19 September 2013

Simon uncertain, what's energy efficiency to you?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
44

Simon Corbell is wondering how important energy efficiency is to tenants:

The ACT Government wants to find out if tenants would take into account the energy efficiency of homes when choosing rental properties, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Simon Corbell, said today.

“Higher energy efficiency translates into lower power bills, so knowing the energy efficiency of rental homes

could influence the preferences of potential tenants, and encourage owners to improve the energy performance of their properties,” Mr Corbell said.

“We are investigating whether to introduce new laws that would require landlords to provide potential tenants with energy efficiency information about their properties.”

The ACT Government will be holding workshops with stakeholders, and wants tenants of rental properties to have their say through an online survey.

Whoever did the media released didn’t know the difference between web and email addresses, but at some point the survey should be on time to talk.

For mine I’m wary as hell of anything that makes it harder to rent in this town.

Join the conversation

44
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Innovation said :

breda said :

So, no answer to how a perfect house can eliminate the need for heating in Canberra in July? But that’s what you claimed in your earlier post.

Nor have you explained how any house or flat can have perfectly equal temperatures all of the time.

Of course it makes sense to design housing to maximise the benefits of the local climate. But, this EER stuff is a load of rubbish. It’s a boondoggle, i.e. people are making money = no benefit to users.

Actually I thought that I had answered your question for you but perhaps thiswill help you.

Or are you simply splitting hairs because you’re bored on a Saturday? For example, my idea of a hot or cold spot is not a variation between rooms of only 1 or 2 degrees (which is the most any unheated room in our house would ever vary by, if anything). The same goes for comfort level. Some of us could comfortably live in 18 degrees whereas others need it much warmer.

And where’s the answer to my question earlier?

Still no reply eh? From memory I don’t think that you have ever replied to any of my questions posed to you in any thread.

LSWCHP said :

I don’t often resort to profanity (well…that’s a lie) but…

F*ck this sh*t.

I turn off Cawell Drive onto Parkes Way every morning, and the recently laid road at the interchange is rapidly disintegrating while the contractors fan-dance their way onto their next cushy gig.

One of my colleagues is married to a lovely young woman who is a teacher at a primary school in Tuggeranong. She regularly undergoes abuse from students (primary school students!) and their arsehat no-hoper lost cause parents.

I’ve spent interminable hours in the emergency room at Calvary hospital waiting to get injured children attended to.

Etc…etc…etc…

Get the basics sorted out. Fix the f*cking roads before someone is killed, get some discipline and dignity into our government schools, get the public health system working and a few other things. Then, when that is sorted, worry about the energy efficiency of rented accommodation.

Agreed. But a competent Government should be able to deal with the important and less important issues. Even, in the scheme of things, minor issues like EERs, if effective, could improve the quality of life of some ACT residents.

wildturkeycanoe7:20 am 22 Sep 13

LSWCHP said :

I don’t often resort to profanity (well…that’s a lie) but…

F*ck this sh*t.

I turn off Cawell Drive onto Parkes Way every morning, and the recently laid road at the interchange is rapidly disintegrating while the contractors fan-dance their way onto their next cushy gig.

One of my colleagues is married to a lovely young woman who is a teacher at a primary school in Tuggeranong. She regularly undergoes abuse from students (primary school students!) and their arsehat no-hoper lost cause parents.

I’ve spent interminable hours in the emergency room at Calvary hospital waiting to get injured children attended to.

Etc…etc…etc…

Get the basics sorted out. Fix the f*cking roads before someone is killed, get some discipline and dignity into our government schools, get the public health system working and a few other things. Then, when that is sorted, worry about the energy efficiency of rented accommodation.

I don’t use profanities either, but F@*#in’ oath, you are spot on. I wholeheartedly agree with this comment and will support you as a candidate for the next election, to stand up for what we really need. To our government I say “Screw farting around with feel good policies that achieve nothing but jobs-for-the-boys and start to spend our money on things that matter.”

I don’t often resort to profanity (well…that’s a lie) but…

F*ck this sh*t.

I turn off Cawell Drive onto Parkes Way every morning, and the recently laid road at the interchange is rapidly disintegrating while the contractors fan-dance their way onto their next cushy gig.

One of my colleagues is married to a lovely young woman who is a teacher at a primary school in Tuggeranong. She regularly undergoes abuse from students (primary school students!) and their arsehat no-hoper lost cause parents.

I’ve spent interminable hours in the emergency room at Calvary hospital waiting to get injured children attended to.

Etc…etc…etc…

Get the basics sorted out. Fix the f*cking roads before someone is killed, get some discipline and dignity into our government schools, get the public health system working and a few other things. Then, when that is sorted, worry about the energy efficiency of rented accommodation.

breda said :

So, no answer to how a perfect house can eliminate the need for heating in Canberra in July? But that’s what you claimed in your earlier post.

Nor have you explained how any house or flat can have perfectly equal temperatures all of the time.

Of course it makes sense to design housing to maximise the benefits of the local climate. But, this EER stuff is a load of rubbish. It’s a boondoggle, i.e. people are making money = no benefit to users.

Actually I thought that I had answered your question for you but perhaps thiswill help you.

Or are you simply splitting hairs because you’re bored on a Saturday? For example, my idea of a hot or cold spot is not a variation between rooms of only 1 or 2 degrees (which is the most any unheated room in our house would ever vary by, if anything). The same goes for comfort level. Some of us could comfortably live in 18 degrees whereas others need it much warmer.

And where’s the answer to my question earlier?

wildturkeycanoe @ #35 There may be many people who don’t make a decision based in any part on EER but, all other things being equal, wouldn’t you choose a five star house over a one star house (or try to negotiate down the price of the lower rated house?

As for your rental, you must have been extremely “annoyed”. I can never understand how a house with electric in slab heating can get a good rating. We had one once and we simply couldn’t afford to run it.

I agree that the current EER system, both in terms of methodology and process, definitely needs improvement. For example, any incentive for an assessor to overstate an EER should be removed and assessors should be held accountable for their decisions. After all, an overstated rating could cost home owners thousands more per annum in energy costs and tens of thousands over the life of the home.

Mayumi_ACTGovt said :

We’d love to hear from all renters! Fill out the short survey that will only take minutes to complete – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/surveyforrenters

You aren’t going to take the results seriously, surely. Government policy should NOT be driven by spurious, naive and foolish internet surveys. For a start, how do you know how many times I have completed the survey? How do you know whether I have ever rented in the ACT? How would you distinguish me from a landlord pretending to be a renter, to skew the results?

So, no answer to how a perfect house can eliminate the need for heating in Canberra in July? But that’s what you claimed in your earlier post.

Nor have you explained how any house or flat can have perfectly equal temperatures all of the time.

Of course it makes sense to design housing to maximise the benefits of the local climate. But, this EER stuff is a load of rubbish. It’s a boondoggle, i.e. people are making money = no benefit to users.

breda said :

A properly designed house will not have hot and cold spots (unless that is what is intended in a particular area). A really well designed house, even in Canberra, won’t need any form of artificial heating or cooling although this can be very expensive initially.
—————————————————————————————-
I would be fascinated to hear about how a “properly designed house” would be comfortable without heating in, say, Canberra in July.

I am also intrigued by the notion that a house could be so utterly independent of its orientation, construction and functions that the temperature is the same everywhere at all times.

The Unicorn House!

Sigh. Those are the only bits that you took from my post? Not big on self reflection are we?

The trick is as much thermal mass as possible, as much thermal mass directly exposed to the sun as possible, the ability to expose all rooms to the north (or at least be able to open them up to other rooms) and minimise any leaks from your house. If you cover any thermal mass that is exposed to the sun (eg carpet on concrete) or need to heat the air then you’ve lost the battle.

If heating is ever necessary, radiated heat is best. Hydronic heating will allow heat sources such as solar tubing to heat internal thermal mass (or insulated thermal mass storage banks), which can be stored for days.

All of this is only limited by your imagination (and, of course, your bank balance) but, if you don’t believe in unicorns, perhaps you don’t have any….

wildturkeycanoe7:26 am 21 Sep 13

“I haven’t looked, but I would be curious to see any evidence that people don’t have at least some degree of regard for EERs when buying or renting a house. If I was renting, I would prefer to live in a smaller or run down property or in a distant location than compromise on a valid EER. As a buyer, I would only be interested in a 4 or 5 star house or a lower rated house that I felt I could cost effectively modify to significantly raise the rating.”

Consider me as your first statistic to this as a home buyer. EER had nothing at all to do with our house purchase. We bought whatever we could afford with what the bank would lend us. It wouldn’t have mattered if it had an EER of 1 or 8, we still would have bought it because it’s all we could get. Had we worried about things like EER, which is 5 incidentally, we may still be renting.
Back when we were renting, the property we resided had an EER of 4.5, even though the quarterly heating bills in winter were $1000+ due to a massive 10kW+ of electric in-slab [the only heating available]. The main ACTEW 80A supply fuse in the meter panel actually melted into a blob one winter, due to the massive amount of power it was drawing [60 amps plus], proving to me that this was indeed a huge planning mistake. The clothesline only got sun until around lunchtime, then it went into shade. I don’t know if that affects EER as the dryer got used more often than not. Northerly aspect meant little due to the fact no windows faced north and the living area had huge westerly facing windows letting summer afternoon sun straight in, cooking us even with the evap cooling running flat out.
Assessors for energy efficiency seem to be able to find pretty much any excuse to give a house another star, such as the type of building material or the angle of the roof. These things do not mean squat when the bedrooms are 10 metres away at the other end of the house from the single wall furnace, which won’t even warm your toes whilst watching TV.
I am supportive of an energy efficiency rating being mandatory for all premises, on condition that the government cleans out the trash and implements a system and staff that isn’t biased by either government departments, builders or any other party that has something to gain from the exercise.

A properly designed house will not have hot and cold spots (unless that is what is intended in a particular area). A really well designed house, even in Canberra, won’t need any form of artificial heating or cooling although this can be very expensive initially.
—————————————————————————————-
I would be fascinated to hear about how a “properly designed house” would be comfortable without heating in, say, Canberra in July.

I am also intrigued by the notion that a house could be so utterly independent of its orientation, construction and functions that the temperature is the same everywhere at all times.

The Unicorn House!

breda said :

…..Every house, no matter what its supposed energy efficiency, has hot and cold spots. It’s the sun and placement of windows at work – plus wet areas typically have more thermal mass, so can get very cold in winter in this climate (because they never warm up properly)….

….It has been demonstrated that people’s house hunting (whether buying or renting) is primarily shaped by price, location and amenity. The EER rating, even if it were accurate and useful – which it often isn’t – doesn’t even make a blip on the radar in comparison. It’s just another makework boondoggle for assessors and bureaucrats….

A properly designed house will not have hot and cold spots (unless that is what is intended in a particular area). A really well designed house, even in Canberra, won’t need any form of artificial heating or cooling although this can be very expensive initially.

Based on your comments, I suspect that your house has minimal thermal mass other than in your wet areas which would likely explain your EER of 3. In winter alone, appropriately placed thermal mass in a house will absorb heat quickly and radiate a very nice even heat for hours or even days afterwards.

I imagine that the current EER system assesses a whole house on the assumption that every room in that house is regularly used. If I was living in a house on my own and if that house required assisted heating or cooling, most likely I would only heat or cool one or two rooms at a time. The cost of living that way though, is not a good indication of the overall efficiency of the house. (I guess it would be the same as providing an energy rating for a clothes dryer that only dried one sock at a time).

I haven’t looked, but I would be curious to see any evidence that people don’t have at least some degree of regard for EERs when buying or renting a house. If I was renting, I would prefer to live in a smaller or run down property or in a distant location than compromise on a valid EER. As a buyer, I would only be interested in a 4 or 5 star house or a lower rated house that I felt I could cost effectively modify to significantly raise the rating.

Perhaps another problem with the current EER is that there is not a broad enough range. There would not be much difference between a 3 and 5 star house if some houses were easily achieving ten or twenty stars.

As I said in my post, I have no idea how the assessor came up with an EER of 3 for my place. My energy bills are much lower than many that have been mentioned in other threads on the subject, and I don’t stint myself on either heating or cooling, nor do I switch every light off except the one I am sitting under.

Every house, no matter what its supposed energy efficiency, has hot and cold spots. It’s the sun and placement of windows at work – plus wet areas typically have more thermal mass, so can get very cold in winter in this climate (because they never warm up properly).

People who buy homes with a low EER often do so on the basis that a lot of the problems can be fixed later, by insulation, putting in windows, double glazing and so on. However, when I went house shopping, I ignored the EER (which is nonsense) and checked out things like eaves, orientation, placement of high use areas etc. Sure enough, it worked for me.

It has been demonstrated that people’s house hunting (whether buying or renting) is primarily shaped by price, location and amenity. The EER rating, even if it were accurate and useful – which it often isn’t – doesn’t even make a blip on the radar in comparison. It’s just another makework boondoggle for assessors and bureaucrats.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Innovation said :

breda said :

.. there is not a skerrick of evidence to support the notion that EER ratings have a significant effect on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a home. And, as people have pointed out above, there is no evidence that it would override factors like location, price and amenity for renters either.

My house, for reasons known only to the alchemists who decide these things, has an EER of 3. It faces perfectly north. The living areas and my bedroom are warm in winter and cool in summer. The bits I don’t use much are the reverse. So what? I worked all that out before I bought it by looking at the house in situ and checking on a map for the orientation….

I agree with your first two points and, in years past, would probably have agreed with your third point. Now, having lived in a house that is probably five+ stars, I would never again want to live in a house in Canberra with a lower rating. There are no cold or hot rooms and, as well as the substantial energy savings each year, there is an unquantifiable comfort level that can’t be provided by artificial pockets of heating or cooling.

Your ability to ascertain whether your house faces North is commendable but many don’t even have the skills to do that. Also, while I agree that EER is somewhat subjective, your inability to understand, or at least question, why your own house only rated a 3 rather than perhaps a 5 or 6, is suggestive of the need for more information to be provided to prospective tenants.

An EER of 5, as our house is supposed to be, is totally and utterly a stab in the dark. How can a house with an EER of 5 end up costing in excess of $500/quarter for natural gas alone, which only heats the living space for 8 hours of the day/night whilst the bedrooms are freezing cold? This is a house built new in 2009 of all things. I improved the EER myself by installing two split A/Cs instead of the “5 star” gas wall furnace, supplying heat AND cooling at a fraction of the cost of the original heating only appliance. I honestly think the building company had the approval people in their back pocket. With the corruption we see in our regulatory authorities to date, I can only see this new idea as another gimmick that will only see the developers and inspectors win, whilst tenants sit in their freezing living rooms wondering where all the warmth has gone.

EER’s are done by private licened assessors. EER’s are meant to be lodged with a DA for new home or additions of 50% GFA or greater. I would think they are assumed to be correct as the assessor is registered professional in that area, not the DA assessing officer. My point, who really looks at the EEr of these houses anyway.

Reprobate said :

Ghettosmuf87 – you’re new around these parts, right?

new or not, you dont speak for me and i vote

Chop71 said :

Pfff
I hope you can follow me now that you bought up Economics 101

This simple subject covers elasticity of demand, which will state some of these costs are passed on to renters while a portion of the cost will be absorbed by the landlord.

There is also the cost of the red tape that is burdened by the ACT government public service that all ratepayers cover.

So yes there will be additional costs, some paid by the landlord, some paid by the renters and yes all of us will pay a small portion so that Mr Corbell can feel warm and fuzzy telling us how “green” our rental properties are.

Do we need it?

Thats why they are asking the question……. you dont know if you dont ask. Thats life 101

Chop71 said :

FFS – more red tape for the nanny state.

As much as this could be a “good idea” I’m sure when landlords pass on the cost to renters, you will be the same people who complain about the cost of renting and housing in Canberra

FFS relax. It is a survey to see if renters actually care.
Nothing has been done yet. You need to know if the renters will use the info first, and if they want it, why cant they have it. Although as previously mentioned, not the market where someone looking for a rental can be knocking them back.

Chop71 said :

throw in a line and a graph and you must be right. eh

Hardly, it’s a pretty fundamental principle.

Chop71 said :

Some would argue the renters are the price takers not the landlords?

In a competitive market both are, and the market sets the price (i.e. prices are determined by the interaction of total demand and supply of the good or service). Any individual buyer or seller has zero impact on the market price.

This is in contrast to markets where individual firms/consumers have market/monopoly power. Companies like Coles, Microsoft, etc. and consumers like the Federal Government aren’t price takers, because they’re big enough to influence the market/have market power. They do face sloped demand/supply curves.

The market for rental accommodation however, is made up pretty much entirely of tiny suppliers and consumers, and none of them have any market power.

Chop71 said :

In your search for a rental property (as you mentioned you’d be happy to pay more) have you ever negotiated down (or up) the rent you’d like to pay?

I doubt it.

Well actually, I was looking for a new rental about four months ago. I negotiated one landlord down from $380/pw to $350pw (the property had last rented for $390pw).

It’s actually beside the point though, because both those prices were above the market price. I moved on to another property, and the landlord didn’t get a tenant until they dropped the price to $300.

It really is as simple as supply and demand.

Mayumi_ACTGovt12:16 pm 20 Sep 13

We’d love to hear from all renters! Fill out the short survey that will only take minutes to complete – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/surveyforrenters

throw in a line and a graph and you must be right. eh

Some would argue the renters are the price takers not the landlords?

In your search for a rental property (as you mentioned you’d be happy to pay more) have you ever negotiated down (or up) the rent you’d like to pay?

I doubt it.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Innovation said :

breda said :

.. there is not a skerrick of evidence to support the notion that EER ratings have a significant effect on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a home. And, as people have pointed out above, there is no evidence that it would override factors like location, price and amenity for renters either.

My house, for reasons known only to the alchemists who decide these things, has an EER of 3. It faces perfectly north. The living areas and my bedroom are warm in winter and cool in summer. The bits I don’t use much are the reverse. So what? I worked all that out before I bought it by looking at the house in situ and checking on a map for the orientation….

I agree with your first two points and, in years past, would probably have agreed with your third point. Now, having lived in a house that is probably five+ stars, I would never again want to live in a house in Canberra with a lower rating. There are no cold or hot rooms and, as well as the substantial energy savings each year, there is an unquantifiable comfort level that can’t be provided by artificial pockets of heating or cooling.

Your ability to ascertain whether your house faces North is commendable but many don’t even have the skills to do that. Also, while I agree that EER is somewhat subjective, your inability to understand, or at least question, why your own house only rated a 3 rather than perhaps a 5 or 6, is suggestive of the need for more information to be provided to prospective tenants.

An EER of 5, as our house is supposed to be, is totally and utterly a stab in the dark. How can a house with an EER of 5 end up costing in excess of $500/quarter for natural gas alone, which only heats the living space for 8 hours of the day/night whilst the bedrooms are freezing cold? This is a house built new in 2009 of all things. I improved the EER myself by installing two split A/Cs instead of the “5 star” gas wall furnace, supplying heat AND cooling at a fraction of the cost of the original heating only appliance. I honestly think the building company had the approval people in their back pocket. With the corruption we see in our regulatory authorities to date, I can only see this new idea as another gimmick that will only see the developers and inspectors win, whilst tenants sit in their freezing living rooms wondering where all the warmth has gone.

Again, the current EER system is definitely flawed and needs improvement but it certainly raises awareness about energy efficiency. I presume also that the current system isn’t helped by private sector certifiers who have conflicting interests and are never audited. It is also flawed by the fact that there is no incentive for individuals to challenge an overstated rating (and there is even an implicit disincentive for home owners to question such a rating).

AlexanderWatson10:45 pm 19 Sep 13

Awesome idea in theory… Though most of the time EER’s aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

They’re only as good as the information that goes into them and it’s so often the case that a client’s EER says one thing (eg good ceiling insulation) and when we stick our head in the roof we find something completely different (eg finding the installer couldn’t be bothered installing batts in the tight areas and the EER bloke couldn’t be bothered going past the manhole to check what’s really there).

Realistically though, when the companies doing the ratings are throwing in an EER for free when you purchase a building and pest report, what more would you expect?

wildturkeycanoe8:26 pm 19 Sep 13

Innovation said :

breda said :

.. there is not a skerrick of evidence to support the notion that EER ratings have a significant effect on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a home. And, as people have pointed out above, there is no evidence that it would override factors like location, price and amenity for renters either.

My house, for reasons known only to the alchemists who decide these things, has an EER of 3. It faces perfectly north. The living areas and my bedroom are warm in winter and cool in summer. The bits I don’t use much are the reverse. So what? I worked all that out before I bought it by looking at the house in situ and checking on a map for the orientation….

I agree with your first two points and, in years past, would probably have agreed with your third point. Now, having lived in a house that is probably five+ stars, I would never again want to live in a house in Canberra with a lower rating. There are no cold or hot rooms and, as well as the substantial energy savings each year, there is an unquantifiable comfort level that can’t be provided by artificial pockets of heating or cooling.

Your ability to ascertain whether your house faces North is commendable but many don’t even have the skills to do that. Also, while I agree that EER is somewhat subjective, your inability to understand, or at least question, why your own house only rated a 3 rather than perhaps a 5 or 6, is suggestive of the need for more information to be provided to prospective tenants.

An EER of 5, as our house is supposed to be, is totally and utterly a stab in the dark. How can a house with an EER of 5 end up costing in excess of $500/quarter for natural gas alone, which only heats the living space for 8 hours of the day/night whilst the bedrooms are freezing cold? This is a house built new in 2009 of all things. I improved the EER myself by installing two split A/Cs instead of the “5 star” gas wall furnace, supplying heat AND cooling at a fraction of the cost of the original heating only appliance. I honestly think the building company had the approval people in their back pocket. With the corruption we see in our regulatory authorities to date, I can only see this new idea as another gimmick that will only see the developers and inspectors win, whilst tenants sit in their freezing living rooms wondering where all the warmth has gone.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Economics 101 is lost when you, as a landlord, can get another $50-100/week for your home if there is solar power on the roof, or the insulation has given it a 5 star energy rating. Why would any landlord spend thousands on their property with no way to make the money back, especially when the property already makes a mint without doing anything to it? When the government starts to subsidize these initiatives though, it’ll be another story altogether.

I’m not sure what your point is.

As a renter, I’d be willing to pay a premium for an energy efficient property because it’ll save me thousands of dollars a year in energy bills.

What makes you think that landlords wouldn’t make their money back. Energy improvements already increase the capital value of a house, and under the proposed scheme, they’d increase the rental income as well. Considering most landlords are losing money on their investment properties, I think it’d be something most would consider.

The only reason this doesn’t happen already is because information is asymmetrical, and renters can’t tell the difference between a property that is an energy drain, and one that is efficient.

Chop71 said :

Pfff
I hope you can follow me now that you bought up Economics 101

This simple subject covers elasticity of demand, which will state some of these costs are passed on to renters while a portion of the cost will be absorbed by the landlord.

Yeah, nice try, but you’re not even close.

In a competitive market, the market as a whole will have a sloped demand curve, but individual firms (landlords) don’t have market power, are price takers and face what is essentially a completely flat demand curve.

Chop71 said :

There is also the cost of the red tape that is burdened by the ACT government public service that all ratepayers cover.

So yes there will be additional costs, some paid by the landlord, some paid by the renters and yes all of us will pay a small portion so that Mr Corbell can feel warm and fuzzy telling us how “green” our rental properties are.

Do we need it?

It depends what is being proposed, if for example all that happens is rentals that already have EERs are required list them when they’re being advertised for rent, the administrative burden and cost to anyone is next to nothing.

On the other hand, such a requirement would go a long way to correcting the information asymmetry in the market for rental properties, which is actually correcting a market failure and an efficiency improvement.

breda said :

.. there is not a skerrick of evidence to support the notion that EER ratings have a significant effect on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a home. And, as people have pointed out above, there is no evidence that it would override factors like location, price and amenity for renters either.

My house, for reasons known only to the alchemists who decide these things, has an EER of 3. It faces perfectly north. The living areas and my bedroom are warm in winter and cool in summer. The bits I don’t use much are the reverse. So what? I worked all that out before I bought it by looking at the house in situ and checking on a map for the orientation….

I agree with your first two points and, in years past, would probably have agreed with your third point. Now, having lived in a house that is probably five+ stars, I would never again want to live in a house in Canberra with a lower rating. There are no cold or hot rooms and, as well as the substantial energy savings each year, there is an unquantifiable comfort level that can’t be provided by artificial pockets of heating or cooling.

Your ability to ascertain whether your house faces North is commendable but many don’t even have the skills to do that. Also, while I agree that EER is somewhat subjective, your inability to understand, or at least question, why your own house only rated a 3 rather than perhaps a 5 or 6, is suggestive of the need for more information to be provided to prospective tenants.

Ghettosmuf87 – you’re new around these parts, right?

Ghettosmurf874:40 pm 19 Sep 13

Reprobate said :

“The ACT Government wants to find out if tenants would take into account the energy efficiency of homes when choosing rental properties, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Simon Corbell, said today.”

Dear Simon: No. Yours sincerely, the voters of the ACT.

P.S. Now please get on with running our glorified city council without bending over and saying “give it to me, big boy” every time your solitary Green MLA mate comes up with a fluffy Utopian thought bubble. You CAN say no to him, it’s not like he’s going to take his bat and ball and let the Libs take over the reins any time soon…

Dear Reprobate,

You speak for yourself, no one else.

You are but one person, not an elected official who can at the very least claim to represent those who voted for them.

Bugger off putting words in other peoples mouths.

Your answer should read:

Dear Simon, No. Reprobate.

“The ACT Government wants to find out if tenants would take into account the energy efficiency of homes when choosing rental properties, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Simon Corbell, said today.”

Dear Simon: No. Yours sincerely, the voters of the ACT.

P.S. Now please get on with running our glorified city council without bending over and saying “give it to me, big boy” every time your solitary Green MLA mate comes up with a fluffy Utopian thought bubble. You CAN say no to him, it’s not like he’s going to take his bat and ball and let the Libs take over the reins any time soon…

thebrownstreak693:48 pm 19 Sep 13

You’d think the ACT Govt would actually take some steps to reduce red tape, rather than constantly creating more of it. What a pack of turkeys!

Pfff
I hope you can follow me now that you bought up Economics 101

This simple subject covers elasticity of demand, which will state some of these costs are passed on to renters while a portion of the cost will be absorbed by the landlord.

There is also the cost of the red tape that is burdened by the ACT government public service that all ratepayers cover.

So yes there will be additional costs, some paid by the landlord, some paid by the renters and yes all of us will pay a small portion so that Mr Corbell can feel warm and fuzzy telling us how “green” our rental properties are.

Do we need it?

Three wrong assumptions here.

The first is that EER ratings are reliable and relevant. There is plenty of criticism of the methodology used to rate the efficiency of buildings. It is far from an exact science, to put it mildly.

Secondly, the EER rating, even if it were accurate for a dwelling as a whole, does not take into account the usage pattern of the rooms. It really doesn’t matter if the spare room or junk room is freezing in winter and boiling in summer. In my house, those rooms serve that function precisely for that reason.

Thirdly, despite the bleatings of the ACT Government, there is not a skerrick of evidence to support the notion that EER ratings have a significant effect on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a home. And, as people have pointed out above, there is no evidence that it would override factors like location, price and amenity for renters either.

My house, for reasons known only to the alchemists who decide these things, has an EER of 3. It faces perfectly north. The living areas and my bedroom are warm in winter and cool in summer. The bits I don’t use much are the reverse. So what? I worked all that out before I bought it by looking at the house in situ and checking on a map for the orientation.

It’s just another bit of red tape which adds no value, but costs us all more. Just another crumb off the cupcake nibbled by these insatiable mice in the bureaucracy.

Absolutely, yes they should provide EER information to prospective tenants. The “more red tape” comment is a bit silly, given you only have to get the inspection done once to get your EER certificate and then again if you make any improvements to the property. And it doesn’t cost all that much either.

It’s been a while since I had to look for a rental (halleluiah) but when I did the last couple of times there is no way that I could’ve been that picky to filter by EER. Even when the market is a bit slow, if you add some unpopular specifics like being single, having a child or pets or working part-time or casual, etc, you’ll still find yourself at the bottom of the list for most properties.

I also don’t think it is fair that tenants “should know from looking at it” what a rental’s energy costs are going to be like. Even the specific brand and model of heater or hws can make a massive difference. And you can’t tell if the walls and roof are adequately insulated either from looking at them from the outside. Which is why you need to pay an expert to assess this to get an EER certificate.

This would be an excellent and long overdue initiative. Not being homeowners, many renters really do not understand what is involved, and therefore what to look for, in an energy efficient house. This is especially so when renters come from interstate or overseas and have no idea how cold/hot Canberra can get.

Since an inefficient house versus an efficient house can easily cost tenants thousands extra just over winter alone, any extra information would be very valuable for them. If some landlords feel suitably compelled to improve the efficiency of their houses this cost might reflect in increased rents (if housing rentals are tight) but any increase should be amortised over time not just recovered in the first year’s rental.

If, as a result of the changes, the rental market were to get tighter or too expensive, perhaps the ACT Government could look at reducing land tax. Though I doubt that there is going to be any problem for tenants renting houses in the ACT over the next few years.

However, having typed all of this, the current EER system still seems a little spurious and subjective and needs improvement.

wildturkeycanoe1:40 pm 19 Sep 13

arescarti42 said :

RedDogInCan said :

Whilst the idea has merit, it won’t make a lick of difference simply because the supply of rental housing is tight. I mean, its not like properties are sitting vacant and tenants get to pick and choose because of an over supply. Even the worst energy efficient house is better than living in a car.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.

“properties are sitting vacant and tenants get to pick and choose because of an over supply” is exactly what is happening at the moment.

Asking rents are falling across the board because of excess supply.

Chop71 said :

FFS – more red tape for the nanny state.

As much as this could be a “good idea” I’m sure when landlords pass on the cost to renters, you will be the same people who complain about the cost of renting and housing in Canberra

That’s not how it works, landlords can’t just “pass on the cost.”

Rents are determined by the market, not by the costs faced by landlords. Setting rents higher than the market price is a good way to end up with a vacant property

This is economics 101 stuff.

Economics 101 is lost when you, as a landlord, can get another $50-100/week for your home if there is solar power on the roof, or the insulation has given it a 5 star energy rating. Why would any landlord spend thousands on their property with no way to make the money back, especially when the property already makes a mint without doing anything to it? When the government starts to subsidize these initiatives though, it’ll be another story altogether.

Great idea, benchmarking is a great way to create competition and is valuable in informing the customer….absolutely create the tenancy EER rating system for rental properties.

We all know electricity prices will continue to increase; forcing the hand of the owner now means standards have to improve and the benefits will filter to the customer.

EER values are an important factor when purchasing a home and should be the same for rental properties.

The anticipated outcome of this scheme can be compared to the discolsure of EER values in commercial buildings. Energy efficient commercial buildings are now the norm with efficiency targets on the increase. Those buildings which choose not to make improvements are the ones that have the ‘For Lease’ sign out the front….you just have to drive down Northbourne Ave to witness this.

…..lets stop debating it and get on with it i say.

Given that since 1999 all new houses and houses on the market need to have EER info, surely many property owners would have this information already.

thebrownstreak6912:48 pm 19 Sep 13

An idea like this will achieve nothing. The older places are colder, the newer places less so. A few new places will be cold too.

When you inspect you can easily tell whether a property/room will get sun or not, and what the heating is.

Arescarti is correct in saying that rents are determined by the market. It’s worth being aware, though, that when landlords get an opportunity to increase rent, pushing extra costs on them just makes them that much more determined to squeeze every drop out. I tend to go easy on rental increases because I want to retain good tenants, but having an extra cost increases the likelihood of passing on a full rise to make up for it.

funbutalsoserious12:44 pm 19 Sep 13

Good idea in principle, however due to the cost if implemented it would surely decrease the quantity of rental properties in Canberra and increase the rental price.

blindcommissioner12:22 pm 19 Sep 13

I think this is an excellent idea. When moving into any new residence regardless of it’s age the hidden costs are always well hidden. To give all consumers a fair and level playing field, the full cost of living should be a disclosed to the consumer where ever possible. How could one possibly budget their financial future without those costs.

RedDogInCan said :

Whilst the idea has merit, it won’t make a lick of difference simply because the supply of rental housing is tight. I mean, its not like properties are sitting vacant and tenants get to pick and choose because of an over supply. Even the worst energy efficient house is better than living in a car.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.

“properties are sitting vacant and tenants get to pick and choose because of an over supply” is exactly what is happening at the moment.

Asking rents are falling across the board because of excess supply.

Chop71 said :

FFS – more red tape for the nanny state.

As much as this could be a “good idea” I’m sure when landlords pass on the cost to renters, you will be the same people who complain about the cost of renting and housing in Canberra

That’s not how it works, landlords can’t just “pass on the cost.”

Rents are determined by the market, not by the costs faced by landlords. Setting rents higher than the market price is a good way to end up with a vacant property

This is economics 101 stuff.

Perhaps the government could have someone go around the city and do an energy efficiency audit (or whatever you call it) on every single dwelling and publish it on a website somewhere. Then if you upgrade something you could pay to get it improved (if you care at all).

FFS – more red tape for the nanny state.

As much as this could be a “good idea” I’m sure when landlords pass on the cost to renters, you will be the same people who complain about the cost of renting and housing in Canberra

Whilst the idea has merit, it won’t make a lick of difference simply because the supply of rental housing is tight. I mean, its not like properties are sitting vacant and tenants get to pick and choose because of an over supply. Even the worst energy efficient house is better than living in a car.

This is a really excellent idea.

I’ve always wondered why you’re required to provide efficiency ratings when selling a house, but not when leasing it.

The difference in operating costs between an efficient, and inefficient house is massive, particularly in a climate like Canberra’s.

Probably the key to making it a successful initiative will be ensuring that providing that information doesn’t impose unreasonable costs on landlords.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.