I’m further inland, and I pay basically no money for energy. A box fan and occasionally, a one-room AC unit (because I work from home) or a space heater is all that’s needed. There is absolutely no justification for such energy efficiency regulations in San Diego or the Bay Area, where I used to live. Your argument about reduced cost is purely hypothetical, and not reality.
> These requirements absolutely need government regulation because the "free market" leads to a non optimal outcome.
That would not mean we “need” government regulation. Leave people alone.
Currently as a renter, if you see a few properties online, you have no feasible way to factor energy usage in to your decision making so landlords have no reason to factor it in since it won't prioritize their property to renters.
With your $500k up front costs, how many units are you spreading that over?
However, your analysis is simplistic and assumes:
1. The house uses no natural gas (most do)
2. The cost of electricity never goes up (it will in the short term at least)
3. CO2 emissions from wasted energy have no cost (they do)
4. Building energy efficient buildings is way more expensive than the alternatives for new construction (it isn’t)
The top comment in this thread states that 1.7% of the upfront cost of the apartment, $17,000, is for energy efficiency improvements.
In fact, the codes that mandate energy efficiency improvements take a detailed cost analysis into account, and only mandate cost-saving energy efficiency improvements.