Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think what the act requires is for the DOE to develop energy efficient labeling standards for residential and commercial buildings that states (and/or locals) would be encouraged to adopt into building codes.
|
Encouraged? Or, forced with the threat of withholding federal funds?
Quote:
|
Seems like a consumer friendly provision to me that would give potential home buyers a better idea of the energy efficiency of residential property on the market.
|
I just illustrate the costs. It is not rocket science to know that, for example 30 year-old homes between $80 to $100 thousand will require $x,xxx in upgrades. This is a direct regressive impact on lower income/middle class people.
It is fair to say there is a payoff, but lets say in my example the homeowner saves $25/month in utility costs it would take 152 months to recoup the $3,800 cost. That is over 12 years.
My father has a 90 year-old cousin living in the Memphis area, we visited her last year. She lives in what they call a "shotgun" house, front porch, living room, bed room, kitchen, bathroom, in a straight line configuration. She has lived in the house over 40 years. If she sold the home under these new standards, the home would without doubt need new windows, insulation (even with mild winters), water heater, roof, and replacement of her window air conditioner. This woman is as active as people half her age and keeps her home and yard well maintained. I am betting the costs could make it so that it would be more cost effective for the house to be torn down. What is the consequence? Independent elderly people on low fixed incomes will be faced with limited housing choice. This is a proud woman who would never want to live in a "senior home" or live in subsidized housing.
Quote:
|
I dont believe there is a provision that the homeowner would be required to meet energy efficiency standards before a transaction could be completed, but rather simply disclose the energy efficiency (and receive an energy efficiency rating) of the property at the time of the potential transaction.
|
So, what is the point of the provision if it is not going to be a requirement? Are you suggesting that they are going to go through all of that and then make it all optional?
{added}
Ignore the messenger, if you can, and look at California as pointed out in this floor speech excerpt, shown in the IBD editorial pages today:
Quote:
Following is the floor speech that Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California's fourth congressional district gave last Friday in opposition to the cap and trade legislation that passed that day.
I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight, and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast.
Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, Assembly Bill 32. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California's recession. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then, in January of 2007, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.
What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California's economy. Let me give you one example from my district.
The city of Truckee, Calif., was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.
So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that's not a future prediction, that is a historical fact.
Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs — exactly the same promises we're hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs the UC Santa Barbara economic forecast is now using the D-word — depression — to discuss California's job market.
Madam Speaker, the cap and trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means.
It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing — all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing.
|
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=480896