Public Comment
New: Ready to pay $479 or more for a City mandated energy audit?
Council set to vote on January 20.
Have you heard that the Berkeley City Council will be voting on Tuesday, January 20 on a proposal to require homeowners in Berkeley to pay for mandatory energy audits?
Under this proposed ordinance, owners of single family homes, and of small building with up to four units, will have to pay the city a $79 filing fee and also pay a “Registered Service Provider” approved by the city for the mandatory energy assessment. The Berkeley Energy Commission, which proposed this ordinance, estimates that it will cost $400 for a single family home. The ordinance says that assessments will be done by private entities who will set their own rates, and there is no limit in the ordinance on what homeowners could be asked to pay.
$479 is a lot, and it could be more than that. Homeowners will have to pay for these audits every ten years, so this is not a one time thing.
You can find the proposed ordinance here: It’s item #1; click on the item to see the ordinance. This item was postponed to January, fortunately, when the City Council canceled their Dec.16 Council meeting during the recent protests. As a result, there is still time to comment on the ordinance.
The Berkeley Energy Commission’s report to the Council can be found here: It’s item 38. Very few people knew about this as there was only one communication to council on the issue. Since then, more people have become aware and the proposed ordinance has been generating criticism.
While I think this ordinance is well intentioned, it is also poorly thought out. Making people pay for assessments of their homes won’t necessarily lead to any increases in energy efficiency beyond what would otherwise occur. The ordinance doesn’t require anyone to make any changes, just requires them to pay for an expensive mandatory audit. There are already requirements in place for homeowners when they sell their homes.
Many Berkeley homeowners are already aware of, and concerned about, the energy efficiency of their homes. Many are taking steps, as they are able to afford them, to make their homes more efficient:solar panels, new windows, LED lighting, buying Energy Star-star rated appliances with maximum efficiency, etc.
One problem with the ordinance is that the exception for people who have already done work to make their homes more efficient is very vague. “Any building that completes a multi-measure energy improvement project with a verified minimum improvement, as determined by Administrator”. If someone has been gradually replacing windows (very expensive), putting on solar panels, adding more efficient lighting, over a period of years, is that good enough? It seems to me that anyone who is doing any of these things should be exempt from any audit requirement, and it shouldn’t be necessary for them to have extensive paperwork. I didn’t save receipts for my new windows or my more efficient light bulbs, etc.
The League of Women Voters has said that the cost of the audit could be onerous for many homeowners of modest means. The way the ordinance is written now you have to be in default or receivership or provide proof of participation in “energy efficiency income qualified programs” to get a hardship deferral. The mandatory costs are likely to be burdensome for many seniors on fixed incomes. So far, the League’s concern has been ignored by the Council.
I think it would make more sense if the City negotiated a volume discount with some energy auditors and made voluntary audits available at a reasonable price for those who want them. I think people who voluntarily pay for audits will be far more likely to make recommended changes than those who are coerced into paying for an audit. While they’re at it, they could do bulk purchasing of LED lighting and make that available to homeowners at a discount. The City can also publicize available energy efficiency incentives in the annual report they send out to residents. Incentives for actual energy efficiency improvements are a better idea than mandatory audits.
And before the City pushes homeowners to save energy, maybe the City should deal with its own buildings. Are there solar panels on City Hall or the main library? Are those buildings as energy efficient as they could be? Why was only one of the newly rebuilt branch libraries built to a zero net energy standard? Why not all four? It seems that most of the progress with respect to solar energy in Berkeley is due to individual homeowners, not the City.
The City's discretionary income has grown rapidly in the last ten years, substantially outstripping the inflation rate. In particular, the City's transfer tax is generating a lot of revenue. Some of that revenue could be used to pay for energy audits for homeowners who want them. The Berkeley Association of Realtors suggested using property transfer tax revenues to pay for energy audits of single family homes.
The next best thing to going back to the drawing board would be to make some substantial modifications to the ordinance, including the following:
