Renfrew Report… Governmnet mandated score to sell your home? I don’t think so!
Government Mandates Make Housing More Expensive — Why Thurston County’s Proposed Energy Score Requirement Is the Wrong Approach
By Arron Renfrew | Asset Manager | Renfrew Team | AUM Real Estate
Housing in Washington State is already expensive. As someone who works daily in the housing market, I see firsthand how policy decisions ripple through the real estate ecosystem. Every additional regulation, fee, or requirement imposed on homeowners ultimately shows up in one place: the price buyers pay.
That’s why I strongly oppose the proposal in Thurston County that would require sellers to obtain a Home Energy Score before listing their home for sale.
While it may sound harmless on the surface, the reality is that policies like this represent another layer of government interference in private housing transactions, and those layers accumulate until housing becomes even more expensive and more difficult to sell.
What the Proposal Would Do
The proposal being considered in Thurston County would require homeowners to obtain a Home Energy Score—a standardized efficiency rating typically ranging from 1 to 10—before listing a property for sale.
To obtain the score, sellers must hire a certified assessor to evaluate:
Insulation
Heating systems
Windows
Overall energy efficiency
The evaluation typically costs $150–$350 per home.
Supporters argue that the score would give buyers more information about potential utility costs and encourage energy efficiency upgrades.
But there’s an important question policymakers should ask before mandating anything in the housing market:
Is this information valuable enough that buyers would voluntarily request it?
If the answer is yes, then it does not need to be mandated.
Information Should Be Optional — Not Government-Mandated
I have no issue with energy scores themselves. In fact, I support giving buyers as much information as possible.
If energy efficiency is important to a buyer, they should absolutely be encouraged to obtain a home energy evaluation during the inspection process.
But there is a major difference between:
Encouraging information, and
Mandating government-approved documentation before someone can sell their own property.
In a free country, homeowners should not need to obtain a government-approved rating before selling their house.
The Real Cost of “Small” Regulations
Policies like this are often described as “minor requirements,” but in real estate, small costs compound quickly.
Selling a home in Washington already involves:
Listing preparation costs
Inspection negotiations
Excise taxes
Title and escrow fees
Compliance disclosures
Repair negotiations
Adding another mandated report might seem small in isolation, but collectively these requirements raise transaction costs across the entire market.
And when transaction costs rise, home prices rise as well.
Economic research consistently shows that regulatory burdens increase housing costs. Studies analyzing housing markets in heavily regulated states have found that regulatory costs can account for 20–30% of the price of housing in some markets.
Washington is already facing a severe housing affordability crisis. The last thing we need is more regulatory friction in the home-selling process.
The Hidden Impact on Older Homes
Another issue that isn’t getting enough attention is how policies like this affect older housing stock.
Many homes built before modern efficiency standards could receive lower energy scores, even if they are perfectly livable and well maintained.
That could create:
Unnecessary stigma around older homes
Pressure on sellers to make costly upgrades
Reduced buyer interest due to misunderstood ratings
In a market where we already have a housing shortage, the last thing policymakers should do is create policies that discourage transactions or complicate sales.
Markets Solve This Better Than Government
The real estate market already has a mechanism for buyers who care about energy efficiency:
Inspections and voluntary assessments.
Buyers regularly request specialized inspections for things that matter to them:
Sewer scopes
Structural inspections
Environmental testing
Energy audits
If energy efficiency becomes a top priority for buyers, the market will naturally respond.
Inspectors will offer the service.
Sellers will voluntarily provide reports to attract buyers.
And homes with better efficiency will command higher prices.
That’s how markets are supposed to work.
Mandating the process through government regulation simply removes choice and increases cost.
Housing Affordability Should Be the Priority
Washington’s housing crisis isn’t caused by a lack of energy scores.
It’s caused by insufficient housing supply, rising construction costs, and an increasingly complex regulatory environment.
Every time government adds another requirement to buying or selling a home, it creates more friction in the system.
More friction means:
Higher costs
Slower transactions
Fewer homes entering the market
And ultimately, higher prices for buyers.
A Better Approach
If policymakers truly want to promote energy efficiency in housing, there are far better ways to do it:
Provide tax incentives for energy upgrades
Offer rebates for insulation or efficient heating systems
Encourage voluntary energy evaluations during inspections
These policies reward good behavior instead of punishing homeowners with mandates.
Final Thoughts
Energy efficiency is a worthwhile goal. But forcing homeowners to obtain a government-mandated energy score before selling their home is not the right way to achieve it.
Buyers who care about energy performance should absolutely be encouraged to obtain that information.
But in a free housing market, that choice should belong to buyers and sellers—not the government.
If Washington wants housing to become more affordable, the solution isn’t more regulations.
The solution is less interference and more housing supply.
Arron Renfrew
Asset Manager | Renfrew Team
AUM Real Estate
