May 19, 2021 Update: A City Council Work Session to discuss the proposed Home Energy Score Policy was held on Tuesday, May 18. Watch the video of that work session below. 

Editor’s note: This article has been updated and an explanation is included below for transparency.

More than 700 people shared feedback about Hillsboro’s proposed Home Energy Score Policy during the City of Hillsboro’s three-month-long community input period.

The proposed policy in Hillsboro would require sellers of residential, single-family homes to get a Home Energy Score Report for their property and share it with potential buyers.

Among the more than 700 survey responses, 351 voiced opposition to the proposed policy, 338 shared support, and 29 had a neutral position.

Common reason cited in support of the proposed policy:

• Providing greater transparency
• Delivering environmental benefits
• Supporting community sustainability goals

Common reason cited in opposition of the proposed policy:

• Seen as government overreach to require home energy scores
• A feeling it should be the buyer’s responsibility, not the seller or owner – or it should be voluntary
• Concern that it would impact home sale prices (costing the seller or buyer money) and housing affordability

The City Council will review all of the community input and discuss the proposed policy further during a Council work session on Tuesday, May 18.

 Learn more about Hillsboro's Proposed Home Energy Score Policy.

This article was updated after three community members reached out in early May to express concern about the wording in the third paragraph of an earlier version, which read:

Among the more than 700 survey responses, slightly more than half shared either support (338) for the proposed policy or a neutral position (29), while the remainder of respondents (351) voiced opposition.

After listening to those concerns, the sentence has been updated to read:

Among the more than 700 survey responses, 351 voiced opposition to the proposed policy, 338 shared support, and 29 had a neutral position.

The specific concern shared was that in combining supportive and neutral comments, the wording attempted to mislead readers on the actual results of the survey. In addition to updating the article, City staff voiced appreciation for the two-way communication, acknowledged the concerns, and shared this context:

• The total number of comments in SUPPORT (338), NEUTRAL to (29), and OPPOSITION (351) of the proposed policy was included within the sentence with transparency in mind.
  
  
• To participate in the survey, respondents needed to actively choose to visit the survey webpage to share their perspective. Neutral comments reflected awareness and consideration of the proposed policy without a stated preference or objection. Prior to the article update, supporting and neutral comments were described together because in both cases, the respondent took the time to fill out the survey with awareness of the proposed policy, and voiced no concerns or objections. Within that description, supportive comments (338) and neutral comments (29) were identified by number to allow the reader to separate the two for comparison.
  
  
• Bullet points citing common reasons both in SUPPORT and OPPOSITION of the proposed policy were included with transparency in mind.

To share further comments with City staff, please use this form. Thank you.