Berkeley Goes Green(er) by Starting at Home.

The Berkeley City Council is busily altering the terms of the conversation about home energy efficiency. Whether or not its current proposal - part of the closely watched Berkeley Climate Action Plan - is passed, the mere audacity of its terms will alter the landscape of what municipalities can ask of homeowners in the name of the longer term goals of saving money over time, and preserving the planet.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Berkeley City Council, which currently imposes strict energy efficiency standards on those selling homes or making significant renovations, would like to extend regulation to all homeowners in order to meet its own mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. As a start, the City will require Berkeley's 23,000 homes and 25,000 duplexes and apartment units to reduce energy use by 35 percent by 2020.

Critics have come out slinging. It's an expensive proposal for homeowners. The Chronicle claims that the cost required to complete energy efficiency retrofits may be "upwards of $33,800."  Maybe, but the same article points out that air-sealing, which may reduce carbon emissions by 25% would cost less than 10,000 (By the way, considerably less, according to our experience).

The Chronicle article makes no mention of municipal incentives available to homeowners, such as the Berkeley First financing plan for solar retrofits. Nor does it mention this: Only 43% of Berkeley residents are home owners. That means that a majority of residents impacted by this bill may have the opportunity to benefit from huge energy efficiency improvements in their homes, more comfortable living, and lower utility bills, and excellent environmental kharma without having to incur the initial costs of retrofit.  (Apart from an anticipated rise in rent).  This divide between those who benefit and those who foot the bill is often referred to as an "incentive gap." Why would a homeowner pay for improvements that cannot be seen, and will benefit tenants, who would surely pay the rent anyway? Maybe for this reason: they won't have a choice.

We will watch with interest as Berkeley drives this topic.  We are interested that they are starting with homes, and will move on to businesses later. We have long believed that homes are a core and natural place to begin making gains in energy efficiency, both because of the relative ease of many improvements and because of the return on investment. And we are keen, too, to see the results of Berkeley's push to mandate home energy audits. We believe strongly that energy audits are the best way to begin any serious effort to improve efficiency.

Should those moves be mandated? Do they have to be? The question reminds me of jury-logic. Once you can get jurors debating how much money the plaintiff should be rewarded, you've won the liability question, sometimes pre-emptively. Here, we're talking costs - how far should homeowners be expected to go using their own money. The question as to whether increasing efficiency, reducing carbon emissions or having an audit needs to happen? No longer on the table.