Home Energy Audits take a battering for all the wrong reasons.

Canada has a sneaky habit of taking a really terrific idea and making it the law. This is hardly unique in matters of environmental regulation, but the most recent variation is furrowing a few brows and causing an unfortunate warping of a very important conversation. The offending proposal: Mandatory Home Energy Audits for home sellers,  part of Ontario's Green Energy Act. What we should be talking about is increasing the energy efficiency of our homes while we live in them. We should be talking about the 40% that buildings contribute to carbon emissions, and the fundamental reality that it is much less expensive to conserve energy than to generate new energy - no matter the source. Energy efficient homes save home owners money, and inspections that omit energy efficiency issues are increasingly one dimensional. The framework of a house is simply too  interconnected. Energy efficient retrofits yield a staggering return on investment - not so much when we sell a house, but when we live in it and pay (lower) utility bills to keep it up and running.

But Ontario's proposed regulation has spurred a conversation of an entirely different sort. The real estate industry is up in arms about the proposal, arguing that any additional burden on a seller right now is catastrophic. (If you've bought or sold a house in Ontario recently, you know that this potentially $300.00 fee is really the least of your worries).  They raise reasonable questions about conflicts of interest and eagerly await specifics of the plan. The Financial Post argues that the idea is "inefficient and problematic." Inefficient, because auditors use fuel when they drive trucks to houses to perform audits (oh, my). Problematic, because purchasers may not care about audits, (Americans do, and with all due respect, if anything, Canadians are greener); and new houses don't need them.

Here's the problem with this dialogue. It misses the point. Improving home energy efficiency begins with measurement. We cannot reduce emissions, costs, and waste unless we know where the problems lie. The existing residential  housing stock, is pitifully inefficient, a fact that costs not only the environment, but also home owners in unnecessarily high electric and heating bills, and presents potential health risks. As we scramble to find innovative renewable sources of energy we cannot afford to lose sight of the savings associated with efficiency. If you're not sure that measuring and efficiency are good investments, contact Google CEO Eric Schmidt. The man knows from profit.

So, yes. There are issues to be resolved, and yes, auditors will drive pick up trucks to houses for audits.  But open up the scope of the discussion just a lick: many of us know that an audit makes sense.  Even those of us who understand that simply having a handle on the way our houses use energy is likely to reduce our energy usage, still put off having it done until it's free or not doing so feels ridiculous. But if we know that we won't be able to sell our houses without first submitting our attics, basements and walls to an energy inspection, we'll do it. And maybe, just maybe, we'll get the information we need in time to act on it, make smart renovations, and save money. Energy audits are good sense. Maybe they shouldn't be mandated. But I think blogging realtor Ben Johnson has it right:

"....we've got to start leading the way toward more energy efficient homes and this seems to be a step in the right direction...And I look forward to assisting my sellers in finding a reputable energy auditor, by helping explain what changes they can make to their home in order to make it more energy efficient and therefore attractive to a potential buyer. Bring on the Green Energy Act!"

There will be a day when we will not think of buying a house without knowing how it uses energy, just as the day came when we would not invest in a house without an inspection. Johnson is putting the emphasis where it belongs: have an audit, and get it done right.