Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

[James E. Braun, CMI]

This whole bill is far from passing.
Sad but true.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by gfitzgerald

So is this a done deal in some form or another ? Just how will the Gov. handle the REO market ? The banks do not even have to get a SOE or supply the buyer with a disclosure. Will the buyer have to bring the property to code at some point in time.

Gary, what most industry leaders are looking for is to establish a rating system for current housing stock.

I know everyone has an opinion on this but the fact remains that we as a country need to address our energy consumption before we have a crisis and not after.

[Gary Farnsworth]

Again, energy consumption will never go down; it is all due to the population growth of the U.S. and of the world. Save energy here, sell what is left to other countries. Retro fitting older homes with new upgrades as I stated will cause homeowners to walk away from their homes if they decide to sell. This is especially true in low income areas, where there are millions of homes under 100k, which may need over 50K to bring up to fed standards. The homes will still only be worth 100K, and not worth fixing up. This can, and most likely will, affect all homes over 50 years of age. How many homes nationwide is that? Is the government going to give home owners all of this money to retro fit their homes?

[Peter C. Russell]

Gary, your analyse couldn't more incorrect. I am involved in weatherization on a daily basis and most improvements can be made for less than 5k and result in up to 20% in fuel savings.

I was also very skeptical about widespread weatherization but now that I see it first hand I know it can work. Instead of guessing what you think might happen maybe you should get involved and find out what's going on at your state and local level.

I've been doing thermography for three years, started doing energy audits and bought a blower door in March, I'm a member of the Building performance Institute, Efficiency First and locally the Residential Energy Performance Association. At yesterdays REPA meeting the five leading organisation in the state of NH spoke, these are BPI, Leeds, HERS, NAHB, and Build Green NH. In attendance where representatives from the utilities companies, each state weatherization agency, auditors and contractors like myself.

When you look at whats being done presently you begin to understand that these goals are achievable. Is the system perfect, no, far from it, but it's a start.

In NH we have severe winters and when oil went up to or was projected to go up to 4.50 per gallon it was going to cost app. 4-5k per season to heat the average home. The same goes for warmer climates with cooling. I took m BPI training in Phoenix where their cooling issue's in the summer mirror our heating issues in the winter.

Gary, you speak of how your business is dropping off, that state laws are forcing you out of business, well are you doing anything about it? Maybe you should look at whats really going on in your area and find some new business opportunities like I have. From everything I hear and read when we start to come out of this recession we will go into a inflationary period which all our cost of goods will increase, oil being the one that will hurt most of us.

I choose to be part of a solution and not b!tch about the problem.

I should also state that I am strongly against the cap and trade bill and believe these programs can be funded with budget cuts and throwing out the damn health care bill.

I should also add that the energy audit has a ROI and no upgrades should be recommended without one.

[gfitzgerald]

Cash for Caulkers could mean $12K per home

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
On 6:24 pm EST, Tuesday December 8, 2009
Buzz up! 896
Print
President Obama proposed a new program Tuesday that would reimburse homeowners for energy-efficient appliances and insulation, part of a broader plan to stimulate the economy.

The administration didn't provide immediate details, but said it would work with Congress on crafting legislation. Steve Nadel, director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, who's helping write the bill, said a homeowner could receive up to $12,000 in rebates.

The proposal is part of the President's larger spending plan, which also includes money for small businesses, renewable energy manufacturing, and infrastructure.

We know energy efficiency "creates jobs, saves money for families, and reduces the pollution that threatens our environment," Obama said. "With additional resources, in areas like advanced manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, we can help turn good ideas into good private-sector jobs."

The program contains two parts: money for homeowners for efficiency projects, and money for companies in the renewable energy and efficiency space.

The plan will likely create a new program where private contractors conduct home energy audits, buy the necessary gear and install it, according to a staffer on the Senate Energy Committee and Nadel at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Big-ticket items like air conditioners, heating systems, washing machines, refrigerators, windows and insulation would likely be covered, Nadel said.

Consumers might be eligible for a 50% rebate on both the price of the equipment and the installation, up to $12,000, said Nadel. So far, there is no income restriction on who is eligible. That would mean a household could spend as much as $24,000 on upgrades and get half back.

Homes that take full advantage of the program could see their energy bills drop as much as 20%, he said. The program is expected to cost in the $10 billion range.

It's not clear how the home efficiency plan would be administered - the government may issue rebates to consumers directly, homeowners might get a tax credit, or the program could be run via state agencies.

If consumers have to spend a lot of money up front to get the credit, it could throw a wrench in the works, David Kreutzer, an energy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, told CNN.

"This will not be something that's attractive to people who are having trouble already making their budget payments month to month or week to week," he said.

To keep consumers from having to spend thousands of dollars before getting reimbursed, Nadel said, one idea is to have contractors or big box retailers pay part of the cost up front.

Fraud issues could also come up, Kreutzer said.

"Any program that is going to run through a third party and is going to distribute billions of dollars needs to have lots of checks and balances to make sure there's not abuse," he said.

Nadel noted that as a way to guard against fraud, contractors would have to be certified to participate.

Energy company boost

Obama's new spending plan also calls for renewable energy companies to get additional support. That could come in the form of loan guarantees - basically, money the government uses to secure loans for startups.

In the original stimulus bill passed earlier this year, $6 billion was earmarked for such loan guarantees. But then lawmakers took away $2 billion to fund Cash for Clunkers - the popular program that paid people to turn in their old cars.

The $4 billion from the original bill has funded about $40 billion in loans, said the staffer on the Senate Energy Committee. Meanwhile, firms are hoping for another $4 billion in loan guarantees, since they have another $40 billion worth of projects that need funding.

A bill on energy efficiency reimbursements already has supporters in the Senate.

"Not only will [such legislation] increase our energy security and transform our energy infrastructure to a modern, clean and efficient one," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., wrote in a recent op-ed column in the Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper. "But it also will position the United States to lead in the development of clean energy technologies."

[Joe Farsetta]

I actually believe that some of the provisions of the bill, especially as it pertains to retrofits having nothing to do with safety, may be deemed legal but unenforceable.

Some provisions may wind up being struck down by the courts, especially in those cases involving hardship or potential hardship. The housing market is in the crapper, and denying someone the ability to sell their home, and retain any equity, while escaping a poor jobs market, or high taxes, or high utility bills, or whatever, will not stand.

With the president and congress with the lowest approval ratings in history, I am not sure how far any of these politicians are willint to stick their necks out. This will be especially true if a handfull of companies, orgs, or training providers hold the keys to approving the energy efficiency of these homes...

[Gary Farnsworth]

If your home has a low number, and you want/need/have to sell it, it will need a high number even to be allowed to be sold. This may mean new energy efficent doors, windows, appliances, HVAC, insulation, etc. all just to sell it. I heard cap and trade bill is dead, but with the wheeling and dealing going on with health care, and the holidays coming, who knows what will happen.

As far as business, I had 8 inspections in November, my worse month in over 9 years. I advertise on radio, The Real Estate Book, Keller-Williams folders, 3,000 fliers delivered, and 8 inspections. I also do e-mail blasts, and up-date my web site daily. The largest RE company in KC sold 2,000 homes in November. We here in KC are at a loss at who inspected these homes, but most agree that they are all as-is, and are not getting inspected. RE's may be suggesting that the buyer not get an inspection, since the home is "as is" anyway, so save that $300. We do not know what is really going on, as my agents i work with all say the same thing; slow, due to the economy. I will be on the radio live this Sunday, to help push the importance of home inspections. I am doing about all I can to stay in business. I think many inspectors have taken regular jobs here. Dan Bowers is in Texas, as his business here is zero. As of today, only 40 inspectors have registered in Kansas to be licensed. The effective date is only three weeks away.

[klott]

Originally Posted by gfarnsworth

Again, energy consumption will never go down; it is all due to the population growth of the U.S. and of the world. Save energy here, sell what is left to other countries. Retro fitting older homes with new upgrades as I stated will cause homeowners to walk away from their homes if they decide to sell. This is especially true in low income areas, where there are millions of homes under 100k, which may need over 50K to bring up to fed standards. The homes will still only be worth 100K, and not worth fixing up. This can, and most likely will, affect all homes over 50 years of age. How many homes nationwide is that? Is the government going to give home owners all of this money to retro fit their homes?

Don't worry Gary, Zero will just come up with a Cash for Chunkers program!
The government will pay you $50,000 to not throw your house away, but you must buy one with a higher efficiency number than the one you may chunk.

[Gary Farnsworth]

You never know. How about cash for cabins? I like Tiger Wood's wifes idea; chunks for hunks.

[klott]

Tiger is writing a new book,"How to take you Mother in Law out under par!"

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

"THE BIGGEST TAX IN AMERICAN HISTORY!"

This quote is from the following article in the Wall Street Journal.
{Note: I do not pay for or subscribe to ANY newspaper.}

I have done a "Cut & Paste" of their article and have taken the liberty of underlining and putting in Bold and or Italics sentences or phrases that I thought merited special attention.
Some of the paragraphs were “long” and in my opinion hard to read so I also added some “spacing” between sentences”

In my opinion ALL of us should stop being complacent and get up out of our chairs and call our Senators / Congressmen and tell them to vote “NO” on this bill!


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers.

The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175.00 a year by 2020.
Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household.

Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity.

Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats.

The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in.

As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon.

The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy.


The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

• The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill.

The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less.

These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars.


Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment.

• Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax.

Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four.

As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.


Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole.

• It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas.

Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

• Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming.
  
  
  
  
  During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments:
  one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon;
  
  
  one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009;
  
  
  and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%.
  
  
  
  Democrats defeated all of them.
  
  

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change.

• What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in.

A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing.


Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.


Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.

Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
End Quote of the Wall Street Journal:

It is time to wake up America!

[Patrick Carter]

[Nick Gromicko]

Wow, do you see how many views there are for this thread?

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Wow, do you see how many views there are for this thread?

Yesterday

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home (1 2 3)

Frank M. Carrio, CMI 12/10/09 4:00 PM 40 43,937 VIEWS

Today

by Frank M. Carrio, CMI

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home ( 1 2 3)

Frank M. Carrio, CMI 12/11/09 10:09 PM by Nick G. 42 44,772 VIEWS


For every comment, there are approximately 10,000 views!


This can be attributed to the fact that the American People are waking up to the fact that not all “Change” is good.

For Example…. just because you did not have Cancer and now you do is not a good “Change” in your lifestyle.
{You can prevent this "Cap & Trade" from spreading!}

Socialized Government has been tried and history has shown us that this type of “Change” is good for the politicians and the people in power but…. It is not good for the people!

I urge EVERYONE who has read this thread to contact your Congressman / Congresswomen and Senator and ask them to vote AGAINST this bill!

Don’t wait for anyone else to “come to the rescue” .... pick up the phone..... do it today!

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/epa-admits-cap-and-trade-won%e2%80%99t-work/



EPA Admits Cap-and-Trade Won’t Work

• Posted July 8th, 2009 at 5.21pm in Energy and Environment.

With the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passing the House on June 26th, we turn our attention to the Senate side of the debate. And it’s already starting:
Cabinet officials pressed President Barack Obama’s case for climate-change and clean-energy legislation at a Senate hearing on Tuesday as lawmakers clashed over whether a ‘cap-and-trade’ system for cutting greenhouse gases would help the U.S. economy or hurt it.

‘Denial of the climate-change problem will not change our destiny; a comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will,’ said Energy Secretary Steven Chu in remarks before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. Chu and the secretaries of agriculture and interior joined the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency in making Mr. Obama’s case to generally supportive Democrats and skeptical Republicans.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the panel’s top Republican, said the cap-and-trade system would amount to the largest tax increase in American history, a statement echoed by many Republicans but shot down by Democrats including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who chairs the committee.

‘There are no new taxes,’ Ms. Boxer said Tuesday morning.”

• No new taxes? What do you call the estimated $5.7 trillion from 2012-2035 (The Brookings Institute estimates $9 trillion from 2012-2050) in revenue the government expects to collect from this bill? That’s right: they call it climate revenue.

Moreover, it should be a red flag when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits cap-and-trade won’t work. At yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee,

EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

• Getting China and India on board with a carbon reduction plan is highly unlikely. Even then, a multilateral approach does not guarantee a successful system or the ultimate goal of global temperature reduction.
• Take a look at Europe:

Cap-and-trade regimes have advantages, notably the ability to set a limit on emissions and to integrate with other countries. But they are complex and vulnerable to lobbying and special pleading, and they do not guarantee success.

The experience of the European Union is Exhibit A. Emissions targets were set too high. Too many pollution allowances were given away to industry. The value of a carbon credit plummeted.

• Companies made windfall profits by charging customers more for energy while selling allowances they didn’t need.

And the Europeans have not had much success reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Disputes on the next round of reductions led to the creation of a two-tiered system to appease Eastern European countries fearful of the cost to their industries.”

Complex. Vulnerable to lobbying. Handouts to industry. Sound familiar?

For more, Check out Heritage’s Cap and Trade Rapid Response Page.

• Author: Nick Loris