Eighth, rating processes must not neglect the potential of thermal imaging. While the technology is still in the early stages of testing and development, it has the potential to provide a visual of retrofit needs, as seen in Massachusetts. Finally, implementing labeling for only part of the housing market, as in New York and Seattle, limits its impact. Granted, New York officials are intentionally targeting only the city’s largest buildings in the Greener Greater Buildings Plan; nonetheless, in both New York and Seattle, home buyers and prospective tenants are able to understand building energy performance for only parts of the residential market. Labeling requirements for the whole residential market mean that prospective homeowners can view the building energy performance of any home. (Austin comes close, by providing transparency for the multifamily rental market and, separately, for the purchase of single-family homes.)
Issues with Current Approaches to Disclosure The approaches to disclosure described in the case studies vary significantly, with several shortcomings among them. Seattle’s approach to disclosure is the best approach among the four case studies for delivering more complete information on energy performance to market stakeholders. First, fully public disclosure may not be appropriate for all residential sectors. New York’s fully public disclosure means that anyone who wishes to know the energy performance of a covered building can do so. This is, in effect, fully public transparency. However, it is unlikely that this approach can be extended to single-family homes or small multi-unit buildings, as discussed in the Massachusetts case study, as this would violate reasonable expectations of privacy. Second, requirements to disclose building performance only when the transaction is nearly complete are ineffective. In Austin, the City saw the initial requirement to share the energy audit at time of closing as insufficient and improved ECAD to require disclosure during the option period.
70