The Olympia City Council reviewed a draft regional ordinance that would require homeowners to obtain a Home Energy Score (HES) before listing their property for sale to provide buyers with standardized information about a home's energy efficiency.
The proposal, developed by the Thurston Climate Mitigation Collaborative (TCMC), aims to provide homeowners and buyers with standardized information on a property's energy use, in turn helping people make informed purchasing decisions.
At a study session on Tuesday, March 11, Climate Program Specialist Jaron Burke presented the draft ordinance. He explained how the HES system works, as well as the benefits for homeowners and buyers.
The draft ordinance would mandate homes receive a standardized energy assessment, scoring them on a scale from one to 10, with 10 representing the most energy-efficient properties.
The HES is a nationally standardized tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy that provides a comprehensive assessment of a home's energy efficiency. It evaluates permanent features of a property like the number of stories, home age, insulation, air sealing and major equipment, such as heating systems.
The HES assessment shows a home's current rating along with recommended improvements to increase efficiency.
Trained assessors complete the evaluation in about an hour, typically costing between $150 and $300, and generate a report that not only rates the home's current energy performance but also recommends specific improvements and estimates potential energy bill savings.
According to Burke, the HES is meant to provide benefits to both home buyers and sellers.
"For those selling their home, a home energy score can help show the value of the home's energy features and ensure that the listing reflects energy investments that have already been made in the home," Burke said.
"A Home Energy Score also allows the home buyers to know the energy use and the costs of a potential home and to make a more informed decision around their home buying purchase."
The proposed ordinance is part of a regional effort by the TCMC, a partnership of Thurston County, Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater, to work together to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions and achieve mutually adopted community-wide emissions reduction goals.
In June 2023, the TCMC selected the Residential Energy Assessment as a regional initiative. Its focus is to develop a model ordinance for disclosure of residential energy performance ratings in alignment with the TCMC plan and develop a program proposal and a budget for regional implementation of that plan.
"The idea here is that all TCMC partners would be considering this proposed policy and budget and consider it for local adoption to move it forward as a region," Burke said.
"The TCMC received support from the executive committee to move forward with considering the model ordinance for local adoption."
Burke pointed out the ordinance aims to prevent financial hardship for residents.
Each jurisdiction will independently decide how to support low-income residents, either by subsidizing HES assessments or, if funding is unavailable, by exempting low-income residents from the requirements.
The proposed policy is set to take effect on May 1, 2026, providing a year for regional partners to develop a comprehensive support program.
During this time, Burke added, the TCMC will execute an interlocal agreement, select a national service provider, develop report templates, connect data systems, train assessors, create subsidy protocols and conduct community outreach.
The preliminary budget for the regional program launch is $81,000. Assuming equal cost-sharing across jurisdictions, Olympia's share would be $20,250, which has already been accounted for in the 2025 budget.
The council will continue to review the proposed ordinance.
15 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Southsoundguy
The good idea fairy strikes again
Monday, March 17 Report this
jimlazar
The Home Energy Rating is a good start. But what is really needed is a "mandatory retrofit" at time of sale or lease, bringing buildings up to a high level of energy efficiency.
Other cities have done this for years (decades in one case).
When a house is being sold, the seller is generally flush with cash, and can afford a major upgrade. The buyer is able to build that higher cost into a 30-year mortgage, the cheapest form of financing for these measures.
For example, insulation, new windows, and heat pumps can add up to $20,000 to $40,000. The only time that is "affordable" is at the time of sale, when the cost can be paid off over a long period of time. The result is a more comfortable home, lower utility bills, and a cleaner planet.
By requiring mandatory retrofit at time of sale or lease, the Cities and County would be taking a major step towards meeting the climate goals that have been adopted.
Monday, March 17 Report this
JulesJames
Kinda totally foolish waste of housing money. The year built is plenty enough to assess the energy efficiency and future energy costs. And purchasers don’t care. It’s all about location, beds and baths. Housing costs are too high because of this sort of stuff.
Monday, March 17 Report this
Bobwubbena
Jim Lazar, most would project you as a "Non Trumper", but your proposal is just like Trump's style. Mandate what "you/he" believes is good for all. Let's let the buyer/seller have this discussion. Big Government is already controlling what we need to do, how we do it, and what we should do. Can we not get back to when we are responsible for our own actions. Raise the question and then let the individual manage their own life. We don't the City Council to tell us what is wise--and then require us to spend $300 to do it. Most City Council persons' have never had to meet payroll or survive the City's next best rule. Please City Council, protect us from the next "crazy idea someone has"
Monday, March 17 Report this
KarenM
The thing about energy efficiency features in a home is that you cannot see them. For new homes, the energy code is going to assure that the overall package is very good. For existing homes, the owners may or may not have made improvements over time. If buyers know how large their energy bill might be they should care. The monthly energy bill for your home could be several hundred dollars different with or without insulation, good windows, sealing of air leakage, etc. When purchasing a home, this should be part of the calculations for future budgets. Making the changes as the home turns over from one owner to another is a good time to do the work. The changes can be built into the mortgage.
Although other attributes such as size and location are important, the energy use of a home will impact the affordability for a long time.
Monday, March 17 Report this
Freedom1
More expense for the homeowner put on them by people living off the taxpayer.
Tuesday, March 18 Report this
Snevets
Thank you for this article that can only be helpful to a seller and home buyer and @jimlazar & KarenM for their keen insight.
If homeowners are doing the proper maintenance & upgrades to their homes over time they shouldn't have a problem with this new agenda.
Tuesday, March 18 Report this
BobJacobs
Is an expensive inspection really necessary? Seems to me the previous 12 months bills for heat sources (gas, electric, oil) would be accurate enough for a buyer to make the purchase/no purchase decision.
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, March 18 Report this
SpenceWeigand
This is a dumb idea....almost rivaling the implementation of the Rental Registry. Why put this expense in the hands of home sellers? Buyers can incorporate this expense into their own home inspection contingencies---if this is important to them. If it's important to sellers as a marketing tool, let them undertake that expense voluntarily.
I've seen less overreach at a crowded Thanksgiving table....
Tuesday, March 18 Report this
jimLacey
BobJacobs, This isn't really meant to be a benefit to home buyers and sellers. They already have the option of looking at the power bills and even getting an energy survey done if they want one.
The goal is to "reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions and achieve mutually adopted community-wide emissions reduction goals." Which is OK if that's what you want.
But watch for further ordinances down the road. Once a property has an identified energy-wasting feature that the owner won't address satisfactorily, that can easily be addressed via fines or even property condemnation.
Tuesday, March 18 Report this
Overtaxed
This is an unnecessary law and another case of Government Overreach It will cost the Homeowner Money and drive the price of Houses even Higher.
Tuesday, March 18 Report this
OlyKid88
Several of these comments are from community thought leaders – involved with the City Council and City Committees.
Their comments help demonstrate why years of good people with good intentions have resulted in endless unintended consequences that have resulted in an expensive and bloated local bureaucracy.
While their resumes would make you think otherwise, and their voices are often loud and confident, they are clearly outside their lane of perceived expertise by anyone with even just a little skin in the game.
Mr Wubbena and Mr. Weigand are correct.
These are good people, who I would always want as neighbors. I would usually nod my head and let the comments roll past as it isn’t worth making a scene or upset anyone.
At some point it becomes too hard to watch people heading down the same wrong path and encouraging others to follow along without saying something. We are not a welcoming community for those with differing approaches or opinions.
It is the reality of what Olympia has become over the years. We lack any hint of diversity in the process and this has become so systematically embedded and accepted in our local government, committees and school boards that it has crowded out differing opinions.
The community is full of good people with good intentions, but somewhere we stepped away from accepting diversity and the benefits and balance it brings to a public forum and community process. The results are obvious and unhealthy to building community. Most importantly, these ideas hurt the very people they are intended to help.
Wednesday, March 19 Report this
BillString
Every time I read something about a council decision, I have only one thought: that they are actively trying to price out and drive out current Oly residents so that Californians can come and buy it all up and ruin it even more.
Wednesday, March 19 Report this
RedskinPatriot
Another tax and spend initiative.... I'd like to know what makes someone an expert on home energy other than the owner and buyer and the fact that we do not need more government involvement. This is ridiculous!!! I'm sick and tired of government reaching into our pockets for every little thing.
Climate change is always happening, but it is not man-trans-woman-BQT, whatever made!!! The idea that someone's garage door doesn't seal correctly, or a window has lost its UV gas - changes the earth's crust or hemisphere is crap logic. The Earth has been here for 4 thousand 500 million years - 4 x ice ages... Cow farts aren't going to change the planets water aquifers. For the love of America.... STOP IT!! I encourage everyone to read 'The Sky is Falling or On Revising The Nine Times Rule' by William F. McClenney, P.G. R.E.A.
Now - what I will say is why don't you clean up the area by exit 107 before you impose another tax on property owners. It is a disgusting area that should be moved to the capitol so you people in charge will pay attention.
Thursday, March 20 Report this
Yeti1981
You can already opt to do this through PSE. If government mandates this, it will become a contention at point of sale. Along with the laundry list of items expected to be updated upon the sale of a home, this will add significantly to those requests. It will cost me more than $40k to fully electrify my current home. Contrary to Jim Lazar's belief, I am not "flush with cash," nor can everyone just tap their equity in a pinch. The idea that it is any more acceptable to put these costs on a homeowner over a longer period of time is absurd. The idea of a "mandated retrofit" is also absurd.
Tuesday, March 25 Report this