Philips AmbientLED bulb creates jobs in China

As an Austin homeowner, I've followed the legislative collusion between corporate bulb manufacturers like Philips and GE, the United States Congress and the fringe environmental group NRDC; otherwise known as the National Resource Defense Council. How could these disparate groups agree to support the increased efficiency standards for 100 watt incandescent bulbs?

First, the profit margins per bulb on incandescent bulbs is very low. By supporting arbitrary efficiency standards that reliable, affordable incandescent bulbs can't meet, GE and Philips will profit from selling pricier LED bulbs and American consumers will pay more for light bulbs. Think of it as a light bulb tax.

Second, the NRDC's misguided focus on light bulb wattage, rather than the number of kilowatt hours a homeowner consumes is pointless. Five years ago I began purchasing shaded floor lamps with multiple sockets. As a consumer, I'll wait until a warm, 100-watt LED bulb is perfected, buy those and install them in my light sockets. You hand-wringing carbon-cassandra's will not tell me how many watts of lighting I may enjoy and consume in my home. Will 30 planned powerplants not have to be built to meet America's future energy needs? I doubt it.

Third, I love the verbal contortions environmentalist's twist themselves into. For example, the incandescent light bulbs have been banned in Europe since 2009 and this is offered as some sort of example that America should follow. (see "Europe's Ban on Old-Style Bulbs Begins", by James Kanter, August 31, 2009 The New York Times) If I wanted to follow Europe's example, I'd move there. Yet, this same American efficiency legislation for incandescent bulb enrages environmentalists who scoff at the word "ban". If I visit Lowe's and want to buy a 100 watt incandescent bulb, and they aren't manufactured anymore because of legislation, then it is effectively banned.

Fourth, politicians and environmental blogs have hailed the new efficiency legislation for incandescent bulbs as a job creation bonanza. It certainly does create jobs, if you live in China.

Now back to the bulb. I searched the Internet in vain for news about where the Philips AmbientLED, a dimmable, A19 bulb that some environmentalist's tout as a worthy, yet pricey successor to Edison's warm, reliable and affordable incandescent light bulb was made.

Since I couldn't find this information, I visited my local Home Depot and photographed the front and back of the Philips AmbientLED's packaging. And there it was. In the smallest font, on the back of the package, in the lower right-hand corner, this Dutch-owned, AmbientLED A19 bulb is made in China.

One last note. If these AmbientLED bulbs save consumers so much money on their utility/electricity bills, why isn't that cited on any of Amazon's customer reviews for this $40 60-watt bulb?

Austin Energy Best Offer Ever Omits Some Details

I love these Austin Energy propaganda pieces. 

In this Fox news report, Jerry Ollier, an Austin homeowner who has to buy electricity from Austin Energy; (there is no other provider to compete with Austin's power monopoly), needed to replace his defunct air conditioner. He calls Austin Energy or Strand Brothers and inquires about the rebates the utility is offering.

Austin Energy decides to hold a press conference to publicize the new "Best Offer Ever" program, calls Fox news, and tah-dah! A camera-crew shows up.

The reporter is outside with a window-shade installer who talks about a "60% sunscreen that effectively blocks and protects you from the glare and heat of the sun". I assume this sunscreen blocks 60% of the sun's heat in the winter too.

Mr. Ollier told the reporter that overall he was pleased with the improvements.

However, I'm always cautious when I don't hear these five words in news reports on home improvement projects that involve Austin Energy...How. Much. Did. It. Cost?

$5000? $10,000? We'll never know because the news reports never tell us.

So the next time you hear Austin Energy touting a single-family home energy retrofit, ask yourself, why is the cost of the work never mentioned?

Your Austin Energy Serf,

John Barksdale

Austin Homebuyers Ignore Energy Audit Findings of Older Homes

The Austin American Statesman published Shonda Novak's July 16, 2010 article titled, "Impact of Home Energy Audit Rule Less Than Expected"


The Austin City Council Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure Ordinance has been in effect for one year, and Shonda's article was published to gage how well the central-planners at Austin City Council have done.

As an Austin homeowner, I was pleased with the results!

"Fears about effects on sales appear overblown" claims Shonda Novak, the article's writer. That's because the audit is a mandate on the homeseller. If a homeowner is worried about selling their private property, they won't have the time or energy to fight the audit. This sneaky provision was endorsed by the Austin Board of REALTORS.

The busy-body central planners at Austin City Council, with the cooperation of their personal utility monopoly, Austin Energy, told us these audits were meant to educate buyers about the energy efficiency of homes older than 10 year old trapped in the Austin Energy service area.

The article continues: "In 96 percent of the 4,862 audits conducted, the energy auditors recommended at least one improvement. However, only 520 homebuyers or sellers followed through on any of the recommendations."

Stated another way, 96% of the 4,862 audits conducted means 4667 homes needed at least one improvement. However, only 520 homebuyers or sellers, or 11% made the improvement.

So, 89% ignored the audit findings and enjoyed their private property.

"When buying a car, "we'd be aghast if there wasn't a window sticker saying how it performs as far as fuel economy," said Kristof Irwin, co-owner of Blue Heron Builders, an Austin-based green builder of custom homes, and Positive Energy, an energy audit firm. Because homes use a significant amount of energy, it's all the more important for an owner or buyer to know about its efficiency, he said."

Well an energy audit doesn't tell you what the "miles per gallon" of a home is. For example, how much electricity should the average 1500 square foot Austin home use in June? In June 2010, I purchased 1,031 Kilowatt hours of electricity for $103 from Austin Energy. And my home was built in 1982.


"There is a gold mine of energy savings in older homes," said Karl Rábago Vice president at Austin Energy, who oversees administration of the new ordinance.


Shonda continues, "The Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure ordinance applies to homes older than 10 years, with some exceptions, including homes that have had energy improvements within the past 10 years."

So if you own a home that's less than 10 years old, use all the electricity you want. No sanctimonious eco-nannies will harrass you!

Austin Energy Adds More Capacity

As an energy serf of Austin Energy, (I can't buy electricity from the free market in my geographic area), I received a copy of "PowerPlus", a full-color, two-sided flyer in my utility bill for the month of July.

The front page proudly proclaims:

"Two new jet engine-driven generating units have been added to the Austin Energy Sand Hill Energy Center, located just east of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. These 50 megawatt (MW) units are literally jet engines just like those on jetliners, except these engines have been modified to turn an electric generator. Fifty megawatts is sufficient electricity to power about 37,000 homes."

Wow. I thought the Austin City Council implemented the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure ordinance to reduce energy usage. This stupid ordinance has been in place for one year and Austin Energy is adding more power generating capacity?

I thought we were going to conserve our way to some arbitrary amount of total annual megawatt consumption as determined by some carbon-hysterical, central-planning council?

I never agreed to an audit when I bought electricity

Recently, I was reflecting on the stupidity of the Austin City Council when they enacted the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure ordinance. As the only provider of electricity in my geographic location in Austin, Texas, I'm forced to purchase electricity from Austin Energy. I can't buy electricity from any other utility.

When I agreed to sign up for electricity service from Austin Energy, I didn't recall any mandatory requirement to have an energy audit performed on my home when I sold it.

How can a provider of a service in a free market mandate an audit and change the terms of my contract after I've signed up for the service?

It's easy, if you're a city-owned, protected monopoly.

The City of Austin owns the utility, so it enjoys protection from competition as a regulated monopoly. When I signed up for electricity service from Austin Energy, in no part of my contract did it mention a requirement for an owner of a home older than 10 years old to have a mandatory energy audit performed at the point of sale.

I think a judge would be interested in hearing this case.

I keep asking for members of the Austin "green-community" to send me a check for $300 to cover my mandatory energy audit.

Still no takers.

Austin Board of REALTORS "urged" Task Force for audit

The more I learn about the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure, the less I like it.

On page 8 of the Energy Efficiency Upgrades Task Force delivered to the Austin Mayor and Council on September 17th, 2008 it reads:

"The Task Force had initially considered and approved a prescriptive checklist of required efficiency upgrades in lieu of an audit. The advantage seen by the Task Force of such a list was that an individual homeowner could self assess and avoid the cost of an audit. However, the Austin Board of Realtors made a proposal to the Task Force urging that an audit be required before a property is sold with full disclosure to the Purchaser. That presentation is attached as Exhibit 2. On the basis of that proposal, the Task Force decided to adopt the recommendation of the Austin Board of Realtors and recommend that a third party audit be performed before a home is sold and the results of the audit disclosed to the purchaser."

I've contacted the Austin Board of REALTORS (ABOR) and asked two of their members why their representatives on the Energy Efficiency Upgrades Task Force "urged" homeowners who were selling their home to get an "energy" audit. I add quotes around the word energy because the audit never informs the homeseller or buyer how much energy the home should be using based on a national, regional or comparable home-size standard or average.

The audit will tell you if the attic needs more insulation, if the home is "leaking air" and if the HVAC ducts are leaking. The audit tells you if the windows have solar screens and how much shade covers the home. I don't know about you, but when the sun hits my Austin home on a cold February morning, I don't mind if the sun warms my windows too.

I was pretty gung-ho on the ABOR until I found out they were "urging" the audits to begin with.

I think I'll formally ask the Austin Board of REALTORS for $300. That should cover my home energy audit. Which is mandatory. And enforced by a Class C misdemeanor for non-compliance and a fine of up to $2000.

I can't wait to see what sort of stupidity Austin City Council has in store for Austin.

And by the way, do you think a homebuyer is going to base their home purchasing decision based on the current R-value of installed insulation in an attic?

Austin Board of REALTORS resisted the mandatory Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure (Thank you)

I found this article published about the Austin Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure in May 2008 on Austin Real Estate Today. I thought I'd repost it below.

Austin Board of REALTORS® Propose Alternative to Mayor Wynn’s ‘Point of Sale’ Ordinance

Austin Board of REALTORS® sent an email alert today to propose a change to Mayor Wynn’s Climate Protection Plan. So far, it looks like REALTORS® agree with most aspects of the plan. Like most solutions, there’s a few areas of contention. Here’s what the email alert outlined:

What’s this about?

In early 2007, Austin Mayor Will Wynn released the Climate Protection Plan with the goal of making Austin the “greenest” city in the country, [including] the “Proposed Point of Sale Ordinance”….The city’s proposal would require that homeowners upgrade their homes and obtain a “Certificate of Compliance” from the city before they’re able to sell it. We oppose this plan for several reasons:

Affordability – This type of out-of-pocket expense will prevent many homeowners from having the option to sell their home, particularly if they need to sell due to a difficult financial situation. In addition, the cost will inevitably be passed on to homebuyers, making it even more difficult to afford a home in Austin.

Extended sales process – Arranging the additional inspections needed to obtain a Certificate of Compliance (not to mention actually making the upgrades to properties) would draw out the time required to sell homes substantially. Further, Austin doesn’t currently have enough home inspectors in our city to fill the anticipated demand, promising even further delays.

Mandates- Do we want to require a “license” for homeowners to sell? – As it’s proposed now, this ordinance would essentially require that homeowners apply to the city for a “license” to sell their home (i.e. Certificate of Compliance). Do we want to spend our city’s resources on this activity and add this complication to the real estate process? Austinites buy and sell more than 25,000 homes each year…

What’s the alternative?

We support initiatives to promote energy efficiency in Austin, but the mandates under consideration are the wrong approach. Instead, we believe that a voluntary program that rewards Austinites in a meaningful way for making good decisions about energy efficiency is the right way to build long-lasting support.

ABOR proposes the following:

• Support free energy audits in all Austin homes and include that information in ABOR’s Seller’s Disclosure Notice to allow the market to adapt to the "value" of energy efficiency in homes.

• Expand the incentives for homeowners who voluntarily make upgrades to their homes by offering annual homestead exemptions and sales tax relief on items related to those upgrades.

• Allow the 9000+ members of ABOR to act as educators who encourage homeowners to take advantage of the many programs Austin Energy already has in place.

• Create and promote a “Green REALTOR®” designation.
  

Where are we now?

Currently, this proposal is under consideration by the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Task Force. Created by the Austin City Council, this task force is determining the specific guidelines of the ordinance (though it has already been determined that the ordinance will require existing homes to meet mandatory standards for energy efficiency before they can be sold). After the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Task Force completes its task, they will make recommendations to the Austin City Council. From there, Austin City Council members will vote on whether the ordinance will go into effect.

The real issue and discussion items

This debate is similar to the Universal Healthcare discussion. How effective and costly are mandates? Should we mandate that all homes be retrofitted or have incentive programs instead? I think it’s a balancing act. We want as many homes upgraded to be green, but at what cost to the taxpayers?

ECAD criminal provision omitted by Councilmember Laura Morrison

A summary published by the Austin City Council of the "Ordinances and Resolutions Sponsored or Co-Sponsored by Council Member Laura Morrison", omits any mention of the Energy Conservation and Disclosure ordinance's Class C misdemeanor penalty for non-compliance and a fine of up to $2000.

Here is the body of that text:

"Approve an ordinance adding a new Chapter 6-7 to the City Code relating to energy conservation audit and disclosure requirements, incorporating recommendations from the Energy Efficiency Retrofits Task Force, to become effective June 1, 2009. (Mayor Will Wynn, Council Member Lee Leffingwell and Council Member Laura Morrison)

Achieving energy efficiency savings in homes and buildings prior to the implementation of modern energy codes will have a significant impact oncommunity-wide energy use. These cost-effective energy efficiency improvements are proven to increase housing affordability and lower businessoperating costs. In December 2007, the City Council established the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Task Force to identify and recommend revisions to the city code to implement cost-effective energy efficiency retrofits and upgrades to Austin homes and buildings. This ordinance incorporates the recommendations of the task force by providing for an energy audit at the point of sale that would offer recommendations to home owners on voluntary upgrades. Additionally, the ordinance, among other things, initiates a process for pursuing energy efficiency upgrades for existing apartment buildings."

NOTE: The "Task Force" did not recommend a criminal provision for non-compliance, that stupid idea was the brainchild of Mayor Will Wynn and the property-rights trampling Austin City Council.

The Austin Energy Conservation Disclosure Ordinance audit begins

If you sell your single-family home that is more than 10 years old in Austin, Texas and you purchase electricity from Austin Energy, a regulated monopoly, as of June 1st, 2009 you'll probably need to get an Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD), unless you have recently participated in an Austin Energy residential energy-efficiency program or meet one of the other varied exceptions. Similar requirements are in place for multifamily and commercial properties, but not condominiums or manufactured homes without a permanent foundation.

The audit includes an assessment of the R-value of the attic insulation, the percentage of air leakage through the HVAC duct system, the number of windows exposed to direct sunlight for at least an hour a day, and the energy-efficiency rating of the air-conditioning equipment. It also includes suggestions for improving the home’s energy efficiency. Mandatory audits are expected to cost $200 to $300 for a typical single-family home of 1,800 square feet or smaller with a single air-conditioning system. Auditors set their own prices, which depend on the size of the home.

Historical energy use for the home is not presented to the seller, nor is a report comparing the property's energy use to nearby properties.

There is no requirement to make improvements based on the audit - you just have to give the results to the person buying the house and a copy of the audit must be sent to to Austin Energy for their "records". If you're thinking of improving your home's energy efficiency, check Austin Energy's rebate programs. Good thing the Austin Board of REALTORS stood up to City Council, the City of Austin intended to mandate energy efficiency upgrades at the time a home was sold. Bend over and grab your wallet!

One final note, if you fail to get an audit, you'll be charged with a Class C misdemeanor and fined between $500 and $2000.

Austin Energy. It's just a monopoly.©

My Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure letter to former Austin Mayor, Will Wynn

Chasingfun/Flickr

December 10th, 2009

Dear Mr. Wynn,

My name is John Barksdale and I'm an Austin homeowner.

In your June 11th, 2008 letter to the Austinist in which you reference the Energy Audit Ordinance, -which has evolved into the loathsome Energy Conservation Disclosure Audit (ECAD)-, you wrote,

"It WOULD require sellers to get an inexpensive energy audit and provide that information to prospective homebuyers."

Since you signed the mandatory ECAD into law, some details about the ordinance have changed since you penned your letter.

If an Austin homeowner fails to get an ECAD audit, a fine of up to $2000 for non-compliance and a Class C misdemeanor charge can be imposed. I guess you failed to mention the criminal charge in your letter? Also, the audit disclosure paperwork has to be submitted to Austin Energy so they can "keep it on file".

Austin Energy is a "community-owned" monopoly. As an Austin homeowner I can't take my money and buy electricity from a competing utility. Austin Energy sells me the electricity then browbeats me if I "use too much", or in your nanny-state jargon, "wasteful in their habits".

From your ABC News interview with Scott Mayerowitz on June 10, 2009, "Austin Forces Home Sellers to Pay for Energy Audits", "Wynn said the idea behind the ordinance was to encourage homeowners to upgrade their homes with more efficient air-conditioners, better windows and insulation. The original idea was just to require sellers to disclose their electric bills, but then he realized that some people are more wasteful in their habits than others. Hence, the home inspections."

I'm so pleased you decided to make yourself the arbiter of my labor, time and capital.

And the reason we have to "make expensive power purchases on the energy markets during the heat of summer" is because environmentalists like you make the construction of new power plants almost impossible. The French have a solution that produces electricity in a carbon-free manor; it's called nuclear power. Sadly, U.S. environmentalists demonized nuclear power in the 70's, so the utilities turned to cheap, abundant coal. Oh the environmental zealots of the 70's were so pleased with themselves! They had stopped the construction of new power plants in America, yet electricity utilities met consumer demands by contracting coal-burning plants. Well done environmentalists, pat yourself on the back.

Mr. Wynn, the amount of electricity I purchase and consume is my business, not yours or the business of the City of Austin.

Why am I so tough on you Mr. Wynn? Because you could have stood up for homeowner's liberty and property rights with a veto of the mandatory audit and its Class C misdemeanor.

Because you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my time, labor and capital, then I think I too have that right. Sir, how do you propose to pay for the ECAD audit of my Austin home?

After all, you did say it was inexpensive.

Regards,

John Barksdale
http://stoptheaustinecad.blogspot.com

Austin Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure Ordinance Claims First Victim

On the 6th of August, 2009, Paul Norris appeared before the Austin City Council. Mr. Norris submitted a personal letter, two emails and one photocopy of the Travis County Appraisal District tax assessment of his newly inherited property to the council and explained his concern.

Paul read his letter to the Council:

"Hello, mayor and members of the council. I'm here today to talk about some limitations to the ECAD ordinance, and I passed out some printed material and backup to that and I'm just pretty much going to read what I have here. I find myself in a unique situation today and I need your help. My family members and I inherited an old house within the last year and now have a contract for sale pending. The house is in very poor condition. Travis County Appraisal District values the house at one dollar. And the insurance carrier has recently canceled the homeowners policy due to the condition. And those are exhibits 1 and 2 in the material that I passed out. Under the current energy conservation audit and disclosure ordinance, ECAD, we've required to get an energy audit prior to sale. According to the city's website, the estimated cost of an audit is from $200 to $300 for a typical single-family home, 1800 square feet or smaller with one air conditioning system, which fits this house. The ordinance has a very narrow variance provisions which require both the seller and buyer's cooperation. The buyers are unwilling to consent due to their own time frames. The buyers have a nine-page inspection report which thoroughly addresses the house's energy issues. Existing code compliance will take care of the energy concerns when they finally get around to their remodel. Although I don't have any position on the ordinance one way or the other, I'm all for the environment. I've been recycling for 40 years, am a charter board member and founding sponsor of Keep Austin Beautiful and a formed the ecology action board member. Initially when I contacted city staff, they figured that the director could grant a variance, grant a waiver. However, city attorney Andy Purney says there is no provision for any other variance other than the one that's in the ordinance, which is either for a remodel or a demolition. There's two versions of it, within a six-month period after the sale transacts. I suggest the ordinance is poor. I suggest you all figure out how I can avoid the requirement in this case. Spending $200 to $300 on a house valued at one dollar in the midst of a recession doesn't make any sense. I don't believe that's the intention of this ordinance. Thank you."

Mayor Lee Leffingwell: Thank you, Mr. Norris. Councilmember Laura Morrison. Might be a question for you, Mr. Norris.

Council Member Laura Morrison: Actually if we have an attorney that --

Mayor Lee Leffingwell: We do.

Council Member Laura Morrison: That would be great. Could you talk a little bit about the waiver that goes into play if there's a demolition within six months in the future? How does that actually work?

Andy Perny: I am Andy Perny, Austin Energy legal services. He's correct, essentially there's two variance possibilities. There's actually a third related to undo hardship but that relates more to part of the ordinance that actually requires energy efficiency upgrades, not the audit portion. But essentially in order to qualify for the variance, both the buyer and seller would have to submit a variance application that they would agree to file the demolition permit within six months of the sale. That's just the plain wording of the ordinance.

Council Member Laura Morrison: I see. And that's not your situation here. Your buyer doesn't intend --

Paul Norris: The buyer is going to remodel it. There's two versions, the demolition and the remodel version. They are going to remodel it, but they are currently remodeling another property and are tied up on that project. There's an e-mail in here where their real estate agent is saying no, they are not going to enter into an agreement because of their own time frames.

Council Member Laura Morrison: and the remodel variance -- how does that actually work? It's required for that? Because it seems aparented someone is going to remodel it.

Andy Perny: I think there might be confusion because it was my understanding we were dealing with a demolition situation. The remodel situation is different. It doesn't contain a six-month gap. It simply states that the purchaser and seller have to agree to the remodel within a specified period of time.

Paul Norris: Well, when I had spoken to Steve Eanes and I clearly told him, he just got confused we originally --

Mayor Lee Leffingwell: Excuse me. This is not a colloquy here. We'll let the attorney speak and if there's another question for you.

Council Member Laura Morrison: Really maybe it sounds like a little more discussion is in order to clarify a few things. I wonder if you could take this off line and see if we can find a solution.


Thank you.



A gentleman comes comes before the Austin City Council to ask the Council to exempt him from the insidious, private-property rights violating ECAD. For his trouble Mr. Norris is scolded by the Mayor, bamboozled by the Austin Energy lawyer and swept aside by Councilmember Morrison.


By the way, do you know why the City Council had to get an Austin Energy attorney to answer a question about a single-home energy audit? The Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure was written with considerable input from Austin Energy's very own Andy Perny.


If you're wondering what became of Mr. Norris' plea...

Watch the Austin City Council dismiss Mr. Norris here.

Download Mr. Norris' supporting documentation here.

New York City property owners stop costly mandatory energy audits

Congratulations to New York City property owners for exercising their private property rights!

They stopped a nanny-state, property-rights violating, chicken-little, carbon-phobia, law that mandated energy efficiency upgrades uncovered during a new mandatory energy audit.

Give the City of New York time and the upgrades will be mandatory in a year or two!

You didn't fight the mandatory audit, so the City of New York has one foot in the door of your property!

These provisions are just as stupid as the now mandatory Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure that Austin Texas home and business property owners were saddled with in 2009.

Some 22,000 buildings would have been affected by Mayor Bloomberg's statist mandatory audit initiative to raise the cost of operating buildings in New York City. According to the New York Times article, buildings account for 80 percent of total carbon (a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere) emissions. The cumulative building improvements would have cost $2.5 billion and the city only had about $16 million of federal stimulus money for loans. Well done Real Estate Board of New York!

In an April 22nd, 2009 press release from Mayor Bloomberg's office, his audit goals were spelled out under the "Audits and Retrofits Bill" heading:

"This legislation would require owners of existing buildings over 50,000 square feet to make cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to their buildings once every ten years by conducting an audit, retro-commissioning, and retrofitting their building. Buildings will undergo energy audits with results determining the necessary improvements to be undertaken, including insulating pipes, replacing inefficient lighting, and installing low-flow water fixtures. The legislation requires spending by building owners for only those retrofits that will pay for themselves in less than 5 years through energy-related cost-savings. Many of the required measures are low- to no-cost. Those savings will then continue beyond recovery of initial outlays. This bill would apply to all classes of buildings over 50,000 square feet, both private and City-owned, and will cover nearly half of the built square footage of New York City."

I had to research a differnet article to discover the burden property owners would have had to pay; unlike the New York Times article which was spellbound by the amount the government would pay or subsidize.

From the National Real Estate Investor, "Mayor Bloomberg Pushes Energy-Efficient Legislation for New York", May 5, 2009, by Sibley Fleming:

• legislation that creates a New York City Energy Code that existing buildings will have to meet whenever they undergo renovations.

• legislation that requires owners of buildings that are 50,000 sq. ft. or larger to conduct an energy audit once every 10 years and make any improvements that can be paid for within five years.

• legislation calling for buildings of 50,000 sq. ft. or more to include energy-efficient lighting systems, which can be paid for through energy savings.

• legislation that requires owners of buildings 50,000 sq. ft. or more to conduct an annual benchmark analysis of energy consumption. By doing so, building owners can better understand what steps they need to take to increase efficiency.

"Despite existing rebates and incentives from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Con Edison as well as potential stimulus financing, Leslie Lisser (senior asset manager) of FirstService Williams notes that upfront retrofit costs could create stress for smaller building owners. “It costs a lot of money to go in and initially do an audit,” says Lisser. “It could cost $5,000 to $10,000, so in the case of a smaller building that money could be problematic.” "

Well done New York City property owners, well done!

The terrible Energy Conservation and Disclosure Ordinance

I thought it would be interesting to post the Austin City Council Energy Conservation and Disclosure ordinance that I thoroughly despise; so boldy and proudly proclaiming its penalty for non-compliance...


ORDINANCE NO. 20081106-047

AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 6-7 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ENERGY CONSERVATION AUDIT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS; CREATING AN OFFENSE AND IMPOSING PENALTIES UP TO $2,000 FOR EACH OFFENSE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:

PART 1. The City Code is amended to add a new Chapter 6-7 to read: CHAPTER 6-7. ENERGY CONSERVATION. ARTICLE 1.

General Provisions. §6-7-1 DEFINITIONS.

In this chapter:
(1) COMMERCIAL FACILITY means a non-residential, civic, or commercial building and does not include an industrial building.
(2) DIRECTOR means the director of the Austin Electric Utility.
(3) MULTI-FAMILY FACILITY means a site with five or more dwelling units.
(4) OWNER means a person with a freehold interest in a facility to which this chapter applies.
(5) RESIDENTIAL FACILITY means a site with four or fewer dwelling units.
(6) TIME OF SALE means the date of the recording of a deed transferring legal title to real property to implement the sale of property.

§ 6-7-2 APPLICABILITY.
This chapter applies to a commercial, residential, or multi-family facility if the facility receives electric service from the Austin Electric Utility, as determined by the director.

§ 6-7-3 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES.
(A) The director shall adopt administrative rules for the implementation of this chapter.
(B) The rules shall be available for inspection at the Austin Electric Utility administrative offices during normal business hours.

§6-7-4 VARIANCES.
(A) The director may grant a variance from a requirement of this chapter if the director determines that, due to special circumstances unique to the applicant's facility and not based on a condition caused by actions of the applicant, strict compliance with provisions of this chapter would cause undue hardship. A variance granted under this subsection
(A) must be limited to the minimum change necessary to avoid the undue hardship.
(B) In addition to the variance authorized in subsection
(A), the director may grant a variance from a requirement in this chapter if the director determines that:
(1) application for a permit to substantially remodel or demolish the facility will be filed not later than 6 months after the time of sale; and
(2) in the case of remodel, the owner and the purchaser of the facility have entered into a binding agreement, in a form approved by the director, whereby the purchaser of the facility agrees to complete an energy audit within a specified period of time after remodel of the facility is complete.
(C) In addition to the variance authorized in subsection (A), the director may grant a variance from the requirements of Article 4 Commercial Facilities if the director determines that the facility is a data center or other high energy use facility that cannot be adequately evaluated using currently available audit or rating tools.
(D) A person may seek a variance by filing an application with the director. The director may require the applicant to provide information the director determines is necessary to evaluate the variance request.

§ 6-7-5 ENERGY AUDIT REQUIREMENTS.
(A) A residential or multi-family energy audit required under this chapter must:
(1) be conducted by a person certified as a building performance analyst or equivalent by an agency approved by the director; and
(2) use the audit and disclosure forms prescribed by rule under Section
6-7-3.
(B) A residential energy audit required under this chapter will meet the energy audit requirement of this chapter for a period often years after the audit is initially performed.
Article 2. Residential Facilities.

§ 6-7-11 Residential Energy Audit.
The owner of a residential facility must, before the time of sale of the facility, have an energy audit of the facility completed.

§ 6-7-12 Disclosure Required.
The owner of a residential facility must provide a copy of the energy audit required under this article to the purchaser or prospective purchaser of the facility before the time of sale and the person performing the audit must provide a copy of the energy audit to the director not later than 30 days after the audit is complete.

§ 6-7-13 Exemptions.
(A) This article does not apply to transfers of title to real property in the following circumstances:
(1) through a foreclosure sale or trustee's sale, or a deed in lieu of foreclosure;
(2) through a pre-foreclosure sale where the seller has reached an agreement with the mortgage holder to sell the facility for an amount less than the amount owed on the mortgage;
(3) through the exercise of or under the threat of eminent domain;
(4) from one family member to another family member without consideration;
(5) under a court order or probate proceedings; or
(6) under a decree of legal separation or dissolution of marriage, or property settlement agreement incidental to such a decree.
(B) This article does not apply to a residential facility if one or more of the following apply:
(1) the facility was constructed no more than ten years before the time of sale;
(2) the facility participated in the Austin Energy Home Performance with Energy Star program, or an equivalent Austin Electric Utility program, not more than ten years before the time of sale and either:
(a) performed at least three of the efficiency measures, or
(b) received a rebate of an amount prescribed by rule, but not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00);
(3) the facility participated in the Austin Energy Free Weatherization Program, or an equivalent Austin Electric Utility program, not more than ten years before the time of sale;
(4) the purchaser of the facility qualifies for and has signed an agreement, in a form acceptable to the director, agreeing to participate in the Austin Energy Free Weatherization Program or an equivalent Austin Electric Utility program, not later than six months after the time of sale; or
(5) the facility is manufactured housing built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used without a permanent foundation.
Article 3. Multi-Family Facilities.

§ 6-7-21 Multi-Family Energy Audit.
(A) The owner of a multi-family facility which is at least ten years old on June 1, 2009 must have an energy audit of the facility performed not later than June 1, 2011.
(B) The owner of a multi-family facility not required to perform an energy audit under subsection (A) must have an energy audit of the facility performed not later than 10 years after construction of the facility is complete.

§ 6-7-22 Disclosure Required.
The owner of a multi-family facility must post and provide to current and prospective tenants the results of the energy audit required under this article. The results must be on a form and in locations prescribed by rule. In addition, the owner must provide a copy of the required audit to the director not later than 30 days after the audit is complete.

§6-7-23 High Energy Use Facilities.
(A) Regardless of the date of construction of the facility, the director shall issue a notice to the owner of a multi-family facility that the director determines has an average per-square-foot energy usage exceeding 150% of the average for multi-family facilities within the Austin Electric Utility service area.
(B) An owner who receives a notice issued under subsection (A) shall implement energy efficiency improvements to the facility sufficient to bring the facility to within 110% of the average per-square-foot energy usage of multi-family facilities within the City not later than eighteen months after receipt of the notice.
(C) An owner required to implement improvements under this section may apply to the director for additional time to complete the improvements, but must file the application not later than 90 days after receipt of the notice. If the director determines that more than eighteen months is required to complete the improvements, the owner may execute a contract in a form acceptable to the director whereby the improvements required under this section will be completed within a period of time determined by the director.

§ 6-7-24 Exemptions.
This article does not apply to a multi-family facility if:
(1) the owner completed comprehensive duct remediation work on the facility though participation in an Austin Electric Utility rebate program no more than ten years before June 1, 2009;
(2) HVAC equipment was replaced through an Austin Electric Utility rebate program in all units of the facility no more than ten years before June 1, 2009;or
(3) HVAC equipment was replaced with equipment meeting the requirements for an Austin Electric Utility rebate program, though not participating in the program, in all units of the facility no more than ten years before June 1, 2009.
Article 4. Commercial Facilities.

§ 6-7-31 Commercial Facility Rating.
(A) The owner of a commercial facility that is at least ten years old on June 1, 2009 must calculate an energy use rating for the facility not later than June 1, 2011, using an audit or rating system approved by the director.
(B) The owner of a commercial facility not required to calculate an energy use rating for the facility under subsection (A) must calculate an energy use rating for the facility not later than 10 years after construction of the facility is complete, using an audit or rating system approved by the director.

§ 6-7-32 Disclosure Required.
The owner of a commercial facility must make a copy of the energy rating calculation required under this article available to a purchaser or prospective purchaser of the facility before the time of sale and must provide a copy to the director not later than 30 days after the audit is complete.
Article 5. Enforcement.

§ 6-4-41 Presumption of Violation.
The record owner of property is presumed to be responsible for a violation of this chapter that occurs at a facility on the property.

§ 6-4-42 Penalty.
(A) A person commits a criminal offense if the person performs an act prohibited by this chapter or fails to perform an act required by this chapter. Each instance of a violation of this chapter is a separate offense.
(B) Each offense under this chapter is subject to a fine.
1I) Proof of culpable mental state is not required for a fine of up to $500.
(2) If the person acts with criminal negligence, a fine of up to $2,000.00 may be assessed.
(C) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than criminal negligence constitutes proof of criminal negligence.
(D) Prosecution of an offense and enforcement of other remedies under this chapter are cumulative.
PART 2. This ordinance takes effect on June 1, 2009.

PASSED AND APPROVED

November 6, 2008 § Will Wynn Mayor

APPROVED: David Allan Smith, City Attorney

ATTEST: Shirley A. Gentry, City Clerk

Sealing HVAC ducts and adding insulation won't help

The following letter is a reply I submitted to the Statesman.com article titled "Austin Climate Protection Program tries to ramp up its work, Jake Stewart, former soldier, sees the work as a security issue".

"The program aims to reduce carbon emissions, which scientists link to global warming..." is an editorial and can not go unchallenged as a "fact" Asher. The recent fallout of the Climate Research Unit in the UK (ClimateGate) is vivid proof that climate scientists have yet to form a consensus on the link, if any, between CO2 and temperature. This Climate Protection Plan is having some draconian side effects for Austin homeowners. The Austin Energy Conservation and Disclosure Ordinance mandates an energy audit for homeowners at the point of sale. However, if the abode is a mobile home without a foundation, a condominium, or a home less than 10 years old, those homeowners can use 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and be exempt from the ECAD. Non-compliance of this ordinance is a Class C misdemeanor and up to a $2000 fine. To add insult to injury, Mr. Stewart, you work for a public utility, -a monopoly. If I wished to buy electricity from another provider as an Austinite, I can't. Austin Energy sells me their product as a monopoly, then tells me how I must use it. Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken, either of you can send me a check for $300, that should cover the cost of a mandatory energy audit for my home. It's your "great" idea, so you pay for it. Sealing some HVAC ducts in a single-family home and adding more insulation will not abate the need to build more power plants. Solar panels don't produce electricity at night and solar generates very little electricity under a cloudy sky. Austin's hand-wringing over a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere is laughable and a serious misallocation of capital and resources.

John Barksdale
http://stoptheaustinecad.blogspot.com/
identitythefthurts@gmail(dot)com

My letter to the Austin Energy Conservation and Disclosure Ordinance (ECAD) Task Force

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Austin Energy Conservation and Disclosure Ordinance (ECAD) Task Force,

I recently learned of the unanimous recommendation the ECAD Task Force offered to mandate an energy audit and disclosure for all Austin single-family homes at the point of sale. The Task Force was convened to "reduce peak demand and decrease the need for new power plants" as one of its stated objectives.

Unfortunately, the Task Force didn't measure the amount of electricity an Austin single-family household uses. For example, if my home were a manufactured home without a permanent foundation, I could use 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and elude the ECAD audit. If my home were newer than 10 years old, I could use 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and elude the ECAD audit. If I lived in a condominium, I could use 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and elude the ECAD audit.

But I live in an older home (our Austin home was built in 1982) and I use an average of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhx0Xax3Jjc kilowatt-hours of electricity per month, and guess what? I get to fork out money for an energy audit! Isn't that fantastic? Since the task force thought it was a wonderful idea to mandate an audit for single-family homeowners and criminalize non-compliance with a Class C misdemeanor, I have a wonderful idea of my own.

Because the task force has decided to tell me how to spend my time and capital to meet their mandatory audit, I'd like to tell energy auditors in Austin how to spend their time and capital. I'd like an energy auditor to audit my home, free of charge.

My wife and I own our modest, 1500 square foot Austin home. The amount of electricity we purchase and consume in our home from Austin Energy is none of your business. I see where this velvet-gloved statism is heading. Some Task Force participants wish to mandate the correction of any deficiencies found during the ECAD audit. Luckily that provision was voted down, but it may be adopted when this liberty-violating ordinance is revisited in less than two years.

To add insult to injury, as an Austin homeowner I can't take my electricity "business" to a competing utility. I'm held captive as an indentured consumer of Austin Energy, -Austin's very own energy monopoly. How can you criminalize my failure to purchase an audit of MY PRIVATE PROPERTY as a homeowner with a Class C misdemeanor?

Respectfully,
John Barksdale

4014 JAFFNA CV
Austin, TX 78749
identitythefthurts@gmail(dot)com

Why I resist the Austin Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) Ordinance

I have serious philosophical disagreements with, and question the merits of, the Austin Energy Conservation and Disclosure Ordinance that was passed by the Austin City Council in June of 2009.

My wife and I bought our modest 1500 square foot Austin Texas home in January of 2006. Our home is tucked away in a cul-de-sac, our neighbors are awesome and we love the short commute to work. But our home was built in 1982 and needed some work. In our home we do use compact flourescent bulbs in almost all ceiling and lamp lighting fixtures. Our heating, ventilating and air conditioning is controlled by a programmable thermostat.




As new homeowners my wife and I paid $9000 to replace all of the original aluminum-framed windows. Some window frames were cracked, some seals were compromised and a few wouldn't open at all. Sears was offering a 12-month same as cash deal, so we entered a contract to have them install their vinyl windows. They look great, block the noise and open easily with little effort.


Our disappointment began when my wife and I tried to redeem a $250 window replacement rebate that Austin Energy was offering. A rebate works like this, the homeowner spends his or her capital on a resource (windows) and the city-run monopoly, (Austin Energy) writes the homeowner a check after one of their staff visits the property to verify that new energy efficient windows were installed. My wife and I faxed the required Austin Energy rebate paperwork and then we waited. And we waited. We never heard from any Austin Energy employee to inform us that they had received the paperwork and were processing it. My wife and I decided to submit the paperwork again, and once again we heard nothing.

After the windows were replaced I added some cellulose insulation to the attic (our home was built in 1982), I installed a two-sided aluminum radiant barrier and sprayed polyurethane foam over all of the attic air conditioner ducting to seal it from air leaks. I sealed all plumbing penetrations into our home with caulk and improved the exterior doors weatherstripping where appropriate. We kept all of our receipts for the improvements and were able to claim these purchases as a deduction on our federal taxes. So far, so good.

Sadly, the Austin City council and the Austin Energy manager, Roger Duncan, believe themselves to be the self-annointed arbiters chosen to protect our city from a harmless and colorless gas, -carbon dioxide. There is no scientific proof that carbon causes an increase in the planet's average temperature. (Google "Climategate") The City of Austin created the Climate Protection Plan to "Cool Austin. Cool Planet". The statist control-freaks of the CPP created a "municipal plan", a "utility plan", a "home and buildings plan", a "community plan" and a "go neutral plan". Each of the plans references the usual carbon-cult koolaid jibberish about carbon footprints and carbon emissions. Buried in the "homes and buildings" plan is this little gem: "Require disclosure of historic energy use and cost-effective energy efficiency improvements upon the sale of all buildings."

On the 17th of September, 2008 the Energy Efficiency Upgrades Task Force issued their final report to the Austin Mayor and city council. On page 9 you learn that the statist control-freaks were out-voted 4 to 19, "If the Voluntary Participation Targets are not met in any two consecutive years, then all homes sold in the City of Austin that are located within the Austin Energy service area be required to perform Cost Effective Upgrades within one year of closing."

That's right ladies and gentlemen, we almost had mandatory upgrades from the City of Austin to correct every little energy efficiency short coming discovered on your private property.

But the icing on the cake was this hat-tip to liberty-robbing, intrusive big government. If an Austin homeowner fails to get an Energy Conservation and Disclosure Audit, then he or she will be charged with a Class C misdemeanor. Curiously, Austin City councilmember Mike Martinez said: "There's never a good time to add fees to a transaction," said City Council Member Mike Martinez, "but I think this requirement is a good thing. It allows the consumer to fully understand the purchase they're about to make. If you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an investment, you would want to know how efficient that investment is going to be for you."

As a libertarian and fan of Austrian economics I find it odd that Mike Martinez is talking about "consumers". Since Austin Energy is a monopoly and I can't purchase electricity from any other provider as a resident of Austin, I'm not a customer. I must buy electricity from the Austin Energy monopoly, I must pay for an energy audit that violates my rights as a property owner and before long I will "must" have to correct all deficiencies found during the ECAD audit.

Allyson Wendt at BuildingGreen.com notes, "The ordinance tackles only energy reporting, but some are hopeful that mandatory energy-efficiency improvements will be next." According to Nathan Doxsey, who sat on the task force that developed the ordinance, Doxsey hopes that increased awareness will make it possible for the city to pass a mandatory improvements clause when it reevaluates ECAD in two years. “I’m collecting testimonials from people who have done upgrades,” he told EBN. “Most are saying it was really easy.” The article continues, "Not everyone is upset about the ordinance. Lindsay Yeakley, owner of green building and remodeling firm Ultraverte in Austin, thinks it’s a great idea. “It’s the dinosaur homes that are consuming a lot of energy,” she says, noting that homebuyers who know what they’re buying might be more likely to make improvements."

Well Mr. Doxsey and Ms. Yeakley, the ECAD doesn't measure the homeowners actual electricity use. For example, if I own a mobile home without a foundation, a condominium, or a home that's newer than 10 years old, I can use 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month and be exempted from the ECAD ordinance. So use all the electricity you want! I own a 27-year old home and my average electricity consumption for 2008 was 638 kwhs per month. Yet I'm subject to the nanny-state, control-freaks who tell me that I have to take my financial resources and spend it on an energy audit. This is my home and the amount of electricity I purchase from the City of Austin electricity monopoly is none of your business. The Austin Energy Conservation and Disclosure ordinance doesn't measure a homeowners actual electricity use. This shortcoming is its fatal flaw.

The carbon-koolaid drinkers proclaim that energy efficiency will reduce the need to build new power plants. COAL POWER PLANTS! Alas, the rhetoric doesn't match reality. The wikipedia entry for "Austin Energy" notes that two new natural gas-fired 50-megawatt simple cycle units at the Sand Hill Energy Center will be completed in the summer of 2010. And the Austin City Council approved the "...gave the go-ahead for Gemini Solar Development Co. to build the 300-acre solar array that would generate 30-megawatts annually, enough electricity to power 5,000 homes."

I love it when solar power plant figures are reported in the misleading "homes-it-will-serve" style. A solar panel or solar array produces less power on cloudy days or when the solar panels become dirty. Solar arrays don't produce one millivolt of electricity at night. Gas-fired generators have to be idled on standby to handle the unpredictable power output inherent in the output solar power provides. If solar were a free-market solution, the marketplace would have adopted it.

Luckily some Texas lawmakers beyond the borders of Austin's carbon-koolaid nonsense are standing up for little people like me: "However, an amendment bound for a conference committee in the state Legislature could strip the ordinance of its teeth. The amendment says that "a municipality may not impose a criminal penalty on the seller of real property for the failure to perform an energy audit." Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, filed the amendment to an energy efficiency bill introduced by state Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay.

Representative Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, and state Senator Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay

Mr. Keffer and Mr. Fraser, thank you gentlemen for introducing your amendment.

Here is the text of the amendment to Senate Bill 546,

Amend SB 546 by adding the appropriately numbered SECTION as follows and renumbering all other SECTIONs accordingly: SECTION ____. Chapter 214, Local Government Code, is amended by adding a new Section 214.9015 as follows: Sec. 214.9015. ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS ON THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY. (a) A municipality may not impose a criminal penalty on the seller of real property for the failure to perform an energy audit.