Thurston Co. wants homeowners to get energy scores before selling. Is it legal?
Update: The Board of County Commissioners approved the home energy score ordinance Tuesday afternoon. Commissioners Tye Menser, Carolina Mejia, Rachel Grant and Emily Clouse voted in favor. Commissioner Wayne Fournier abstained, citing concerns about the county’s authority to enact this ordinance.
Thurston County spokesperson Susan Melnyk responded to a request for comment on Wednesday.
“The County’s legal counsel advised the Board that there do not appear to be any existing state laws that conflict with this ordinance,” Melnyk said.
Initial post: Thurston County commissioners will vote on a proposed home energy score ordinance Tuesday amid objections from local realtors.
The proposed ordinance is listed on the county’s 2 p.m. meeting agenda. If approved, the ordinance will require home sellers to get their home scored for energy efficiency before listing it for sale.
The county hopes the new rules will allow buyers to compare home energy costs for multiple listings and encourage investments in home improvements that will lower energy bills and improve local energy efficiency. The ordinance does not require home improvements, but the county estimates each assessment will cost home sellers about $150-300. The idea for this policy was initially included in the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan, a regional framework to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. The board adopted the plan and declared a climate emergency in 2021.
While many residents have voiced their support for the ordinance and demanded urgent action on climate change, the Thurston County Realtors Association has come out against the proposal.
In a letter dated March 10, Heather Burgess, an attorney representing the association, said the ordinance will add to the high cost of housing while having “no discernible impact on the pace of global climate change.”
Mandatory home energy rating policies have been implemented in communities across the country, including nearby Portland, Oregon, according to a 2025 report from American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
These rating programs have been shown to increase the sale price of efficient homes as well as increase the number of home retrofits, according to the report. Mortgage default rates also tended to be lower for higher rated homes.
Thurston County estimates the HES policy will result in a range of 243–649 annual home retrofits. That represents up to $360,000 in “total energy cost savings” and 670 tons of “CO2 emissions reduced per year,” per the county website.
Does this ordinance conflict with state law?
Notably, the letter states the proposed ordinance will potentially conflict with state law.
Burgess asserts the ordinance will limit the county’s ability to use certain real estate excise revenues under chapter 82.46 RCW.
State law allows counties to impose an additional local excise tax on property transactions so it can pay for local capital projects such as roadways, water and sewer systems, parks, airports and affordable housing projects.
RCW 82.46.037 states the greater of $100,000 or 35% of real-estate excise tax (REET) funds may be used to operate, maintain and support existing capital projects if it meets certain requirements.
One of those requirements is that the county not enact “any requirement on the listing or sale of real property,” the RCW states.
“As drafted, the ordinance establishes a local prerequisite to listing residential property,” Burgess wrote in the letter. “Therefore, if the County proceeds, it will lose its ability to utilize REET revenues for existing capital projects at the same time the County faces a reported 2027 expected budget deficit in excess of $20 million.”
Those in favor of the ordinance may argue that there’s an exception to the usage of REET funds because the ordinance is “‘specifically authorized’ by local governments’ police powers,” Burgess wrote.
However, Burgess believes this conclusion is incorrect.
“The term ‘specifically authorized’ in RCW 82.46.037(2)(b) identifies that the exception applies only where a statute affirmatively authorizes a particular type of regulation, rather than a broad grant of undefined police powers,” Burgess wrote.
State legislators recently proposed House Bill 1015, a related bill that would have authorized cities and counties to opt-in to similar home energy score requirements. However, the bill stalled in 2025 and again in 2026.
Though the bill failed this session, Burgess called on the county to hold its proposed ordinance until a statewide program may be adopted.
“The more prudent course is for the Board to defer action until the Legislature adopts a statewide disclosure requirement, or, failing that, to modify the proposal to make it a voluntary program in which individual home sellers can choose to participate,” Burgess wrote.
The board did not vote on the proposed ordinance after a Feb. 17 public hearing, citing a need for further legal counsel. A closed-door executive session followed on March 10, but the board did not take any action after the session concluded.
Thurston County spokesperson Susan Melnyk responded to a request for comment on Wednesday.
“The County’s legal counsel advised the Board that there do not appear to be any existing state laws that conflict with this ordinance,” Melnyk said.
The board touched on the home energy score ordinance in a Tuesday morning work session.
In vague terms, Commissioner Wayne Fournier said the legal advice given was not definitive, and he expected a legal challenge.
“It has been pretty clearly articulated that there is a risk here that we’re taking,” Fournier said. “If we’re accepting that risk, that’s our decision, but I don’t want to feel like we’re pretending that hasn’t been said.”
However, Commissioners Carolina Mejia, Rachel Grant and Emily Clouse all said they wanted to move forward with the vote.
“From my standpoint, I think that the executive sessions that we’ve had in regard to this, the attorney has answered questions,” Mejia said. “So, I am comfortable with moving forward this afternoon.”
The public can comment on the proposed ordinance during the 2 p.m. Tuesday business meeting at The Atrium, the county’s administrative headquarters at 3000 Pacific Ave. SE in Olympia.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated with a comment from Thurston County spokesperson Susan Melnyk, comments that county commissioners shared during a Tuesday morning work session ahead of the vote, and with additional background information about the proposal.
This story was originally published March 16, 2026 at 2:21 PM.
