The Massachusetts Association of Realtors (MAR) and Greater Boston Real Estate Board (GBREB) oppose portions of pending Senate legislation, entitled “An Act To Promote Energy Diversity,” that would require homeowners to obtain an energy audit before putting their house on the market and to give the results of that audit to potential homebuyers. However, there is substantial support for these provisions, from activists and even MAR members themselves.

MAR President Annie Blatz said she wants to make it clear that her organization supports voluntary efforts to increase the energy efficiency of homes. They believe that the bill as currently written would cause more harm than good.

“The proposal as it stands would require government testing and labeling on all homes before they’re sold,” Blatz said. “In Massachusetts we have the second oldest median house age (in the nation) at 54 years old. This bill could stigmatize entire neighborhoods. It would disproportionately hurt owners of homes in the lower price range.”

Activists like Emily Norton, director of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club, say the bill will have the opposite effect if it becomes law.

“We think it will impact owners of low to moderately priced homes positively,” Norton said. “This is another way to help people to lower their energy costs.”

Supporters of the bill liken the labeling requirement to the stickers on new cars on a dealer’s lot. In addition to detailing the features of the car, it lists the fuel efficiency in miles per gallon and estimates annual fuel costs. They say more information helps consumers make informed choices.

Blatz said that’s a false comparison.

“We don’t believe that’s a fair comparison,” Blatz said. “It only applies to new cars. We don’t think older homes should be treated the same way.”

Data Matters

MAR member Craig Foley says the association is an outstanding organization committed to property rights and homeownership – and that he thinks it’s on the wrong side of this issue. Foley is the chief of energy solutions for RE/MAX Leading Edge and an agent.

“When I go to a car dealership, I rely heavily on the price and [miles per gallon]. Those numbers are important to me,” he said. “I’m a consumer who cares about environmental impact and I try to do everything I can to keep my operating costs down. The idea of an energy asset rating is looking at the inherent characteristics of that home. It’s a reference point for consumers. In terms of transparency, this is an issue that buyers want more information about.”

The strong language MAR is using – phrases like “stigmatizing whole neighborhoods” – is out of scale with the issue, Foley said.

“My worry is that in the way they’re throwing it out there, not all real estate agents are knowledgeable about this. I think this bill is kind of a sacrificial lamb,” he said. “MAR may be poisoning the water for voluntary energy asset ratings – something the group supports – down the road.”

Blatz concurred that MAR does support voluntary energy efficiency, saying “we’re not flagrantly flaunting bad environmental initiatives. I think audits are fabulous and Mass Save is a great opportunity. It’s only the scoring and mandatory audit we’re opposed to.”

Moreover, she believes that mandatory auditing will have a disruptive effect on an already unstable market.

“We also believe if people had to have an energy audit prior to a sale, it would delay the home-buying process,” she said. “Inventory is already low. This would hurt the real estate market and the economy.”

Norton, on the other hand, enthusiastically supports the measure.

“We are excited about it,” she said. “We should all welcome more information for buyers just as we require lead disclosure, flood plan, radon, etc., so buyers can make fully informed decisions in a time of climate change and high energy costs. It makes sense that this would be added to the list. There is a lot of data that shows low-income residents pay a disproportionate amount of their income for energy.”

Sen. Benjamin Downing, D-Pittsfield, originally introduced the bill and did not return a request for comment. Both advocates and opponents of S. 2400 expect it to be put to a vote before the current legislative session ends on July 31.