Realtors association urges pause on proposed Home Energy Score ordinance 

Comments

27 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

• 2theroots

  I find this article remarkably biased. 15 members of the community came urging it to be passed. 11 realtors came urging it to be paused or not passed. As was observed by one speaker they are looking out for their ability to keep making profit. Members of the public shared studies and person stories debunking the over generalized claims of the relators and you only report what the relators said???? The story also fails to explain What HES is or how it would work. So readers are still left un informed if they did not already know

  Also Jenifer Chernut sites this RCW as if she has some smoking gun and when one looks it up it is irrelevant and out of context. It say that jurisdictions are not allowed to charge an additional tax at point of sale. This ordinance would not charge a tax. It also says jurisdictions are not allowed to require improvements to the property at point of sale. This is also not in the ordinance. This is an example of the attempts that were made to insinuate bad outcomes that overlooked the facts of what is in the actual ordinance. For example they also claimed it would be a hardship of low income people when low income people are actually exempted from the requirement to get a home energy audit.

  Thursday, February 19 Report this

• curtzt

  Leaving out mobile homes and manufactured homes, which wouldn't have to get a score, the cheapest houses on the market in the County now list for about $300,000. When realtors manage the sale of one of these they collect about $16,000 in commissions. If the Realtors' Association is as concerned about "first-time buyers, seniors on fixed incomes and households already struggling in a tight housing market" as their President told the Commissioners, perhaps they could start by lowering their fees instead of complaining about their having to get a score which would cost a few hundred dollars.

  Thursday, February 19 Report this

• Tgcrawford

  Some of our local realtors seem to be misinformed. There are provisions in the ordinance to provide financial assistance to low income sellers. Sales under duress and other situations are exempt from an HES requirement. There is a one year period before implementation to allow for recruiting and training of sufficient qualified auditors so that turnaround for these audits will be no more than a couple if days. That’s not a significant delay. In listing the home. Most can be done in the time it takes to get photos of the home. I realize this is a change, but in the broader scheme of things it’s pretty minor and I’m sure within a few months our smart and capable community of real estate agents will adjust and find a very smooth way of helping sellers through this process. In the end, encouraging energy improvements in homes will raise the value of homes and the fees paid to real estate agents.

  Thursday, February 19 Report this

• MarDav

  More community members than realtors spoke in favor of the Home Energy audit at last Tuesday’s Board of County Commissioners meeting. An energy audit is a simple implementation for climate change action on a local level. An energy audit could only help the sell of a home for transparency, so the realtors opposition has me utterly confused. Low income and seniors would receive exemptions. Thurston County has already supported HES policy as a specific action in Thurston County's NEWLY ADOPTED Comprehensive Plan and in the regional Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan. The BoCC has a responsibility to uphold their support of HES.

  Thursday, February 19 Report this

• 2theroots

  Oh now i see. You covered two relators showing up at Tumwater to complain when the County the same day held an actual public hearing on it - where 15 members of the public showed up and 11 relators. What a strange choice to cover a random public comment versus an actual hearing.

  Thursday, February 19 Report this

• TheVirtualOne

  Adding the requirement for a home energy score is just another example of unnecessary and burdensome government oversight. This is the kind of thing that should be left up to the buyer. If they wish it, they can request it and pay for it. It would also add to the seller’s costs and increase their asking price by a comparable amount. The City of Olympia now requires all rental owners to register their property with the city and to have an inspection performed. This too is an example of government unnecessary overreach adding costs that will just be passed on to the renter. How about these government agencies getting out of the control mindset and work on cutting costs for home buyers, owners, and renters. What a novel thought!

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• JW

  Those that publicly decry the cost of housing are all too eager to make it more expensive.

  I'm guessing the 15 members of the community that showed up are retired, climate change obsessed boomers that were taking a break from protesting nuclear weapons on a freeway overpass.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• jolter

  Fees, fees, fees.....and there is also a bill that will allow excise tax to be raised by local entities another .5%. Buyers have the right to do inspections - that could include the energy analysis....sellers should not have to pay for somehing they dont care about.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• nthays22

  I, similarly to many of the people who have already commented, am very surprised and disappointed that all the focus in this article was put on the opinions of the realtors who were present and not the decided majority of the people who spoke up on this issue, people who supported the adoption the Home Energy Score ordinance. There were some very well-reasoned and well-researched comments from members of the public about why it was important to adopt.

  Realtors want to sell houses and make as much profit from the sale, themselves. I think that there are excellent reasons to adopt this, helping the environment, and helping with transparency between buyer and seller, but that didn't seem to be the motive for them in their arguments against it.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• OlyBlues

  In reading through the comments it is clear that most people realize realtors are greedy and extorting excessive fees for their services, mostly weighed against sellers. Realtors have worked hard to create a scheme to extort the most money possible from home sellers, driving up the same prices they say they are concerned about. That said, I appreciate them speaking out against excessive government regulations and costs with this ridiculous Home Energy Score requirement. Sellers are already being saddled with BOTH the buyer and seller fees, so to add on a HES cost is ridiculous. If the buyer wants one, they can pay for it. Housing costs are outrageous and this just adds to making it less of a reality.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• Arete

  As a buyer I WANT to know an energy score. Finding out after I move in that I need more insulation or that that the windows leak etc., etc.. is too late.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• BobJacobs

  Why? Buyers have always been able to require the gas and electric bills before making an offer on a property. We do not need our local governments' help on this.

  Bob Jacobs

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• franiazgorski

  The city can neutralize this by: Using general fund, Using DOE/state energy grants, Using inspection fees

  or explicitly stating in the ordinance that REET funds will not be used

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• franiazgorski

  Always interesting how the loudest voices about ‘housing affordability’ are often the first to support policies that make housing more expensive. If the goal is truly affordability, then adding new inspection mandates, fees, and administrative steps at the point of sale is the opposite of what struggling buyers and fixed‑income seniors need. The city should be listening to the people who actually participate in the housing market every day, not just the handful of activists who show up to every meeting with a pre‑baked agenda

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• ddttwo2

  @Arete - As a Buyer it would be prudent then to pay for an inspection. That isn't the job of our local jurisdictions and they really need to step aside and not get in the way of home ownership. I doesn't need to be "required" to get this inspection, and who has the authority to do that inspection? Is it another fee based Home inspection company that will do this? Just not right...

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• ClimateTeam

  This article was extremely biased toward the realtors. How come there was no mention of the other point of view? Home Energy Scores will help buyers understand the costs of energy in their home and where improvements came be made. It's only the first step in goals from the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan (TCMP) that was passed five years ago. It's time for the jurisdictions to pass this and other goals they agreed to long ago. CO2 emissions continue to rise. It's time to act in favor of our environment, our planet, and our own health.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• 36098501

  Many of these comments reflect much of the ideology that has created the very situation Olympia is in today with high housing costs, affordability issues and and onerous unnecessary bureaucracy. It seems as if people are perfectly happy and comfortable to expand the role and high cost of government to functions they are completely able to manage themselves on their own right now. with little effort and no additional cost.

  The idea that Realtors are labeled as greedy people driving up the cost of housing is one way to say one knows nothing about how home valuations work without actually saying it. A house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it whether an agent is involved or not. We don't get to price our homes higher because an Agent is involved. The decision to use an Agent is made by those involved in the transaction. People aren't required to use an Agent if they don't want to or don't see an Agent adding value - many don't.

  If your perception is that Agents make too much money, I would suggest becoming one.

  The easiest answer to this manufactured problem that apparently many believe only more costly bureaucracy solis able to solve - take some personal responsibility and ask for a history of utility bills. Every experienced buyer has been doing this already for years.

  Instead of creating unnecessary conflict and additional costs only when a home is sold, ask PSE to add more detail to their excellent existing home statistics they provide on their monthly billing online. They have all the data, and can compare any home to all others and benchmark usage essentially providing a grade. Then, at least all home owners could take action should they choose, and not just those homes being sold. The City can ask, and PSE can say no if they choose but they already provide a large amount of this usage data on every bill every month.

  Buyers and Sellers can make their own decisions as to what to fix or not without the government wedging themselves into a transaction where they add no value to the process but further drive up the time required and cost of buying a home.

  We shouldn't be creating expensive problems where personal responsibility is fully capable of taking care of their own concerns. Asking the government to create another program or process is the most expensive path one can take that will impact all people in the community and hurt those who can least afford it the most.

  The City should be spending time on things that do add value. Maintaining streets. Managing public assets. Optimizing costs in an effort to reduce the tax burden rather than focus on those things that increase costs and add no value to the process.

  Note : How is the Rental Registry is doing? How much profit is the Port making? How much is a trip on an IT bus cost the taxpayer? How long does the building permit process take? What are the average Impact Fees on a new home? What are the offsite costs required by the City for new housing builds? Where is the transparency of the millions of dollars the City is funding local non-profits? How are these taxpayer funded groups meeting their City reviews of financial auditing and performance objectives? What is the condition of the roads, sidewalks and parks in the Community? How many athletic fields are available and maintained by the City? Why does the Children's Museum cost $20 a person to get in even after it receives millions in taxpayer dollars? Optimize. Don't create more liabilities.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• 36098501

  If you are under the impression that the local government entities are representing all people in the community and looking to help improve local affordability and optimize their expenses to avoid increasing taxes. Think again.

  They might just be working against us to do the exact opposite.

  https://www.slideserve.com/neviah/olympia-s-parks-and-sidewalks-tax-leaving-butt-prints-in-the-sands-of-time

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• Yeti1981

  I want to respond to a few themes in this thread because they mirror what I heard during testimony.

  This is not about opposing energy efficiency. It is not about rejecting climate goals. It is about how we pursue those goals in the middle of a housing affordability crisis.

  A consistent narrative keeps surfacing that a few hundred dollars is insignificant because it happens at the time of sale, or that it can simply be wrapped into the loan. That framing does not reflect the financial reality for many households. The cost is required before listing, not at closing. And when costs are embedded into the price of a home and financed, they compound with interest over time. They do not disappear.

  Housing affordability is not eroded by one dramatic policy decision. It is eroded by the cumulative layering of well-intentioned requirements that each appear modest in isolation. A fee here. An inspection there. A new compliance step. Over time, those incremental additions shape who qualifies for a mortgage and who gets priced out.

  The question that deserves attention is whether there is measurable, published evidence demonstrating that mandatory time-of-listing scoring produces retrofit adoption or emissions reductions at scale. Information tools can be useful. But mandating them during a tight housing market should be grounded in outcome data, not assumptions.

  It is reasonable to pause and ensure statutory compliance questions are resolved, implementation capacity is clear, and affordability impacts are fully understood before adding another transaction requirement.

  If we are serious about both climate progress and housing access, we should insist on policies that demonstrably advance both, not put them in tension.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• Yeti1981

  In addition, the RCW concern is not about creating a new tax. RCW 82.46.037 conditions a city or county’s ability to use a portion of REET revenues on whether it has enacted new requirements on the listing or sale of real property after June 9, 2016. The statute does not require a new tax to be implicated. The question is whether a listing-triggered Home Energy Score mandate constitutes a new requirement on the sale of real property and whether it clearly fits within one of the statutory exceptions, such as an authorized seller disclosure under RCW 64.06.080. When REET eligibility is tied to statutory conditions, it is reasonable to request a formal legal review rather than assume compliance.

  Friday, February 20 Report this

• jimlazar

  The proposal for a mandatory audit at time of sale is not sufficient.

  The cities and County should impose a mandatory retrofit at time of sale. Before a property can be sold, it must be fully insulated, high performance windows installed, and fossil fuel heating sources replaced with efficient heat pumps.

  That's the only way we will achieve our adopted goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. This would allow the buyer to roll all of these costs into a 30-year mortgage, which is the best way to finance capital improvements on a home.

  The Cities and County voted to adopt both the Sustainable Thurston Plan and the Climate Mitigation Plan. It's time to start taking the actions that will achieve our adopted goals. That means adopting a mandatory energy efficiency retrofit standard to be applied at the time of sale.

  A further step would be to require these retrofits when a property is leased. Renters are not going to make capital investments in a home they do not own. Requiring the owners to make all cost-effective improvements before a property can be leased to a tenant is the right way to get these energy-wasting homes to a higher level of performance.

  Saturday, February 21 Report this

• RondaLarsonKramer

  The HES will really help with housing affordability. The information it provides enables a person, the buyer, to get a bank to include in the mortgage the cost of things like heat pumps. That will spread out the cost of the heat pumps over 30 years, allowing the person to reduce their monthly utility bills by a huge amount. The HES also helps realtors make more money on selling homes that have the efficiency upgrades, which will last through multiple home resales for a single home. In other words, if one person does upgrades to a home one time, a realtor ends up being able to profit from it every time that home is resold in the future. Some realtors probably realize this. Those that don't are the ones providing public comments against HES.

  Another way HES helps with housing affordability is that when a person on a fixed income buys a home, they won't get stuck unexpectedly with a lemon with high utility bills for years into the future. Instead, they will know it's a lemon before they buy it and can decide not to buy it.

  I'm surprised by one commenter's statement that a $150 fee will hurt affordability. It's a lot cheaper to pay a one-time $150 fee compared to getting stuck with years and years of $150 monthly utility bills that you didn't foresee because you didn't have the information needed when you looked into buying the house, and now you're unable to move again.

  The HES will help all buyers. And the HES will help sellers with efficient homes. The only people who could be hurt are sellers with inefficient homes, but those people are usually also buyers at the same time. So in the end, it's a good thing for almost everyone.

  The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy issued a review of the research on current programs last July. It’s at: https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/energy_ratings_for_home_sales.pdf

  Among other things, it reports that energy rebates (e.g., from PSE) are 10 times higher in homes that got a HES than in homes without a HES.

  It also found that in 2025, the actual cost of getting a score in Portland was running at $150 to $175, including the $35 fee that goes to a non-profit for doing quality control.

  The section on the impact of the programs on energy retrofit rates states, "In Portland, the Energy Trust of Oregon (which operates energy efficiency programs in Portland and other areas of the state) examined participation in its programs by HES homes over a five-month period in 2023. A total of 2,331 homes received inspections during this period, and 8.8% of these homes received energy efficiency rebates—primarily for measures recommended in the inspection report. By comparison, the agency found that only 0.8% of non-HES homes received incentives over a three-year period (ETO 2024). Thus, rebates were more than 10 times higher in homes that received HES reports."

  Sunday, February 22 Report this

• 36098501

  Don’t get the government more involved with the high cost of power than it already is with the bureaucracy it has created to provide and distribute it.

  When studies from other political, or government entities are used to further support justification to implement even more government programs, it becomes clear just how costly these programs become over time.

  Power usage in a home is a simple issue to identify for any buyer in a real estate transaction. Utility bills are available for every home, and PSE is already quite good at providing benchmarking.

  In every real estate transaction, there has always been the option of asking for repairs, improvements or further price negotiation. While I suppose wrapping some utility upgrades into a mortgage is an option, it is also likely the very most expensive option given that you are now financing possibly a heating system with a 15 year lifespan with a 30 year mortgage = paying a multiple of the cost only to then have to do this again in 15 years.

  Suggesting more government regulation of power and real estate might sound like a step toward sustainability, but it overlooks what’s happening on the ground. Here in Thurston County, homeowners and small landlords are already stretched thin; juggling rising utility costs amplified by local utility taxes, higher property taxes, and compliance with a growing list of mandates that are already failing after just a few years of expensive implementation – the Real Estate Registry being just one simple example. Adding another layer of bureaucracy in the form of an energy score requirement won’t make homes more efficient; it’ll just make them less affordable. It also only impacts those homes that are being sold which is a very small percentage of the total number of homes.

  The intent behind these rules, encouraging energy-conscious decisions, is understandable. But when government steps in with rigid, one-size-fits-all scoring systems, it often creates more problems than it solves. Older homes, many of which form the backbone of affordable, or entry level, housing locally will be unfairly penalized under such metrics. That, in turn, pushes sellers to raise prices for improvements, or reduce inventory, deepening our local housing problems. Your program for energy efficiency ultimately will get paid for by people that are least able to afford it – the ones buying entry level homes and older homes.

  Private markets and innovation have historically driven real progress in energy efficiency and not government mandates. Think of the rapid advances in smart thermostats, LED lighting, and home insulation. Some smart thermostats allow the utility companies to better manage existing power in the grid. None of those were government inventions, but they became widespread because consumers saw real value. Governments don’t innovate. Meanwhile, every new regulation adds administrative costs, prolongs transactions, and discourages investment.

  If we truly want a greener housing market, we should focus on incentives, education, and voluntary partnerships between utilities, builders, and consumers. Empowering people to choose efficiency has always worked far far better than forcing compliance through government programs, oversight, inspections, more paperwork and fees.

  For some reason, Olympia seems overwhelmingly supportive of giving government more things to do, and more things to manage, that individuals are entirely capable and empowered to do on their own today. Then, these same people complain about the high costs and lack of supply of affordable of housing.

  The last thing the City of Olympia needs to be doing is finding more problems for the government to solve.

  Monday, February 23 Report this

• Yeti1981

  @JimLazar I want to respond directly to the idea that we should mandate full retrofits at time of sale and simply “roll it into the mortgage.”

  That framing assumes three things that are not true for many households.

  First, not every buyer qualifies for a larger loan. Appraisals cap what can be financed. Debt-to-income ratios cap what can be borrowed. You cannot simply mandate improvements and assume banks will absorb them into underwriting without consequence.

  Second, financing a 15-year asset, like a heat pump, over 30 years is not inherently affordable. It means paying interest on that equipment for decades, and in many cases replacing it before the mortgage term ends while still paying off the first one.

  Third, every additional requirement narrows the pool of qualified buyers. We are already in a market where first-time buyers struggle to clear down payment and underwriting thresholds. Layering mandatory retrofits onto transactions will price some people out entirely.

  Climate goals matter. But so does the lived reality of entry-level buyers. If we are serious about both, we cannot treat mortgage capacity as unlimited.

  Monday, February 23 Report this

• Yeti1981

  @RondaLarsonKramer I appreciate the goal of reducing long-term utility costs. But the affordability analysis cannot stop at theoretical savings.

  The assumption that a buyer can simply add retrofit costs to a mortgage ignores underwriting limits, appraisal constraints, and down payment thresholds. For many households, the barrier is qualifying in the first place. Increasing the required financed amount can move a buyer from approved to denied.

  It is also important to distinguish between voluntary upgrades and mandated transaction requirements. When a buyer chooses improvements, that is different from conditioning the sale of property on additional cost.

  Regarding the audit fee itself, evaluating each requirement in isolation misses the broader issue. Housing affordability is shaped by cumulative layering. A few hundred dollars here, another inspection there, escalating permit fees, impact fees, code costs. Individually modest. Collectively decisive.

  The question is not whether efficiency information has value. The question is whether mandating it at time of sale, during a constrained housing market, produces measurable retrofit outcomes at scale that justify the added transaction requirement.

  Monday, February 23 Report this

• Yeti1981

  @RondaLarsonKramer Also, I appreciate the intent behind your comment, but several of the conclusions you are drawing go beyond what the evidence actually shows.

  First, the Portland data you cited is about rebate participation, not proven long-term retrofit adoption or jurisdiction-wide emissions reductions. The statistic compares the share of homes that received rebates after having an HES inspection with a separate group of non-HES homes over a different time window. That is evidence of higher rebate activity among HES-scored homes, but it is not proof that the policy causes upgrades that would not otherwise occur during a real estate transaction. It is also not proof of long-term performance outcomes or meaningful GHG reductions at scale.

  Second, there is a major selection effect in the way this is being discussed. Homes getting scored are in a transaction moment when sellers and buyers are already actively evaluating the property. That naturally increases the likelihood of any follow-on activity, including rebate use. Comparing that group to a broad population of non-HES homes, many of which are not transacting at all, does not establish causation.

  Finally, the core policy question remains unanswered. Where is the published, outcome-based evidence showing that a mandatory time-of-listing Home Energy Score requirement produces sustained retrofit adoption and measurable emissions reductions at scale over multiple years, relative to the administrative burden and affordability impacts it introduces. Correlation during a short observation window is not the same thing as demonstrated long-term success.

  We cannot build mandates around half-formed assumptions and limited short-window correlations, especially in a housing market where affordability is already fragile. If the goal is real climate progress without pricing people out, the burden of proof should be on demonstrating measurable outcomes, not just asserting that information will naturally transform the market.

  Monday, February 23 Report this

• BCBEAN

  Realtors don't care about "barriers to homeownership" ; they care about barriers to their financial interests. Potential buyers should be as informed as possible about the energy costs of homes on the market - it gives them leverage when negotiating price. And realtor should not be making 3 percent from sellers and buyers - it's a ridiculous windfall

  Tuesday, March 3 Report this