like a way to slow even further a struggling housing market and to jack up the costs for everyone. It actually feels more like “busy work” something for people to do… Read more »
Margo Howland
4 years 2 months ago

One more thing for Realtors and the real estate bar to worry about. It should be encouraged but not required. Maybe the thing to do is to provide tax incentives for energy audits , not cram it down people’s throats…

Lysander Spooner
4 years 2 months ago
Wow, this is what we use representatives for? How about this alternative approach? If you are a potential home buyer, can you determine the square footage of the home? Also, are you willing to ask the owner for copies of the energy bills? Will this help you understand the energy per square foot of the home? If so, can you make an informed decision – albeit not perfect – about your purchase? If not, hire your elected representative to do the “thinking” for you – he will work out some energy efficiency scheme with the realty lobby and write a… Read more »
Diana Peduzzi
4 years 2 months ago
I am also an active proponent of energy efficiency and beleive there are still great savings to be achieved by improving the efficiency of our housing stock. However this proposal would never have the desired effect. People shopping for new housing have so many vastly different options to explore, within their price range, and it would be impossible to compare one house to another using this proposed tool, unless the homes were of similar age and construction, and the owners had similar energy use habits. A smart buyer can always ask to have the utility and fuel bills provided by… Read more »
Kate Mackenzy
4 years 2 months ago
I agree with most, all of us as sellers, buyers and realtors can take the annual usage of gallons of fuel and divide it by the sq ft to arrive at knowlede of expected fuel costs. Perhaps time would be better spent mandating that all new-build project have radon extraction as part of the permit process.The method is so simple and costs so low at pre construction stage, yet the risk so high for overlooking it, here is serious issue that needs addressing urgently. Also: why not use tax dollars to advise on replacing archaic hot water tanks to “on… Read more »
Daniel Golesky
4 years 2 months ago
No one likes mandates (for the most part, I guess), agreed. But this is actually a well thought out piece of legislation that was arrived at after a significant amount of work, and testimonials from various experts. If you do value building energy efficiency, then we need to find some way of making it valuable in the housing market. Otherwise, the vast majority of buyers simply will not care. A rating only acts akin to a mpg sticker on a car, quantifying its energy performance, and making it visible. Energy audits are great, but they are only part of the… Read more »
Lysander Spooner
4 years 2 months ago
“Otherwise, the vast majority of buyers simply will not care.” Quite frankly, Mr. Golesky – your comment is a slap in the face of homeowners and renters. Of course we care about energy efficiency, just not in the form your beloved legislators have worked so hard to define it as. No, we care about energy efficiency in the form of quality, cost and safety for our Vermont families. Can I keep my family warm? is the first priority, can I do it safely? is the second priority and can I do it for the lowest cost available? being my third… Read more »
Daniel Golesky
4 years 2 months ago
I am glad you feel strongly about building energy efficiency, Mr. Spooner, I am really glad you do. But the history of advancing building energy efficiency is littered with hundreds of well meaning programs and initiatives (including in this state) that had very few takers..mostly because people didnt care. Bottom line: we need a market-driven initiative to further building energy efficiency, but if there is no recognition of energy efficiency in the market it isnt gonna happen. Sure, we could have all homeowners like yourself rise up, and demand that we get this done, but I am not holding my… Read more »
Lysander Spooner
4 years 2 months ago
I only feel strongly about individuals determining their needs and the priorities about which they allocate their own resources against those needs. If energy efficiency is of high need for an individual, then it will be so. However, it should not be the mandate of the government that makes it my priority in terms of how my resources are allocated. If I were to do that to an individual, it would be called extortion – when the government does it – it is called compassion. Here is the fact, most homeowners are not standing up clamoring for legislation to “get… Read more »
Arthur Hamlin
4 years 2 months ago

The impetus to improve bad energy efficiency are high utility bills.

Mike Curtis
4 years 2 months ago
“replacing archaic hot water tanks to “on demand hot water systems”. The fuel and money wasted storing unused hot water is now surely an antiquated approach.” Your electric rates would skyrocket. Here’s why — Your on demand hot water heater uses a TON of electricity when it’s working. Sure, it’s only working for 1/2 hour or less each day … but most of us use hot water all at the same time — shower time in the morning. If we all had on demand electric hot water, peak usage — the time that the maximum amount of power is being… Read more »
Pam Ladds
4 years 2 months ago

On demand hot water requires more ampage than many of us have in our old houses. We are chugging along,saving where we can. It ain’t broke, stop trying to fix it.

Arthur Hamlin
4 years 2 months ago
It doesn’t matter if the bill was well written. This is bad idea and I have contacted my legislators and asked them to oppose it. Vermont has one of the oldest housing in the country and this mandate will make it impossible for some people to sell their home, trapping them in financial peril if they need the equity to care for themselves or a sick or elderly family member, or move for a job. If someone wants to make their home energy efficient there are many ways to do that, and for the low income folks it is usually… Read more »
Daniel Golesky
4 years 2 months ago
1) Vermont has one of the oldest housing stock in the country– very true– but does that mean we should not try and improve its efficiency, Mr. Hamlin? Would you like to see these buildings continue to burn expensive oil, all of which comes from other countries? 2) “this mandate will make it impossible for some people to sell their home” Untrue. If a buyer values energy efficiency, all this would do is make the energy performance “visible”. There is nothing in the bill that says to buyers to NOT purchase a particular home, it just helps make better informed… Read more »
Lysander Spooner
4 years 2 months ago
1) Is the solution to importing oil from other countries to regulate housing energy efficiency? I can think of two other ways to stop importing oil from other countries that wouldn’t tax us like this regulation: stop importing oil from other countries and start producing oil locally. If buying local is good for our food, why not our fuel? Of course, I’m referring to North America as local, but you get the point, right? 2) And if poor families who will get hurt by this additional compliance spending the most as percentage of income can’t afford to upgrade their dismal… Read more »
Willem post
4 years 2 months ago

France, Germany and other nations already have such laws.
France has a seven-level system for housing. Level 1 is the best, 7 the lowest. Most housing is level 4-6.
Sent from my iPad in France.

William Dods
4 years 2 months ago

If this is passed the next step will be a Residential Energy Standard for existing homes. I’m sure the Department of Public Service would love to sink their teeth into that one. The only problem this might conceivably solve will be to provide meaningful employment for a large number of overpaid bureaucrats.

Seth Maciejowski
4 years 2 months ago
Without something like this legislation, there is absolutely no incentive to do basic work like air sealing and insulation with our current system. It’s always easier to justify incrementally purchasing more and more expensive oil (and then complaining about the cost) than making a larger cost outlay upfront. I’ve done extensive work upgrading the insulation of my 1860 home (cutting heating bills by 70% in the process), but none of this is evident to a potential buyer. More information can only help improve the housing stock in general. Perhaps this will encourage people to take advantage of Efficiency Vermont’s grant… Read more »
Mike Curtis
4 years 2 months ago

Of course it will be evident to potential buyers. They will look at your fuel bills and they will compare them with the other homes that they are considering buying.

They will see that your home costs less to heat than other, similar, homes and this will put you at a competitive advantage.

In the meantime, you’re saving money on fuel!

It’s great that you had the foresight and vision to make those improvements, on your own, without the government telling you what to do!

Townsend Peters
4 years 2 months ago

The comments of the “antis” here miss a key point. You can’t tell how efficient a _home_ is by looking at fuel bills. You can only tell how efficient the _home occupants_ are.

Vermont spends over $600 million a year burning imported fossil fuel for heat. A simple market-based mechanism is proposed to try to move the market toward valuing building energy efficiency, and people go ballistic.

Guess y’all would prefer that the state raises taxes to spend on programs that dole out incentives for cost-effective heating efficiency measures, like we do for electric energy efficiency.

4 years 1 month ago
Vermont needs to move to zero-energy housing and other buildings. Such buildings would have PV solar systems, PV thermal systems, geothermal systems, and battery storage in the building to charge hybrids and EVs. Increased energy efficiency should be done first, renewables later, because renewable systems capacity would be much less for zero-energy buildings. Vermont State Government buildings; average 107,000 Btu/sq ft/yr. Not much can be done with such buildings other than taking them down to the steel structure and start over. http://www.publicassets.org/PAI-IB0806.pdf Building energy demand management using smart metering, smart buildings (including increased insulation and sealing, efficient windows and doors,… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Bill would mandate home efficiency disclosure"