Daily Home Renovation Tips

Yesterday we wrote about some of the metrics and measures provided by Natural Resources Canada on the impact with the ecoENERGY Retrofit Program had achieved during its first full 12 months ending March 31, 2008.

Today, we would like to dig a little deeper into those numbers and more. As we do so we will attempt to refrain from subjective opinion and comment. Rather we will ask the questions we believe need to be both asked and answered by those with more information, knowledge and expertise  in such matters than I.

So, let’s begin.

•  9,991,450 - Estimated Low-Rise House Build Prior to 2000 in Canada
•      102,845 - Number of Initial (or ‘D’) Energy Efficiency Evaluations

Remember, the ‘D’ energy efficiency evaluation is the initial or first energy audit. After a full 12 months, 1% of Canadian home owners have begun their participation. Per Natural Resources Canada the goal is to see 140,000 home complete the ‘E’ or second energy audit by the current end of the program of March 31, 2011.

Is it sufficient that the program is only seeking to have  approximately 1.4% of eligible homes participate to reduce their consumption of non-renewable resources over a 4 year program? Is this reflective of a sincere and concentrated effort of a Government to help it’s home owners pay for the cost of energy conservation related home improvements?

•       59,184 - CO2 Savings (Tons Per Year)

This seems like a lot. What portion or percentage is this of the estimated total CO2 tons per year created by all 9,991,450 Canadian homes yearly? I have no idea where to look or who to ask, but I think that would be an important figure to determine if 59,184 CO2 tons per year is really a signficant number.

• 16.7%- Increase in the EnerGuide rating of homes who have completed the ‘E’ energy efficiency assessment

On average, home owners who who completed the ‘E’ energy efficiency assessment achieved an increase in the EnerGuide rating for their homes from an average score of 60 (from the ‘D’ evaluation) to an average score of 70 (from the ‘E’ evaluation). While that is certainly significant, is that sufficient? Did you know that, per Natural Resources Canada, the EnerGuide rating for these same homes if all of the energy efficienty assessment report’s recommendations were implemented is 72?

Certainly, achieving 70 is pretty close to 72. It would be interesting to know what were the energy conservation / efficiency recommendations that were typically not acted upon which resulted in the difference between the achieved vs the recommended EnerGuide rating.

• 24.6% - Reduction in energy consumption (GJ*/house)

*One GJ is the amount of energy that would be consumed by ten 100-Watt light bulbs lit continuously for 12 days (according to the Energy Efficiency Evaluation report we received on our home from the ‘D’ assessment)

The average energy consumption of the houses completing the ‘E’ assessment went from 195 GJ to 147 GJ is very significant. The question to be asked is how efficient are the remaining 147 GJ’s being consumed?

• What are the most common energy conservation related home improvements being performed by the 17,653 homes upon which the ‘E’ (final) assessment was performed? Well, during the first 12 months of the ecoENERGY Retrofit program per information received from Natural Resources Canada they can be grouped as  follows:

• 84% - Draft Proofing
• 65% - Space Heating
• 25% - Attic
• 20% - Basement
• 13% - Walls
•   1% - Doors and Windows

Remember, an individual home can undertake more than one type of energy conservation improvement. There would appear to be a possible correlation between the net cost to the home owner and the type of home improvement. The higher the net cost to the home owner the lower the frequency if implementation. For example, an ENERGY STAR related replacement window costs several hundred dollars (and more) vs a tube of caulking used in draft proofing a home costs a few dollars.

Should the amount of financial incentive be increased for the higher cost energy conservation improvements? Or, are ‘draft proofing’ and ’space heating’ the two areas with the greatest amount of energy loss and therefore these percentages reflect the optimal energy conservation home improvements by home owners? We don’t know.

We do invite everyone to comment on these details both those simply with an opinion and those with more knowledge to help put these numbers into perspective. The more discussion we have the greater awareness to be created about energy efficiency in the home and the ecoENERGY Retrofit program itself. Hopefully, the increase in awareness will cause increased participation in, as they say, the only game in town (to help Canadian home owners pay out of their own pockets for energy conservation home improvements).