Arizona Daily Sun
(Editor’s note: Posted editorials do not necessarily reflect the opnions of Rose Law Group.)
Everyone can agree that saving energy and lowering utility bills are good things.
But should those goals become government mandates? And if so, how much should they cost?
Those seemed to be the key questions that divided the Flagstaff City Council Tuesday night as it wrestled with amendments to the building code that went far beyond structural safety. The changes would require thicker insulation, better weather-stripping and other measures designed to waste less heat and thus save energy.
The measures would increase the cost of a new house in Flagstaff by an estimated $2,300. Buyers would recoup that extra cost through lower energy bills and go on to save more than $5,700 over the course of a 30-year mortgage. And some banks have already changed their lending standards for so-called “green mortgages” to reflect the lower monthly utility costs.
But what if a builder simply didn’t want to offer those energy-efficient amenities? And what if a buyer wanted to pay less up front for a house in Flagstaff, then save energy on his own by, say, turning the thermostat way down? Should there be an option to waste energy in the private sector when doing so imposes substantial costs on the general public?
