Mandatory energy audits another part of the latest Dalton McGuinty budget has been a hot topic for debate lately. As part of the new Green Energy Act McGuinty is proposing that homeowners have a mandatory home energy audit done that could cost anywhere between $300 – $500 before they sell their London, ON house. McGuinty feels that “Forcing people to conduct audits is a good idea because it will allow buyers to know their energy costs. When it comes to buying the single most expensive thing that youʼre likely to buy during the course of your lifetime- a home-youʼre entitled to know what kinds of cots youʼre going to incur when it comes to energy.”

Holes in the Logic

Critics believe that there are a couple key holes in McGuintyʼs logic. Some critics feel that this is just another poorly timed cash grab. The Association of Ontario says that the additional cost will hurt homeowners in what are increasingly difficult economic times. Gerry Weir president of the Ontario Real Estate Association said “The results of audits will be used by home buyers as bargaining chips to to significantly reduce the final selling price. Home sellers are already worried about lost equity in their homes. A move like this, which will reduce their value even further, will not help them in any way.”

Comparing Apples to Apples

Another major issue with the Audit that the Realtors association points out is that there is no one standard for energy audit and no regulation auditors. This debunks one of McGuintyʼs major reasons for a mandatory audit is that the government “wants to make sure that you can compare one house to another on an apple to apple basis.” If there is no standard for audits then what is the real difference between the audits and the buyers using previous heating & hydro bills to estimate future energy costs.

I think the Ontario Association of Realtors is right buyers will use audit as a major bargaining chip to reduce purchase prices. People will look at the audits results and will probably see the recommendations as something wrong with the house instead of looking at the recommendations as changes that if were made would benefit the future owner over the long term because they will be the ones saving on the energy cost. The major problem with this idea is the mandatory part, once you attach the word mandatory to anything it automatically sheds a negative light on the issue. Solutions like the energy retro fit grant give major incentives for people to do work voluntarily giving them the benefit of saving money on the initial purchase and on the future energy costs.

Let us know what you think?