When I wrote my post on Section 304 of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill late Tuesday night, I really had no idea that it would draw the kind of attention it did. As of 9 P.M. Thuesday night, the post had over 14,000 hits and was still climbing. I had visions of computer techs running around stuffing bags of ice against a white-hot server and weeping as the machines screamed under the load. Okay, it was only one vision and I was pretty tired at the time, but you have to admit it was a pretty cool vision.
Since it was published, it's drawn over 50 comments here, and many more on other sites that linked to the post (thank you to all the linkers, by the way). Some of the comments raised objections to a couple points I made or asked for some more explanation so, with my editor's permission, I'd like to revise and extend my remarks here. Most of those particular comments came in one of three flavors.
1) The section on energy efficiency labeling only pertains to new homes built after the law is passed.
This is the most common response by supporters of the bill. They build their argument around paragraph (m) of Section 204, which says, "This section shall apply only to construction beginning after the date of enactment of this Act", which they say means only the construction of new buildings. That's not what the bill says, though. The bill specifically uses the word "construction", which any reasonable person would say could mean renovations or repairs as well. After all, construction companies do a lot more than build houses. This is a non-trivial issue because, one of the inspection criteria suggested to the states involves "major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government". If "construction" means what we all commonly understand it to mean, then any sort of "major renovation" would trigger the inspection.
After that, we're left to the tender mercies of the bureaucrats to decide what all these words actually mean when they sit down and write their state's labeling program. As I said on The Ed Morrissey Show today, bureaucrats tend to interpret laws in the bureaucracy's favor. Let's build a nightmare scenario here that's entirely plausible. As one commenter noted yesterday, you need a building permit to install a hot water heater in your house in the state of California. Now, it could be argued that anything that requires a building permit is major. If it weren't, where is the need for a permit? So, you find yourself in a situation where swapping out your hot water heater triggers an inspection.
Admittedly, that's an extreme case, but no one at this point can say for sure that my example couldn't happen. It might not. I'd go so far as to say that it probably wouldn't. But it certainly could and anyone who says that it absolutely could not is nowhere near the truth.
One other point about paragraph (m). It's a small one but I think you'll find it interesting. Paragraph (m) only appears in the engrossed version of the bill, not the introduced or reported versions. That means that it was a late addition to the bill and, if you were following the news a couple of week ago, you'll know that the bill wasn't even finished while the House was debating it. Horse-trading was going on all day, with most of it coming in an amendment that wasn't available until 3 A.M. the day of the vote. I suspect that few members of the House had any idea that paragraph (m) had been added (who could have read the bill in one night?) meaning the Democrats (and a few now notorious Republicans) approved a bill that was more likely to subject your house to the inspector's peering eyes than the one that passed.
2) So, will a homeowner have to submit to inspection and a retrofit to meet the new codes before selling their house?
When I started writing Wednesday's post, I spent two hours reading various sections of the bill. Since then, I've spent at least two more hours reading it. That's four hours and my best answer, indeed the best answer I think anyone can give, is there's no way to know right now. Here is what I do know: the Democrats are prepared to pour billions of dollars into state coffers so long as the states meet the efficiency targets the bill mandates. That is an incredibly powerful incentive, akin than the transportation bills that require states to maintain a certain speed limit on highways in order to get federal transportation dollars. The cap-and-trade bill, however, is bigger than any transportation I've ever seen. Twinkie comparisons would not be out of the question here.
With that much money at stake, it's not hard to envision a state deciding to interpret the labeling guidelines very -- ahem -- liberally. You could very well have to retrofit your house before you sell it or, if you're a home buyer, retrofit the one you purchase. Or, you may not have to do any retrofitting at all. It all depends on what your state does with its power and there's not a person right now, not even your member of Congress, who can tell you if that will happen or not.
3) Wait, all that labeling stuff is in Section 204. So what's with the post title?
I know I spent most of the post writing about Section 204 and, in retrospect, I could have given the post a different title. However, the whole building-inspection scheme starts in Section 304, which is where the mandates for a new building code are. I figured that was the best place to start and that's what ended up in the post title. If I had it to do over again, I would have come up with something snappier. I can only say that I spent three hours writing the post and, by the time I hit the "submit" button, it was late and I was worn out. It's not a great excuse, but it's the only one I have. I'll do better next time I write a magnum opus.
I hope this clears up some of the fuzzy parts of my initial post and helps you deal with any skeptics. As it turns out, the Democrats today decided to pull the bill back in the Senate until at least September, which means there's a good chance it won't make it out. That's not a guarantee, though, so our Senators still need to hear from us over the summer.
Editor's Note: I want to reiterate my thanks to all those who linked, Tweeted, read and commented on Jimmie's post the other day. He appeared on a Connecticut talk radio show this morning discussing some of the same clarifications in this post, so if you're interested, I encourage you to have a listen. (Clicking that link will open a small window and automatically play the 6-8 minute segment.) If this is your first time at American Issues Project, welcome! We publish exclusive op-edsblog posts daily, so I hope you'll be back. You can submit your own blog posts for our community blog (cross-posting is welcome!) by registering for the site, which you can do automatically with your Facebook or Twitter account if you already have accounts with either of those two sites. You can sign up for email updates about our grassroots efforts in the right-hand sidebar of this page. For on-the-go action alerts, text ENOUGH to 97180. (We promise we won't bug you too much!) If you have any questions about American Issues Project, please post a comment below or contact us via Twitter (@AmericanIssues).