Conventional wisdom is that submetering in multi-unit residential buildings is better for the environment, because residents have an incentive to save energy when they have to pay their own utilities. The problem, of course, is that there are many factors residents (especially tenants) don't have control over. You can't upgrade your insulation, if you're renting you can't get more efficient appliances, you have no control over the nature of the HVAC system. I even know someone who had to pay utilities even though she didn't have a thermostat in her apartment. It got too hot in the winter so she had to open a window because she couldn't turn down the heat, but she still had to pay for all that extra heat. So I've always thought that apartments should have to pass an energy audit before they can be submetered.
But just now I was reading an article about green upgrades that they can make to whole buildings. This makes me wonder if maybe it would be better for the environment to require the landlord to pay utilities instead of the individual tenants. If the landlord has to pay the utilities, they're more motivated to upgrade major things like insulation and plumbing and HVAC - things that individual residents could never do themselves. They might also be motivated to install more cool European things that let you save energy without any effort whatsoever. I don't have numbers, but just by logic and gut instinct it seems like a lot more energy could be saved by landlord initiatives than by any measures tenants could take in their own little units.
2 comments:
What you are failing to consider is the fact that, whether submetered or not, the tenant pays for the utility usage one way or another. Businesses always pass the costs down to the end-user. Submetering IS the right thing to do because it puts the burden of conservation directly on the end-user, exactly where it should be. I do agree with you however that the owner should be responsible for creating at least a threshold standard of efficiency. There is a balancing act, a dance so to speak, where the "right thing" can get done. Because of the stupid "liberal vs. conservative" politics in this country, we have grown accustomed to pitting the evil capitalist busines owners against the poor helpless citizens. The truth is that we are all just trying to live the american dream, and if we could learn to make a proper debate, we could all accomplish much greater things and live happier lives. The facts are that it is better to have the end-user responsible for paying for the utility use, AND the owner should be responsible for making the building efficient.
Oh, I know the tenant pays for utility usage at the end, it's just when I lived in a building that worked that way I really appreciated having a predictable monthly bill - Especially since you move into an apartment without knowing how much energy it uses. My income was less secure when I moved into that apartment, so knowing that I would owe $X each month and no more was a huge comfort.
I know this varies from person to person (especially since not all of us are trying to live the American dream), but for some people saving a few dollars is more important, and for others having a predictable bill is more important. Landlords could (and do) market both as perks of the building, albeit to different potential customers.
Post a Comment