Section 304 - Labeling: Dissecting Cap & Trade's Effect on Home Owners

[jmichna]

Good analysis detailing Section 304 of the Cap & Trade legislation, dealing with Labeling, and how Federal government intrusion will grow. The more significant passages are bolded:

If You Don't Hate the Cap and Trade Bill, Let Me Show You Section 304.

I bet you thought that if you bought a house, you actually own it and can, with reasonable exceptions, do with it what you want. You probably think that if you want to live in a log cabin, with wood stoves that belch smoke into the air for heat, and an old washer and dryer that don't have those little EnergyStar stickers on them you can because it's your life and your property. You paid for it with money you earned with the sweat of your brow and what the heck is America anyhow if a body can't live in the home they want furnished with the appliances they want?

Ah, silly you. You didn't reckon on the Democratic Party's desire to control every miniscule aspect of your life.

Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program".

It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you?no way, no how. Well, I'm glad you asked. You're certainly not off the hook, Here's what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public. To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of--
(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;
(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;
(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;
(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph ( 8 );
(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or
(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or
(B) other appropriate means.

Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.

By now, if you haven't swallowed your tongue and are in need of medical attention, you're probably wondering if there's a penalty for not being in compliance with the new efficiency ratings. The answer is no, and yes. Here's where the bill gets really sneaky. So far as I can tell, there is no direct penalty if your house does not meet the bill's target. However, it does require that the number of buildings inspected by the state meet certain percentage targets and if they do not, the state loses out on a significant portion of the money it could get from Washington. In other words, the bill demands certain things from the states, but ties funding for those demands to compliance with the demands.

Did I say the bill gets sneaky? I was wrong. The bill strong-arms the states like a couple mob heavies leaning on a witness in a Rico trial. In turn, the states are going to put the screws to you, so it gets the billions of dollars Washington is dangling in front of them. So while the Federal government won't directly punish you, it will provide the states with lots and lots of rectangular, green reasons to do so.

And it gets worse. The Federal government has graciously offered to help homeowners with the retrofits the states will force them to do through a program called the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Purposes (REEP). REEP sets aside a pool of money in each state for property owners who have to turn their polar bear-killing buildings into lean, mean, green machines. But, and I'm sure you've guessed this already, there's a catch.

Before I get to that, here's the magic formula (and don't read ahead and spoil the surprise!):

(i) AWARDS- For residential buildings--

(I) support for a free or low-cost detailed building energy audit that prescribes, as part of a energy-reducing measures sufficient to achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in energy use, by providing an incentive equal to the documented cost of such audit, but not more than $200, in addition to any earned by achieving a 20 percent or greater efficiency improvement;

(II) a total of $1,000 for a combination of measures, prescribed in an audit conducted under subclause (I), designed to reduce energy consumption by more than 10 percent, and $2,000 for a combination of measures prescribed in such an audit, designed to reduce energy consumption by more than 20 percent;

(III) $3,000 for demonstrated savings of 20 percent, pursuant to a performance-based building retrofit program; and

(IV) $1,000 for each additional 5 percentage points of energy savings achieved beyond savings for which funding is provided under subclause (II) or (III).

If you want to hit that 50 percent savings mark that all new homes have to hit, then you can get as much as $12,200, including inspection, as you scoop all those awards. That's a pretty good chunk of change that should cover most, if not all of the costs of a retrofit on any moderately-sized older house, right? Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.
Except for that catch and boy is it a doozy.

(ii) MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE- Awards under clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent of retrofit costs for each building. For buildings with multiple residential units, awards under clause (i) shall not be greater than 50 percent of the total cost of retrofitting the building, prorated among individual residential units on the basis of relative costs of the retrofit.

Did you get that? You'll be on the hook for half of the cost of the retrofit, no matter what. To get the full effect of that part of the bill, I suggest you visit this web page and click the big yellow button right after you finish reading it.
I think Mark Steyn sums it up rather nicely:

I confess I'm finding it harder and harder to see why you fellows bothered holding a revolution. Under this bill, it will be illegal for me to sell my property to a willing buyer without first bringing it into line with some twerp bureaucrat's arbitrary and ever shifting "environmental" regulations originally designed for California, and which have helped turn the Golden State into the foldin' state, but which are nevertheless now to be applied from Maine to Alaska. And no matter what you spend a couple of years down the road the standards will be "revised" and you'll be out of compliance all over again.

And the very worst thing about all this is that it is only one little bit of what the Democrats in Washington want to do to you. Are you getting a little bit upset yet? If not, here are 49 more things they want to do to you in the name of climate change. I'm sure you can find something in there that might give you a reason to contact your Senator today.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I found the nifty linkable form of the bill thanks to this post by Pat who runs the quite good blog And So It Goes in Shreveport. As some of you know, it's very bad mojo not to like to a blogger who provides nifty and/or useful information. Thank you also to those of you who are sending this link around on Twitter. You make a blogger's heart grow three sizes too large this morning!

If this is your first visit to AIP, feel free to leave a comment to say hello (or groan audibly about Henry Waxman's folly of a bill). While you're here, why not take a couple extra minutes to read some of the other good blog posts. The Morning Conservative Reading List is a great place to start (and a reason to visit every day!). From there you can read about Czar Mania, some strange economic polling, and a David Axelrod fact-check beatdown, just for starters.

UPDATE 2: Melissa Clouthier, AIP columnist and blogger extraordinaire, asks an interesting question:

Consider this for a moment. Right now, at this writing, there is a glut of new home supply. Will those homes have to be retrofitted to meet the government's 30% more fuel efficient standards? And how does one magically do this? Already, homes are being built with air-tight windows, special insulation, more efficient air conditioners, etc. What would make it more energy efficient?

I'll give you a hint: think appliances. Trust me, Section 304 is but a miniscule fraction of the mandates the Democrats want to foist upon you.

---

Posted 07-08-2009 1:05 AM by Jimmie Bise

In another, earlier thread (dealing with "Green Gestapo-style inspections), I pointed out the labeling requirements as intrusive (at both the Federal and state levels), but the author of the above did a more thorough job explaining the effects on private home owners.

[Brickboy240]

Don't sweat this to much.

Why?

Well because after paying 6-8 bucks a gallon (or more) for gasoline...you won't have alot of extre dough to spend on buying a home!

And you better hope that all this action DOES mean the planet starts cooling off because even if you can swing the gasoline and the home...do you know how much it wil cost to cool it off in the summer?

Enjoy the "change"

- brickboy240

[TRIGRHAPPY]

All unconstitutional, every bit of what I just read.

Nowhere in the constitution, not even in their interstate commerce clause, does it give the federal government the power to do this. They simply cannot tell a person how to build his home (on a federal level). They also cannot tell the state to tell a person how to build his home. Period.

The first time it goes to court, this will be thrown out.

1) Houses aren't sold with electricity included. No interstate commerce there.
2) Local (as in in-state, non national) contractors do the building. No interstate commerce there.
3) Materials gathered from in-state. No interstate commerce there.
4) Payment. Brokered locally, financed locally, purchased locally. No interstate commerce there.

The STATE can enforce this, but not the federal government. Not constitutionally anyway.

[longtalltechsan]

Originally Posted by TRIGRHAPPY

All unconstitutional, every bit of what I just read.

Nowhere in the constitution, not even in their interstate commerce clause, does it give the federal government the power to do this. They simply cannot tell a person how to build his home (on a federal level). They also cannot tell the state to tell a person how to build his home. Period.

The first time it goes to court, this will be thrown out.

1) Houses aren't sold with electricity included. No interstate commerce there.
2) Local (as in in-state, non national) contractors do the building. No interstate commerce there.
3) Materials gathered from in-state. No interstate commerce there.
4) Payment. Brokered locally, financed locally, purchased locally. No interstate commerce there.

The STATE can enforce this, but not the federal government. Not constitutionally anyway.

I agree with every word you said but that doesn't seem to matter anymore to those who created and passed this bill.

[Frenchy]

I'm still waiting for the catastrophic price increase, Brick.

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by TRIGRHAPPY

All unconstitutional, every bit of what I just read.

Nowhere in the constitution, not even in their interstate commerce clause, does it give the federal government the power to do this. They simply cannot tell a person how to build his home (on a federal level). They also cannot tell the state to tell a person how to build his home. Period.

The first time it goes to court, this will be thrown out.

1) Houses aren't sold with electricity included. No interstate commerce there.
2) Local (as in in-state, non national) contractors do the building. No interstate commerce there.
3) Materials gathered from in-state. No interstate commerce there.
4) Payment. Brokered locally, financed locally, purchased locally. No interstate commerce there.

The STATE can enforce this, but not the federal government. Not constitutionally anyway.

Yeah but with current interpretation of the commerce clause basically saying that a monkey flinging poo in Zimbabwe is regulate-able by the Feds...I wouldn't hold your breath. It's BS.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I'm still waiting for the catastrophic price increase, Brick.

May the wait be long... even forever. Waxman-Markey has only been passed by the House... hope to God the Senate kills this thing. I hope at least 51 of those buggers realizes that Cap & Trade will ensure the current depression lasts longer than FDR's Great Depression.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I'm still waiting for the catastrophic price increase, Brick.

You'll see them if they manage to get the Green Scam that is Cap and Trade passed...guaranteed. I believe thart this is what Brick is referring to. Anyone who can handle a calculator can see how this would become so.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

You'll see them if they manage to get the Green Scam that is Cap and Trade passed...guaranteed. I believe thart this is what Brick is referring to. Anyone who can handle a calculator can see how this would become so.

I understand the numbers game, I just have my doubts that it will come to pass. Obama's promotions are losing steam quickly, I believe.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I understand the numbers game, I just have my doubts that it will come to pass. Obama's promotions are losing steam quickly, I believe.

I agree and hope you're still razzing BB in 20 years about how he was wrong.