Seattle is leaking money, right out of our homes and businesses.  But by taking some simple steps to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings we can plug these leaks, which would save money, reduce our energy usage, and create jobs in the process.  So how does this work? 

• Save Money.  Installing efficient windows, insulation, weather-stripping and appliances is the easiest and most effective way we know of to reduce our energy costs and needs.  The technology exists and is readily available, but the cost can be prohibitive for many people.  The city of Berkeley, California, figured out an answer, and I think a similar solution could work for Seattle.  They set up a program so that homeowners and businesses can borrow the money for their upgrade and then have the loan incorporated into their property tax bill, allowing them to pay it back over time.  The increased cost of the property tax is more than offset by the reduction in utility bills, so the resident saves money immediately, and more money in their pocket is good for everybody.
• Save Energy.  More efficient buildings mean less energy is consumed.  This means less of our local dollars are being exported out of state, less need for investment in new power-generating facilities, and less pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.  Of course, living in an energy efficient house is more comfortable, too.
• Create Jobs. There are costs associated with the investments in efficiency, but many of these costs go directly to local jobs: home energy auditors, insulation specialists, window and door installers, etc.  The program needs to be associated with job training so that a range of people have access to the new jobs being created.  For every dollar we don’t spend on imported energy, a portion ends up in the homeowners pocket as savings, and a portion goes back into local jobs – both of which ultimately help the local economy.  Washington state currently sends $30Million out of state to purchase energy every day.  Wouldn’t it be great to keep even a portion of this money around for local businesses instead?  The only loser is the big oil companies – but that is ok.

Getting the mechanics of the system right is critical.  The program needs to be extremely simple for the end user, it must be cost effective (the immediate savings are greater than the costs), and the risks need to be carried by the city.  The financing mechanism needs to be tied to the building as opposed to the occupant, so that even housing that turns over frequently can be upgraded. This means that if the owner moves, the balance of the loan (and the improvements) are simply transferred to the new owner.

As a councilmember, I will work to implement a program to finance energy efficiency audits and upgrades through this type of mechanism.  It can’t be a passive program– we will need to actively go recruit participants and navigate complex structures such that even rental housing where the building owner does not pay the utility bills has an incentive to participate in the program.  I think the idea will catch on quickly once people realize how much they could be saving, and how small the increase in their tax bill would look in comparison.  We could make our homes and offices more comfortable to live and work in, all the while decreasing our consumption of natural resources.

There is an important social justice aspect to this idea, too.  Folks in the lowest income brackets often live in the housing that could benefit most from such upgrades, yet they have the least ability to afford the initial investment.  It’s a vicious cycle, but one that we could break with this simple program.  Furthermore, the jobs created in the implementation would mostly be filled by working-class people and should be recruited locally: a double benefit.

Be Sociable, Share!

•