> but the gains would be entirely in the homeowners pocket so why should the taxpayer foot the bill? It's pretty common (though not universal) in the United St

> but the gains would be entirely in the homeowners pocket so why should the taxpayer foot the bill? It's pretty common (though not universal) in the United States for renters to be responsible for utilities, such as heating, water, and electricity. In those cases, the owner neither cares about, nor benefits from, increased energy efficiency, while on the other side of the coin, the tenant has little incentive to make capital improvements on a property he or she may only be planning on occupying for a year or so. In this scenario, anything that doesn't have a payback period shorter than the length of expected tenancy is unlikely to get done.