Earlier this year, Ontario's Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) held a public consultation for proposals aimed at strengthening the energy efficiency standards in Ontario's residential building code.
In the face of rising energy costs and in an effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions, the government issued a consultation paper outlining four options for amending the building code, to improve energy efficiency in new homes. The proposals ranged from nominal enhancements to "aggressive" measures that would increase insulation levels of foundation walls and glazing in windows and sliding doors.
But critics such as Consumers Council of Canada President Joan Huzar say that even the "aggressive" option doesn't go far enough. "The proposals represent an attempt to undo the harm that was done by the previous Conservative government when it rolled back the energy efficient measures out of the 1992 Building Code, specifically full-height basement insulation and improvements to above-grade insulation," says the Consumers Council in a news release. "What we need now is a standard for 2006 that considers the energy crisis this province finds itself in."
Huzar says, "Consumers must not be held hostage to increasing energy costs because they are unwittingly living in homes that are energy hogs."
In addition to full-height basement insulation, the council is pushing for increased levels of above-grade wall insulation, new standards for furnaces and windows, and mandatory programmable thermostats. It also calls for a labeling system for new and resale homes that reflects the energy performance of the house and "does not impose an unreasonable cost burden on consumers by requiring, for instance, a new large bureaucracy."
Canada has an existing program called EnerGuide for Houses, which labels homes in much the same way as appliances are rated for their efficiency. Peter Love, Ontario's chief energy conservation officer and head of the Conservation Bureau on the Ontario Power Authority, submitted a proposal to MMAH that also calls for more stringent measures than the "aggressive" proposal, using the EnerGuide scale. His proposal calls for all new homes to meet or exceed 80 on the EnerGuide scale, which means the homes would have higher insulation ratings combined with high-efficiency heating and cooling systems and programmable thermostats.
Calling his proposal Option 5, Love says, "In an electrically heated home built to Option 5, the energy consumption is reduced by 3,435 kWh or 26 per cent from the current average standard in electrically heating homes. But he's recommending that the higher Option 5 values be set for all homes, regardless of the energy source.
For many years, Canada has been on the leading edge of energy efficient housing with initiatives such as the R-2000 program, which promotes super efficient home building techniques. Builders say the reason more energy efficient homes have not been built is because of the cost -- that consumers won't pay more for energy efficiency.
A survey conducted in 2004 by the Consumers Council of Canada came to the conclusion that when people were purchasing appliances, price was the most important factor and the majority of focus group respondents, when given a choice of which air conditioner to buy, went for the cheapest and least energy efficient model. At that time, the council said that more consumer education was needed to explain the benefits of buying energy efficient products.
Addressing the idea of implementing a national energy code, the Ontario Home Builders Association says in a recent report that "voluntary, market-driven approaches should be the course of action taken with respect to this issue to ensure choice and affordability for consumers, while continuing to provide economic opportunities for our industry." It suggests that existing programs such as R-2000 and EnerGuide for Houses should be strengthened, and that a national energy code is not the solution to further reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
But Huzar says that "critics who may argue that energy efficiency provisions will add costs to a house and make it unaffordable are short-sighted and don't have the interests of consumers in mind."
Love's report cites a new poll conducted in January 2006, in which 80 per cent of respondents supported increasing energy efficiency standards in the building code.
He says the cost difference between the proposed Option 2 (EnerGuide rating 75) and his Option 5 (EnerGuide 80) is $1,265 for electrically heated homes.
"Assuming an investment of $200,000, the difference between building to EnerGuide 80 and lesser standards is less than one per cent of the total investment," he says. "A one per cent difference is not likely to be a major barrier for the majority of consumers making a $200,000 investment. When amortized over 25 years, the up-front cost increase of achieving an EnerGuide 80 rating is outweighed by the reduction in operating costs."
Love is also recommending that more focus be put on energy efficiency when existing homes are being renovated. He says architects, contractors, designers and consumers should be encouraged and educated to incorporate energy efficiency into all renovations, and that the government should "continue to evaluate potential policy solutions to ensure that renovations meet higher energy efficiency standards."
