Friday, October 2, 2026
The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance requiring home sellers to conduct Home Energy Score assessments when listing a house for sale.
The decision makes the county the first in the nation to mandate such a program, said Ashley Arai, Director of the county’s Community Planning and Economic Development Department.
The board voted 4-0-1 to pass the ordinance on Tuesday, March 17, with Commissioner Wayne Fournier abstaining due to concerns about the county's legal authority to implement the program.
A Home Energy Score is a U.S. Department of Energy standardized rating system that evaluates a home's energy efficiency.
The ordinance requires home sellers to hire a private assessor to perform a Home Energy Score assessment, which would take a few hours and cost between $150 and $350.
Arai said the ordinance doesn't require homeowners to make efficiency improvements to their homes before selling. She added that low-income households are exempt from the program and could benefit from subsidized assessments if funding is available.
The program is scheduled to take effect in about a year in order to allow for community education and workforce development efforts to train more inspectors.
Before the board voted on the ordinance, 15 people spoke during the public comments section of the meeting, with supporters and critics being nearly split on the issue.
Supporters emphasized the ordinance would help the county meet regional climate goals and protect the environment for future generations. Some supporters said the assessment costs would be a minor burden to sellers, while the fees would be minimal compared to the average home price in the county.
Critics talked about impacts on sellers and concerns regarding implementation. Some people said actual assessment costs would exceed estimations the county is providing, while noting there is a lack of qualified inspectors.
Thurston County Realtors Association President Dawn Baker said the group opposes the ordinance in its current form.
While acknowledging the county’s climate goals, Baker requested a pause before the board considered adoption of the ordinance and called for a work session with real estate practitioners to address outstanding issues.
She said the additional meeting would ensure the ordinance reflects accurate and consistent real estate industry terms and clarify how compliance is managed.
Baker added the board should consider removing the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, an industry database and listing service, as an enforcement body. She said its system was not designed for regulatory compliance.
Before the vote, all of the commissioners explained their stance on the ordinance.
Commissioner Wayne Fournier expressed reservations about the county’s legal ability to mandate the program.
“I asked very plainly for a written legal opinion saying that we have the authority,” Fournier said. “If I had that, I would feel comfortable in a lot of different ways about this. I didn't get that. Instead, we got an email that was very broad and simply stated what the county's legislative authority is.”
He said staff said the county does not have expressed legal authority, but may have implied authority. Fournier said relying on implied authority could expose the county to lawsuits.
He noted the Washington Legislature has failed repeatedly to pass similar legislation, which he said is indicative the authority does not exist at the local level.
He also expressed concern over Thurston County becoming the first county in the nation to implement such a mandate.
“Being the first is cool, but being the first is dangerous. I like the concept, I like the intention, but we don't have a lot of money to play around with,” Fournier said.
Commissioner Emily Clouse focused on a provision of the ordinance protecting households that can’t afford the assessment.
She said residents earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income are exempt, which in Thurston County are individuals earning no more than $65,000 and two-person households earning no more than $74,000 per year.
She added that federal and tribal properties are exempt, as is anyone who can demonstrate undue hardship.
“The county would subsidize the Home Energy Score ordinance for those (people) who can't afford it, or if the county can't afford it, those people would just be exempt,” Clouse said.
Commissioner Carolina Mejia spoke about how long it has taken for the ordinance to be brought up for consideration. She said the ordinance is the result of a six-year regional effort through the Thurston Climate Mitigation Collaborative.
She disputed claims stakeholders were excluded, noting years of focus groups and listening sessions involving realtors, home inspectors, builders, lenders and energy professionals.
“I think the fact that there's not agreement today does not mean that there was not engagement,” Mejia said.
She also acknowledged the request to take a pause before approving the ordinance, but said the county is already delaying implementation by a year.
“I think staff and the board kind of set this long implementation period of a year because this engagement is not going to stop here. It's going to continue as that implementation starts taking effect,” she said.
Commissioner Rachel Grant said she approved of the ordinance.
“To build a more sustainable future for my kids is a big reason that I came along and decided to put my name out there to become a commissioner. I have to think about what my kids are going to deal with in 80 years,” Grant said.
She also disagreed with Fournier’s assessment of the legal advice.
“I think Wayne and I were at completely different meetings,” Grant said. “I wrote down very specifically that we have implied and expressed authority to move forward legally.”
Board Chair Tye Menser echoed Grant, saying his understanding also differed from Fournier’s interpretation.
In response, Fournier repeated his remarks but held back as his fellow commissioners advised him he was touching on confidential issues that were discussed in executive session.
22 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
TheGreatAnon
Oh FFS! Every Commissioners will tell you affordable housing is a top priority then turn around & make housing more expensive.
I'm far from anti-gumint kook but this proposal is jaw droppingly dumb
Wednesday, March 18 Report this
BobJacobs
Looks like another heavy-handed one size fits all enactment.
Buyers can insist on an HES assessment as a condition of purchase. No need for government intervention.
And what about buyers who don't care about an HES assessment? The money spent on it would just be wasted.
We don't need our governments to be involved in every detail of our lives.
Bob Jacobs
Wednesday, March 18 Report this
TheVirtualOne
Bob Jacobs took the words right out of my mouth. Couldn’t have said it better.
Wednesday, March 18 Report this
Tgcrawford
This is a fair, moderate measure that makes progress on reducing energy bills while reducing our carbon pollution. Congrats to the County Commissioners for their leadership. When our children & grandchildren look back on this action they will be grateful we did not let our fears and negative thinking rule the day.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
jimLacey
So, federal and tribal properties are exempt, as is anyone who can demonstrate undue hardship. In other words, it really isn't that important or useful. The article never really mentioned what the purpose of this is supposed to be. Other than a vague reference to "would help the county meet regional climate goals and protect the environment for future generations" without ever providing any actual data or research showing how that would happen.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
MargaretDorothy
“A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.” This is exactly what the Democrats are going. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/other/the-curley-effect/
Thursday, March 19 Report this
C K
Clearly, there is too much government overreach, already, at every level. Time for citizens to step up for less government.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
OlyAnon
So, if there has been 6 years of "engagement" why are there not adequate certified energy assessors available in Thurston County, thus a year required to prepare to implement after passing. Shouldn't all the necessary resources be in place at the time of implementation. Just like Olympia's rental registry ordinance is a failure because they were not prepared operationally (broken website, lack of staff, etc) Any potential home buyer can request an energy score on a home they are considering as part of their offer, just like a home inspection, septic inspection, etc. This is another example of government over reach and is reckless with tax dollars as their will be civil litigation.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
Several cities in the US do this. It’s actually a Trump government policy, though most people don’t know that. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/home-energy-assessments
If I were on a fixed income and looking for a home, I would definitely benefit from this. It helps buyers avoid a lemon. And most sellers are also buyers. It also helps realtors make more money from energy efficient homes—they can list them for more. Markets work best when there is transparency for both parties.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
Patriot
Another government mandate. It's not needed and shouldn't be required. Why not make it part of the option on the Purchase and Sale agreement like the home inspection is. If the buyer wants this then let them pay for it, not the seller. They say it's only $350.00. Right. No infrastructure in place so it could be $750.00 but that doesn't seem to matter to this group. It's always someone else's money they love spending. WE need less government intervention, not more. The high cost of housing is a DIRECT reflection of government mandates and requirements.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
JW
Crying about affordable housing on one side and passing costly regulations on the other.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@TheGreatAnon, @Patriot, and @JW, This is definitely going to help make things more affordable for those who need it most. If I'm on a tight budget and a fixed income, I really want to know in advance if a home's energy costs are going to be manageable on my fixed income. Once I buy the home, if I unknowingly bought a lemon, it's too late and I'll be stuck with high utility bills for years. Energy costs are the second biggest expense of homeowners.
Also, it's not true that this info is already available to buyers who just ask for it. The information is often incomplete, inconsistent, or based on how the current occupant uses the home — not the home itself. Most buyers don’t know what to ask for, and by the time they do, they may already be under contract. The Home Energy Score simply provides a standardized, upfront way to compare homes — so buyers aren’t guessing about one of the largest ongoing costs they’ll face.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
TheGreatAnon
Rhonda, Caveat emptor. Energy efficiency is different from affordability. Ask the seller about the home's EE. Ask if the seller about any upgrades they made and if they say they did, demand receipts. Demand to see a few years of past utility bills. If you don't like the answers, walk away. Empower yourself.
Government plays a critical role in keeping assholes from ripping off the less powerful. KInda the Raison d'être for liberal democracy. This proposal doesn't come close to doing that.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
2theroots
Adding a one time fee of between 200 and 300 does not make unaffordable housing. Giving people the information so they can take out a loan big enough to make their house energy efficient makes their housing affordable over time as PSE raises our rates more and more and more.
PSE's comparison is meaningless, and sellers do not have to show you their energy bills and even if they did two people can live in a house and have very different consumption. No matter what you ask for you will not have apples to apples comparisons - unless you have a standardized energy score. And this can not just be handled through the home inspection because that happens after you have already made a bid on the house - this is trying to help people choose wisely. The home inspection also does not make energy improvement recommendations.
The current business as usual path we were on will kill off the generation being born now from climate change. We have to make actual changes and this is a small inconvenience compared to what our children and their children will encounter....get perspective folks.
Thursday, March 19 Report this
JW
Pay more in regulations and taxes or else the current generation will die. Thanks for the morning laugh.
Friday, March 20 Report this
MHoraney
In addition to this being "a solution in search of a problem" the process to get here is horribly incomplete.
Note that Commissioner Carolina Mejia cited the stakeholders who were in focus groups - realtors, home inspectors, builders, lenders and energy professionals - but RESIDENTS AND OWNERS OF HOMES are not on the list.
WHY?
This is utterly ridiculous to have NOT included home owners in this as they are specifically involved and targeted by this program and law.
Sadly, I've found - as I prepare to speak against this plan on March 24 at the Olympia City Council - that the City of Olympia also did not include home owners in their focus groups about the program.
On that point alone, this is a failure and needs to be tabled on the county and city (Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey) level.
And the next iteration of this plan absolutely needs to be voluntary.
And the voluntary plan must involve long and excellent promotion (this plan is dropped like a bag of anvils on owners) and include incentives (!) to engage such as local discounts on new appliances or generous $$$ grants to make changes and upgrades.
We can find info right now from PSE and with current owners about energy use and age/condition of appliances and large components like roofs and windows and doors.
The exact citation from the article is: "Commissioner Carolina Mejia spoke about how long it has taken for the ordinance to be brought up for consideration. She said the ordinance is the result of a six-year regional effort through the Thurston Climate Mitigation Collaborative.
She disputed claims stakeholders were excluded, noting years of focus groups and listening sessions involving realtors, home inspectors, builders, lenders and energy professionals. "
Friday, March 20 Report this
ddttwo2
@Rondalarsonkramer
It is NOT mandated by Trump!! Why go there? It is "suggested" by the dept of energy to do an assessment and there is a DIY youtube video to help. We don't need local government telling us what we "NEED" anymore. If you were on a Fixed Income as you stated, you would write that into your purchase agreement as part of your requirement to purchase that specific structure.
Friday, March 20 Report this
Boatyarddog
TRUMP says this"we have implied and expressed authority to move forward legally.” About the Tarriffs, Iran War, On and On. I stand with those that want a choice in the matter of Basically a " disclosure by the Seller" and Only if it is a written request paid for in buyers funds. Also, this cannot be for our childrens Future. Why? Because it has NO.ability to require Upgrades to offset energy Expenditures paid for by Sellers or buyers... Very MURKY LEGAL GROUNDS indeed.
COMMISSIONERS BE WARNED!! LAWSUITS are expensive for taxpayers.
Saturday, March 21 Report this
robpen
RondaLarsonKramer is absolutely right: affordability isn’t just about the purchase price—it’s about the monthly costs. Many people in their 20s and 30s struggle to buy a home, but if they end up with a mortgage they can barely afford, high utility bills can push them into serious financial distress—or even force them to sell or face foreclosure.
For buyers who can more comfortably afford a home, a professional energy assessment can guide renovations that pay for themselves quickly through energy savings. In some very inefficient homes, improvements can recoup costs in just months. With energy prices rising due to conflicts abroad, these payback periods are shrinking even further.
For sellers, the cost of an energy assessment—a few hundred dollars—is a tiny fraction of a home’s value, and it can help them market their property more effectively.
Regarding workforce development, training the assessors needed couldn’t have been done before the legislation passed, when the demand was only speculative. Washington State University’s Energy Program in Olympia have provided home energy assessments and assessor training for years, and these resources can support the necessary workforce growth before implementation.
Energy-efficient homes aren’t just cheaper to run—they’re healthier, more comfortable, and quieter. Well-insulated walls and multi-pane windows eliminate drafts and outside noise. Properly sealed ducts prevent contaminants from entering living spaces.
Finally, reducing energy use also protects our environment, mitigating climate change, air pollution, and the impacts of fossil fuel extraction. As a parent and grandparent, I care deeply about the world my children and grandchildren will inherit, and energy-efficient homes are one step we can take to leave them a healthier planet.
I applaud the County Commissioners for being national leaders on this important issue. I also encourage realtors to embrace the many benefits of these energy assessments for their clients—helping buyers make smarter, more affordable choices, and helping sellers highlight the value of their homes.
Sunday, March 22 Report this
Yeti1981
There’s a lot being said here about transparency and climate goals, but we need to be clear about what this policy actually does.
This does not require a single energy upgrade. It requires a report before someone can list their home. That means added cost, added time, and added friction at the front of every transaction.
In a market where homes are already over $500,000, even small increases matter. That’s how people get priced out.
The bigger issue is how this was justified. The case presented to decision makers leaned heavily on modeling and projected outcomes, but did not include the strongest real world evidence on how these policies actually perform. There is data on this. There's a Berkeley Lab study that wasn't included in presentations to those voting. It looked at tens of thousands of home sales and found the impacts are modest and that these scores do not reliably drive upgrades or meaningful behavior change. The score functions as a label in the transaction, not a catalyst.
At the same time, even in this article, you see real concerns raised before adoption. Questions about actual costs, lack of trained assessors, transaction impacts, and even legal authority. Those aren’t minor details. They go directly to whether this can function in the real world.
You also see the assumption that buyers will use this information to make upgrades or that costs can be rolled into financing. That sounds good in theory, but it runs into reality. Appraisals do not consistently recognize the value of those upgrades, which means buyers can’t easily finance them and sellers don’t recover the cost. That’s one of the biggest reasons these upgrades don’t happen at scale.
Everyone wants more efficient homes and better information for buyers. That’s not the debate. The question is whether this specific policy actually delivers those outcomes.
Right now, it adds a requirement to every home sale without requiring a single improvement, based largely on projected benefits rather than demonstrated results.
The truth is the science is outpacing the advocacy on this.
Wednesday, March 25 Report this
Yeti1981
@RondaLarsonKramer I don’t think anyone disagrees that better information for buyers is a good thing. The question is whether this policy actually delivers the outcomes being claimed.
This isn’t just about “transparency.” It’s a mandatory requirement placed on every seller before they can list their home. That adds cost and friction to every transaction whether a buyer values the information or not.
On the idea that this helps affordability, the evidence just doesn’t support that at scale. The best real-world data we have shows these scores have modest impacts and do not reliably drive upgrades. Most people don’t make the recommended improvements, and one of the main reasons is financing. Those costs are not consistently recognized in appraised value, so buyers can’t easily roll them into a loan and sellers don’t recover them. That gap matters.
On the “avoid a lemon” point, buyers already have tools to evaluate a home, inspections, utility history, disclosures, and they can request additional information as part of a transaction. This policy doesn’t replace those, it adds another required step regardless of whether it changes the outcome.
And while it’s true other cities have implemented similar programs, that’s exactly why looking at real-world results matters. The data we have shows the impact is limited and the behavior change is modest.
Everyone wants more efficient homes and better information. The issue is whether this specific tool actually drives that in practice.
Also, the Trump government policy claim simply isn't true.
Just to clarify, the Home Energy Score itself is a federal tool that’s been around for well over a decade across multiple administrations. It was not created as a mandate and it’s not a federal requirement to use it in real estate transactions.
There’s a big difference between a voluntary tool that homeowners or buyers can choose to use and a local policy that requires every seller to obtain it before listing their home.
That distinction matters, because the question here isn’t whether the tool exists. It’s whether mandating it at the front of every transaction actually delivers the outcomes being claimed.
Wednesday, March 25 Report this
coordinator
The biggest problem with this new mandate is that it is totally misleading. Our neighbor across the street has a heat pump. We do not have one. They will get a better score simply from having it, but their energy bills are higher than ours because the heat pump literally runs all the time. And it doesn't keep the house cool in the summer. So, this new score is totally misleading! Our neighbors regret buying the heat pump! What a waste they say! And they paid a lot more for it! No heat scores! No heat pumps! What a total BS! The commissioners failed to thoroughly do their homework! Now we're stuck with a new, costly, misleading requirement! They need to revisit this and do it correctly this time! Capital Heating and Cooling told us the truth years ago when we had to replace our furnace and air conditioner. I ask them about heat pumps. They said no! The truth! Save your money they said! Commissioners, please revisit this and re-vote after you ask the experts.
Wednesday, April 1 Report this