Energy Efficiency in Building Codes

Transcription

1 Energy Efficiency in Building Codes For the Office of Consumer Affairs, Industry Canada September Madison Avenue, Suite 100, Toronto ON Canada, M5R 2S2 Tel: Fax:

2 2

3 Energy Efficiency in Building Codes For the Office of Consumer Affairs, Industry Canada September Consumers Council of Canada 3

4 This research was completed with support from Industry Canada s Office of Consumer Affairs Contributions Program for Non-profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations. The Council wishes to acknowledge the writers and researchers on this project: Michael Lio, principal researcher, Chris Wanless, writer, and Dolly Gerrior, writer. In addition the Council acknowledges the contribution of its review committee: Joan Huzar, methodologist Whipple Steinkrauss, Steve Koch, and Ken Elsey. 4

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary 6 Introduction and Background 10 Homebuyer Perspectives on Building Codes and Energy Efficiency 16 Conclusion and Recommendations 27 5

6 Executive Summary The Consumers Council of Canada, with support from Industry Canada s Office of Consumer Affairs Contributions Program for Non-profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations, investigated Energy Efficiency in Building Codes. The study was conducted between July 2006 and March Building legislation during the early 1900s was at best an inconsistent hodgepodge of bylaws set by each municipality in response to regional climate, consumer demand, and industry ability. The release of the first National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) in 1941 was a response to the demands from consumers throughout the early part of the 20th Century for a unified set of model national building standards. Almost 100 years later, Canada faces a remarkably similar situation with no model energy efficient requirements that are referenced within the National Building Code. While Model Energy Codes exist for buildings and for houses, they have never been adopted by the NBCC which forms the basis for provincial regulations across the country. Like the early 1900s, a small minority of provinces and municipalities have adopted varying levels of mandatory efficiency without the benefit of guidance from the national model code. The consumer interest with regards to energy efficiency provisions in building codes has not been well examined in Canada. Consumer representatives on national and provincial code committees have operated largely in a vacuum as this issue is debated. They have not benefited from primary research which examines the consumer opinion in this regard. In an effort to examine what consumers expect of their national and provincial building codes, specifically the importance they attach to energy efficiency and the inclusion of energy efficiency requirements within provincial and national standards, the following four studies of homebuyers perspectives of building codes and energy efficiency were examined in this report: 1. JD Power and Associates, 2006 Supplementary Survey of Canadian New Home Builder Customer Satisfaction Study for EnerQuality Corporation; 2. Shelton Group Study of Insights on the Consumer Mindset Regarding Energy Efficiency, 2006; 3. The Conservation Council of Ontario s Survey of Ontario Residents; and 4. The Consumers Council of Canada s New Home Buyers Study The Model National Energy Code for Buildings and the Model National Energy Code for houses, both first released in 1997, are badly out of date. While there has been a commitment to update the MNECB, no work is underway or planned to update the MNECH. Further, neither document is referenced within the National Building Code despite the existence of the Model Energy Codes for Houses and Buildings. 6

7 The National Building Code has established four primary objectives for itself: health, safety, accessibility, and the protection of the building. Building codes are now considered instruments of social policy, which work to achieve national and international goals. 1 The code has been transformed from a necessary document for the modernization of an industry to a comprehensive system for meeting the needs of consumers, builders, and society at large. While all of this may be true, energy efficiency and environmental responsibility remain outside the scope of the National Building Code of Canada despite being both national and international goals. Consumers strongly believe energy efficiency is important and want mandatory energy efficiency within building standards When asked to rate the importance of energy efficiency as a factor in their decision to purchase a new home, 86% thought it was extremely important, very important, or important. Survey data from the U.S. corroborates this sentiment with only 1.6% of U.S. consumers believing energy conservation to be unimportant. Consumers across Canada appear to overwhelmingly (86%) support mandatory minimum levels of energy efficiency for the construction of single and multifamily dwellings. In fact, survey evidence suggests a large fraction (almost a third) of GTA/Ottawa Carleton new home owners view energy efficiency as extremely important and specifically identified energy efficiency as one of their key purchase motivators. These same homeowners overwhelmingly (89%) believe builders should build energy efficient homes as a basic standard. More than half of the homeowners in this group who did not purchase an energy efficient home reported that the primary reason for this was that the builder did not offer energy efficient homes. More than two thirds (68%) of the respondents said they would rely on the advice of the builder and/or architect to assess the energy efficiency of their new home. Only 12% of surveyed GTA/Ottawa homeowners recall their builder specifically mentioning energy efficiency at any time during the purchase process. Only 1 in 7 homeowners in this group who reported they purchased an energy efficient home could identify what they paid for the energy efficient features. Only 6.5% of the surveyed GTA/Ottawa homeowners disagreed that paying for additional energy efficiency up-front is worth it in the end. 9 out of 10 people are likely to specifically seek out an energy efficient home if in the market to purchase again. Ontarians who were planning to purchase a home in the next year overwhelmingly have suggested they are willing to pay for energy efficiency with 88% suggesting they would pay between $500 to $5,000. These same respondents (80%) support upgrading the building code in Ontario to ensure that the energy efficiency in buildings is higher than the current standard. Consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory energy efficiency provisions 1 Bergeron, D, Desserud, R.J., Hayson, J.C. The Origin and Development of Canada s Objective-Based Codes Concept NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2004]

8 within provincial codes. Only 3% of respondents did not want standards within provincial codes. Canadian consumers strongly support (72% of respondents) the inclusion of energy efficiency provisions in the NBCC that could act as a model for provincial codes. New home buyers feel that energy efficiency plays a very important role in their decision to purchase a new home to the extent that they would be willing to pay a premium for an energy efficient home. They would appreciate a mandatory minimum level of energy efficiency for new construction; one that is regulated by a consistent national standard. Governments across Canada have identified climate change, energy efficiency and protection of the environment as key policy and program objectives. Building Codes are among the most powerful and cost effective policy instruments available to government to deliver on these objectives. Consumers expect governments to enact building codes that include provisions that extend beyond the health and safety of the occupant to also embrace the health and safety of the environment. Consumers demand and expect that their codes include provisions that deal with energy efficiency, environmental protection, and climate change. Therefore, in response to a growing consumer demand, and a growing concern for sustainable living, a national codified standard for energy efficiency in houses and residential buildings is needed as the Canadian housing industry moves further into the twenty-first century Recommendations Recommendations are noted below. Based on the findings of this research, the Consumers Council of Canada recommends that: 1. Energy efficiency be adopted as a core objective within the National Building Code of Canada for inclusion in the 2010 Code. 2. Environment protection be adopted as a core objective within the National Building Code of Canada for inclusion in the 2015 Code. 3. The National Research Council of Canada accelerate the updating of the Model National Energy Code for Building for inclusion as a reference in the 2010 National Building Code of Canada. 4. The National Research Council of Canada immediately update the Model National Energy Code for Houses for inclusion as a reference in the 2010 National Building Code of Canada. 5. The Minister of Industry directs the National Research Council of Canada to: 1) accelerate updating the Model National Energy Code for Buildings, 2) immediately update the Model National Energy Code for Houses for inclusion in the 2010 National Building Code of Canada, and 3) include energy efficiency and environmental protection within the scope of the National Building Code. 8

9 To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, the Consumers Council of Canada should: 1. Circulate this report and its recommendations to the major consumer groups and other stakeholder groups in Canada for information. 2. Bring this report and its recommendations to the Canadian Consumer Initiative as an action item. 3. Circulate this report and its recommendations to every member of the National Building Code s Provincial/Territorial Policy Advisory Committee on Codes (PTPACC) for consideration and response. 4. Circulate this report and its recommendations to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) for consideration and response. 5. Present this report and its recommendations to each provincial and territorial authority having jurisdiction over building codes for consideration and response. 6. Present this report and its recommendations to each provincial and territorial minister with responsibility for building codes for consideration and response. 7. Present this report and its recommendations to the Ministers of Industry, Natural Resources, and Environment for consideration and response. 9

10 Introduction and Background Legislation regarding buildings during the early 1900s was at best an inconsistent hodgepodge of bylaws set by each municipality in response to regional climate, consumer demand, and industrial ability. The release of the first National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) in 1941 was a response to the demands from consumers throughout the early part of the 20th Century for a unified set of model national building standards. Almost 100 years later, Canada faces a remarkably similar situation with no model energy efficient requirements that are referenced within the National Building Code. While Model Energy Codes exist for buildings and for houses, they have never been adopted by the NBCC which forms the basis for provincial regulations across the country. Like the early 1900s, a growing group of provinces and municipalities have adopted varying levels of mandatory efficiency without the benefit of guidance from the national model code. The consumer interest with regards to energy efficiency provisions in building codes has not been well examined in Canada. Consumer representatives on national and provincial code committees have operated largely in a vacuum as this issue is debated. They have not benefited from primary research which examines the consumer opinion in this regard. This report examines what consumers expect of their national and provincial building codes, specifically the importance they attach to energy efficiency and the inclusion of energy efficiency requirements within provincial and national standards. History of Canada s Building Codes The history of the NBCC begins roughly at the time of Confederation. Its evolution is characterized as a response to a modernizing society moving from its colonial roots, largely detached from government, to being more engaged and more demanding of government intervention. The NBCC was a response to concerns for occupant health and safety (fire, sanitation, etc) as well as those relating to property protection. Legislative responsibility for buildings was delegated first to the provinces and then to municipalities. 2 Municipalities in turn passed by-laws that dictated building practice and fire-safety, as well as planning rules to guide urban expansion. 3 Population growth, accommodated primarily within Canadian cities, and the industrialization of building practice with new building technologies and materials led to the commodification of buildings. 4 Buildings and houses were consumed by the growing population immediately following WWI until the Great Depression, which saw construction come to an almost immediate halt. While the Depression halted building construction, it did not halt the influx of 2 Archer, J. Building Codes-Past, Present and Future: A power-point presentation. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. 3 May p3 3 ibid, 5 4 ibid, 6 10

11 people immigrating to Canadian cities. A housing shortage resulted along with general civil unrest, which carried with it fears of revolution. 5 The first federal housing program was established in 1937 to deliver the needed housing, but industry was not ready to accommodate a modern, urban, and increasingly demanding population. 6 An appraisal of the construction industry during the Depression determined the industry as a whole, to be largely inefficient, without comprehensive national or provincial guidelines. 7 Municipalities used sets of unorganized and often contradictory by-laws sometimes founded on bad science. 8 As a result, industry professionals called for national action in the form of a set of national building codes capable of linking the industry as a whole, to the promise of increased industry productivity and housing quality. The first National Building Code, published in 1941, featured the most advanced engineering methods and building science. Its use and application would require professional training. 9 Throughout WWII, the Code was used successfully across the country s diverse climatic regions for the full range of building types. After the war and throughout the massive housing boom that followed in its wake, the Code was able to support the sustained high level of industry-wide productivity. It was determined that to maintain an organized and successful construction industry, a continuous building code development process backed by the most advanced and far-reaching research was needed. 10 The National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) was created as a governmental organization to carry out research in support of developing prescriptive building codes, implementing technical war time research (for example in structural design, fire safety, and cold climate engineering) and supporting the operations of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 11 Early codes produced by the NRCC were firmly rooted in engineering and building science, but excluded the input of practitioners and regulators. Beginning in the 1970 s, provincial governments became more active in the Code development process. Provinces were given the responsibility of enforcing standards set by the Code, as well as providing legal interpretations, and trades licensing and education. 12 Some provinces began to produce their own codes and standards in order to satisfy specific regional concerns and requirements of local industry and climate. The provinces began to oversee the national code process until the 1990s when code reforms were demanded by both the industry and the NRCC ibid, 7 6 Archer, J. A Brief History of the National Buildings Code of Canada: NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2003]. P 2. 7 Archer, J. Building Codes-Past, Present and Future: A power-point presentation. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. 3 May p8 8 Archer, J. A Brief History of the National Buildings Code of Canada: NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2003]. P 2. 9 Archer, J. Building Codes-Past, Present and Future: A power-point presentation. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. 3 May p Archer, J. A Brief History of the National Buildings Code of Canada: NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2003]. P ibid, 3 12 Archer, J. Building Codes-Past, Present and Future: A power-point presentation. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. 3 May p Archer, J. A Brief History of the National Buildings Code of Canada: NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2003]. P 4. 11

12 Reforms led to the opening of the code development process to include non-nrc personnel, the restructuring of the code committee process by bringing national building and fire code committees under the newly created Canadian Commission of Building and Fire Code (CCBFC). Today the CCBFC develops and maintains six of Canada's model construction and fire codes and oversees the work of several standing committees, special purpose committees, and task groups. The CCBFC includes regional, industry, and public participation, as well as a public review mechanism of the entire code development process. It is not clear the extent to which the public review process is effective. Further, stakeholders, such as product manufacturers and industries, are currently limited in their participation. Beginning immediately after this restructuring, the CCBFC moved towards meeting two primary objectives. First, coordinating national, territorial and provincial codes into a systematic process, and second, to convert older national code models into objective code based systems. 14 This initiative resulted in provincial endorsement of national concerns that would become the subject of the code document while specific regional concerns would be addressed by the jurisdiction of each province. The National Codes are model codes permitted for adoption by appropriate authority bearing jurisdictions. These codes include the: National Fire Code, National Building Code (including parts for large and small buildings which include houses), National Plumbing Code, National Farm Building Code of Canada (NFBC), Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (MNECB), and Model National Energy Code of Canada for Houses (MNECH). The CCBFC meets annually, and at the beginning of each Code cycle (every 5 years, although work is underway to shorten this to a 3 year cycle) a list of priorities is established to guide the work to be done. The technical work on Code changes or additions is given to standing committees. Priorities are based on advice from the provincial advisory committee, which as a group, arrives at a consensus position on which policy issues to bring to the CCBFC. Thus, if only one or two provinces are interested in an issue, it is unlikely to be recommended to the CCBFC. Suggestions for Code changes are sought from stakeholders (mainly the building community - regulators and builders) throughout the Code cycle. The Commission operates on a consensus basis to make decisions. It formally approves all model code documents and technical revisions prior to publication by NRCC. Most recently the Code has been called upon to extend its application beyond its largely prescriptive foundation. It has been restructured to allow any number of alternatives to be used on the basis of their performance. To accomplish this, the 14 Archer, J. Building Codes-Past, Present and Future: A power-point presentation. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. 3 May p

13 Code has had to explicitly identify the intents and objectives associated with each of its many requirements. 15 Objective-based codes are articulated around acceptable solutions (formerly the prescriptive requirements), each firmly linked to a list of primary objectives that code documents attempt to achieve. 16 The prescriptive solutions are assumed to meet the stated objectives and become a benchmark against which the performance of other solutions can be measured. To comply with the objective-based code, a user has two possible paths: 1) using one of the acceptable prescriptive solutions or 2) demonstrating performance consistent with the stated objective. Acceptable solutions take the form of the typical code text and define a way to comply with the code. At the same time, the 2005 NBCC also incorporates performance-based solutions in the form of alternative solutions. Thus, design professionals are free to create innovative approaches to building design, while always achieving the minimum performance levels, as determined by the acceptable solutions. Certain Provincial Codes (Ontario being a good example), take this idea of performance objectives to a higher level, demanding that code users work to achieve objectives relating to energy efficiency and resource conservation not currently part of the national code. The National Building Code has established four primary objectives for itself: health, safety, accessibility, and the protection of the building. In 2005, after extensive research, the objective based code system was unveiled with a new mandate, which positioned the creation of building codes as more than professional, industry-based documents. Namely, that building codes are now considered social policy 17, working to achieve national and international goals of accessibility to buildings (both economic and physical), and overall health in relation to building creation and habitation. The code has been transformed from a necessary document for the modernization of an industry to a comprehensive system for meeting the needs of consumers, builders, and society at large. Under Canada's constitution, provinces and territories regulate design and construction of new houses and buildings, and the maintenance and operation of fire safety systems in existing buildings. While the model national building, fire and plumbing codes are prepared centrally under the direction of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, adoption of these codes are the responsibility of the provincial and territorial authorities having jurisdiction. The enforcement of these codes rests primarily with the municipalities involved. 15 ibid, Bergeron, D, Desserud, R.J., Hayson, J.C. The Origin and Development of Canada s Objective-Based Codes Concept NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2004] Bergeron, D, Desserud, R.J., Hayson, J.C. The Origin and Development of Canada s Objective-Based Codes Concept NRCC Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. [2004]

14 The following provinces and territories adopt or adapt the model national codes: New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Manitoba and Saskatchewan Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon Prince Edward Island Province-wide adoption of the National Fire Code. Province-wide adoption of the National Plumbing Code with some modifications. Individual municipalities adopt the National Building Code. Province-wide adoption of the National Fire Code and aspects of the National Building Code pertaining to fire and life safety that are crossreferenced in the National Fire Code. Municipalities individually adopt the National Building Code. No province-wide building or plumbing code. Province-wide adoption of the National Building Code, with some modifications and additions, and the National Plumbing Code. No province-wide fire code, however, some municipalities adopt the National Fire Code. Province-wide adoption of the National Building Code, National Fire Code and National Plumbing Code with some modifications and additions. Territory-wide adoption of the National Building Code and National Fire Code with some modifications and additions. Yukon adopts the NPC. Province-wide adoption of the National Plumbing Code. Province-wide fire code not based on the National Fire Code. Major municipalities adopt the National Building Code. The following provinces publish their own codes based on the model national codes: Alberta and British Columbia Ontario Quebec Province-wide building, fire, and plumbing codes that are substantially the same as national model codes with variations that are primarily additions. Province-wide building, fire and plumbing codes based on the national model codes, but with significant variations in content and scope. The Ontario Fire Code, in particular, is significantly different from the National Fire Code. Ontario also references the Model National Energy Code for Buildings in its building code. Province-wide building and plumbing codes that are substantially the same as the National Building Code and National Plumbing Code, but with variations that are primarily additions. Major municipalities adopt the National Fire Code 14

15 The Model Energy Codes As the official responsibility of legislating on buildings falls in provincial hands, the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (MNECB) and the Model Nationals Energy Code of Canada for Houses (MNECH) were developed in committee by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) as a model code for energy efficiency for the adoption by appropriate local and provincial authorities to use as regulation as they see fit. First published in 1997, the documents are founded on an extensive cost-benefit analysis taking into consideration different regional climates, fuel type, fuel-cost, and construction costs. The codes reflect costs with consideration for the volatility of fuel, material, and construction costs as well as regional cost differences. The overall aim of this extensive technical and economic analysis is to support cost effective resource conservation and energy efficiency in new buildings. The documents do not specifically address renovation or existing buildings, but the techniques and data can be generally applied to these processes. They are designed as flexible documents providing a simple prescriptive path for minimum compliance, while also containing alternate performance and trade-off. The Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings 1997 (MNECB) contains cost-effective minimum requirements for energy efficiency in new buildings. The MNECB applies to all buildings, other than houses of three storeys or less, and to additions of more than 10 m 2 to such buildings. There are plans in place to update this Model Code in partnership with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Only Ontario has referenced the MNECB within its building code. The MNECB is not referenced within the NBCC. The Model National Energy Code of Canada for Houses 1997 (MNECH) contains cost-effective minimum requirements for energy efficiency in new housing. The MNECH applies to single family houses of three storeys or less, and to additions of more than 10 m 2. No province has referenced the MNECH within its code. The MNECH is not referenced within the NBCC. There are no plans in place to update the MNECH. 15

16 Homebuyer Perspectives on Building Codes and Energy Efficiency The following four studies of homebuyers perspectives of building codes and energy efficiency are examined below: 5. JD Power and Associates, 2006 Supplementary Survey of Canadian New Home Builder Customer Satisfaction Study for EnerQuality Corporation; 6. Shelton Group Study of Insights on the Consumer Mindset Regarding Energy Efficiency, 2006; 7. The Conservation Council of Ontario s Survey of Ontario Residents; and 8. The Consumers Council of Canada s New Home Buyers Study JD Power and Associates, 2006 Supplementary Survey of Canadian New Home Builder Customer Satisfaction Study for EnerQuality Corporation In September of 2006, JD Power and Associates conducted a supplementary survey as part of its Canadian New Home Builder Customer Satisfaction Study for EnerQuality Corporation to examine homebuyer perspectives with regards to energy efficiency. 18 The survey sample obtained from public records of all customers who closed their new, low-rise home in Properties that were sold to a second and/or subsequent home owner and investment properties where the home address differed from that of the home owner were removed from the sample. As a result, 26,494 questionnaires were mailed within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the Ottawa Carlton area. To maximize response rates, three separate mail-outs were undertaken including: 1. An alert postcard with an invitation to complete the questionnaire was mailed out at the end of March. 2. The alert postcard was followed a week later with a four-page questionnaire and cover letter, this again included the online invitation. 3. A second reminder postcard was then mailed at the end of April with a prompt for online completion. Respondents to the online JD Power and Associates New Home Builder Syndicated Study were invited to complete the EnerQuality survey. Of the 2,656 respondents to the JD Power Study, 1,830 participated in the EnerQuality Study. 18 JD Power and Associates New Home Builder Customer Satisfaction Study EnerQuality Supplemental Study, July 10,

17 Summary of Results from a JD Power/EnerQuality Study One third of GTA/Ottawa Carleton new home owners view energy efficiency as extremely important these people specifically identified energy efficiency as one of their key purchase motivators. A further 51% see energy efficiency as somewhat important - this group identified energy efficiency as an added benefit but not necessarily a primary purchase motivator Builders are not doing a good enough job educating their customers about the energy efficient features of their new home only 12% recall their builder specifically mentioning energy efficiency at any time during the purchase process. There is confusion as to the definition of an energy efficient home. 50% of consumers perceive they purchased an energy efficient home and only 14% of this group know how much they paid for energy efficient features (presumably many benefits such as additional insulation, low-e / argon windows etc. were part of the overall cost). Within this group over one third paid more than $5,000 in energy efficient features/upgrades. 89% of respondents believe that builders should build energy efficient homes as a basic standard. Lower energy bills were cited as the most important reason for buying an energy efficient home. Accordingly, when asked if paying up-front for additional energy efficiency is worth it eventually, 33% strongly agreed with the statement with another 46% that somewhat agreed New home buyers believe that energy efficiency labels should be government backed (76%), rather than certified by an independent group or by the industry. Labels are viewed as somewhat important (60%) more often than extremely important (28%). However, only 43% said that they would be willing to pay for a mandatory label with the majority of these responses stating that they would be prepared to pay $100 for a mandatory label. Of those respondents that stated they purchased an energy efficient home, the most popular efficient upgrades were: furnace (89%), appliances (79%), windows (66%) and lighting (54%). The installation of energy efficient lighting was significantly higher amongst GTA buyers whereas increased insulation and heat recovery ventilation was significantly higher in Ottawa. Of the respondents that stated that they did not purchase an energy efficient home, over half (55%) state that the primary reason is because it was not offered by the builder. 9 out of 10 people are likely to specifically seek out an energy efficient home if in the market to purchase again. A third (36%) of respondents 17

18 definitely will buy an energy efficient home if in the market for a home again while 55% probably will. When respondents were asked to identify the most important reason for buying an energy efficient home, there was a more pronounced differentiation between the benefits including lower energy bills (62%), more environmentally friendly (15%), better quality home (14%), improved comfort (5%) and higher resale value (4%). Respondents were highly aware of ENERGY STAR (64%) and EnerGuide (60%) rating systems followed by R-2000 (41%), EnvrioHome (9%) and LEED Canada (3%). Three-quarters (76%) of respondents stated they would be the most comfortable with a Government backed program that certifies energy efficiency ratings. Only 25% would prefer an independent group (16%) or the building industry (8%) itself as the standard for certification. Of the 43% of respondents that stated they would be willing to pay for a mandatory label, 30% were willing to pay $100, 22% were willing to pay $50, 13% were willing to pay over $250, 12% were willing to pay $200, another 12% were willing to pay $150, 11% were willing to pay $250. Overall, the percentage of new homeowners willing to pay was higher in the Ottawa Carleton region than in the GTA. When asked to choose the most important reason for a builder to consider building energy efficient homes, 48.2% believe the builder s environmental responsibility was the most important reason, 32.1% believe improving the builder s reputation with consumers was the most important motivator, 18.8% believe builders should build energy efficient homes to encourage innovation in the industry, 1.0% believe reasons other than those suggested are the most important for builders to consider. When asked if paying for additional energy efficiency up-front is worth it in the end, 33.3% strongly agreed, 46.6% somewhat agreed, 13.8% neither agreed or disagreed, 4.6% somewhat disagreed, 1.7% strongly disagreed. Respondents were given the opportunity to offer additional comments in regards to energy efficiency in the new housing industry. Some of the most common verbatim comments are as follows: Building energy efficient homes should be mandatory to all builders. Builders provide minimal energy efficiency options to buyers. Energy efficiency should be the normal procedure, not an option. Financially, it is a lot easier to have the builders build it into the house price. Government needs to play a bigger role in regulating builders to build more energy efficient homes. 18

19 Much more can and should be done. More information should be made available through the builders. More media coverage to build awareness. Should be a standard requirement not an option like airbags on a car. The cost of energy efficient options at present are too high. Shelton Group Study of Insights on the Consumer Mindset Regarding Energy Efficiency, 2006 In September 20, 2006, the Shelton Group conducted a survey of American consumers to gauge what they were thinking about energy efficiency. 19 The survey was structured around four basic themes: 1) What do consumers know (or think they know)? 2) What motivates them? 3) What will they buy? 4) Who are they? The Shelton Group study is based on Energy Pulse which is an American annual, national consumer telephone survey. The survey involves a random sample of 509 consumers that reflect the overall demographics of the U.S. population. Results are conducted with a 95% level of confidence with a +/- 4.34% margin of error. The results that follow relate specifically to the aspects of this report. Only survey results germane to this report have been presented. Summary of Shelton Group Survey Results When respondents were asked to rate the importance of energy conservation as an issue right now: 61.9% believe it is extremely important, 25.9% believe it is important, 1.6% believe it was unimportant, and 7.3% were undecided. When asked to state the level of cost increase required to force a change in habit and reduce consumption: 63.1% stated that prices have already gone up enough to make them change, 7.7% stated an increase of 10% was needed in order to force a habit change/ reduction in consumption, 12.4% stated costs must rise by 25%, and 8.4% stated prices must rise by 50%. When asked to rate the importance of energy conservation as it affects daily purchases and activities: 39.1% felt it was extremely important, 19 Shelton Group. What Are They Thinking? Key Insights on the Consumer Mindset Regarding Energy Efficiency, September 20,

20 33.2% felt it was important, 5.3% felt it was unimportant, and. 19.4% were undecided. When asked which is the best solution to reduce energy consumption, increase energy efficiency or both: 77.6% believe it is both, 11.4% believe increasing energy efficiency to be the best solution, 8.6% believe reducing energy consumption as the best solution, and 2.4% believed other solutions would be best. When asked to list their primary concern: 21.0% stated Quality of the Earth our children/ grandchildren will inherit. 18.9% stated Increasing energy prices 16.1% stated U.S. reliance on other countries for energy 14.3% stated Global warming. When asked to state their primary reason to participate in Energy Conservation activities/ purchases: 26.9% stated To preserve the quality of life for future generations, 23.4% To protect our environment and save natural resources 17.1% stated To save money 15.9%. stated To protect our nation s economy and reduce foreign dependence Respondents were asked to state how they felt about the term conservation : 65.2% felt positively towards the term, 20.4% were neutral and 14.3% felt negatively towards the term. When asked how they felt about the term green, 48.5% of respondents had a positive feeling, 38.5% felt neutral and 13% had negative feelings about the term. When respondents were asked to give reasons why People do not do more : 65.0% suggested it was because of hard to change habits. 63.9% suggested lack of information 58.7% suggested cost 50.7% suggested lack of availability. When asked whether they would choose one home over another based on energy efficiency, 85.7% of the respondents answered yes, 9.5% answered no and 4.8% didn t know. 20

21 78% of recent U.S. home purchasers say no one mentioned energy efficiency during the home buying process. The best way for homebuilders to sell energy-efficient home features: 39% suggested homebuilders offer only energy-efficient homes in new developments, 21.9% suggested homebuilders could offer slightly higher priced homes with energy-efficient features as standard, 21.9% suggested they could offer an optional package of features at an additional price 17.1% suggested they could offer energy-efficient features individually during construction. The Survey Population Conservative Classic: 33% of the survey population with the majority is comprised of middle-aged Caucasian males (64%) with a middle to upper-middle level of income and a moderate level of education. This segment resides in rural or suburban areas in the Southern and Western parts of the United States. The views of this group are conservative in nature. In regards to energy efficiency, their primary concern is saving money and protecting the nation s economy. Young Urbanites: This group represents 27% of the population. It is an ethnically diverse (mainly Latino) group, 62% of which are men. Members of this group tend to be younger with children. They are well-educated and live in mostly urban or suburban areas. Their views are democratic in nature. In regards to energy efficiency, their top concerns are protecting the environment, saving natural resources, and preserving the quality of life for future generations. Working-class Realists: This group represents 21% of the population. It is ethnically diverse (mainly African American) men and women group who s members tend to be less educated and have low-income and blue collar employment. They live in urban and rural areas in America s South and Midwest. In regards to energy efficiency, they are concerned with preserving the quality of life for future generations and saving money. Progressive Matriarchs: This group representing 19% of the population, this group is comprised predominantly of women (77%). They are older, white collar or professionals who reside in suburban areas in America s Northeast, West and Midwest. They are considered to be liberal. In regards to energy efficiency, they are concerned with protecting the environment/saving natural resources and preserving the quality of life for future generations. 21

22 The Conservation Council of Ontario s Survey of Ontario Residents A public opinion survey of voting age Ontario residents was conducted by Orcalepoll for the Conservation Council of Ontario in January Interviews were conducted beginning on December 16 th and completed on December 23 rd 2005 resulting in 956 completed surveys. Summary of Results Respondents were asked what first came to mind when thinking about conservation: 22% - the conservation of energy or electricity 12% - issues related to water, 9% - environmental protection, 6% - wildlife, and 6% - recycling 5% - land development, 5% - forests, and 4% - conservation areas. With regard to consumers efforts to conserve energy: 69% stated they make a conscious effort to conserve on a daily basis; 22% stated they make an effort to conserve most of the time, 8% stated they make an effort to conserve from time to time and 1% stated they never conserve or do so only under emergency conditions. The majority of Ontarians (93%) believe that energy conservation is important and (84%) feel that overall a better job of conserving energy needs to be done. When asked to give an opinion regarding their household efforts, roughly half felt they could do a better job of conserving energy especially in the winter. In regards to insulation and energy efficiency, 95% of Ontarians support having new homes insulated to meet the highest energy efficiency standards available while 93% felt this should be applied to homes being renovated. In regards to energy saving activities undertaken by homeowners over the past year: 99% claim to turn off lights when not in use, 72% changed to compact fluorescent bulbs, 69% draft proofed doors and windows, and 64% upgraded their appliances. 37% added or improved basement insulation 29% improved or upgraded insulation levels in the rest of their homes. 20 Oraclepoll Research Survey Report prepared for The Conservation Council of Ontario, January

23 Respondents who where planning to purchase a home in the next year where asked how much they would be willing to pay in order to have an energy efficient home. 88% would pay between $500 to $5,000 in order to have an energy efficient home 65% would pay an additional $5,000 12% would pay $2,500 9% would pay $1,000 2% would pay $500 Other results: 89% of respondents totally support or strongly support having new homes carry an energy efficiency rating similar to those found on new appliances. 88% of respondents totally support or strongly support requiring that builders and contractors in Ontario inform homebuyers of energy efficiency upgrades and their benefits. 80% of respondents totally support or strongly support upgrading the building code to ensure that the energy efficiency in buildings is higher than their current standards. Consumers Council of Canada s New Home Buyers Study, 2007 A Canada-wide survey was developed by the Consumers Council of Canada and conducted by Maritz Research via Omnitel a national telephone omnibus in February Data collection was collected via telephone interviews from facilities in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Sudbury and Canso. The fieldwork for this project was conducted over three waves of Omnitel beginning January 25th and was completed on February 20th A random sample was drawn through three waves of Omnitel survey. Each wave drew a sample of approximately 2000 adults with interviews was allocated by region as follows: Atlantic Quebec Ontario Manitoba/Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia 250 interviews 500 interviews 500 interviews 250 interviews 250 interviews 250 interviews Within the regional quotas of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, Census Metropolitan Area quotas were assigned to ensure a proportionate number of interviews were completed in Canada s three largest markets Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The sample was then weighted in tabulation to replicate actual population distribution by sex and age within the region. The Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories were excluded from the sample selection. 23

24 The survey reached 6041 adults who were interviewed over three waves resulting in 565 completed surveys. Summary of Results Question 1: Have you purchased a new home from a builder in the last 4 years or are you contemplating purchasing a new home from a builder in the next eighteen months? (One Response) 89% - No <1% - DON T KNOW <1% - Refused 10% - Purchased a new home from a builder in the past 4 years or are contemplating purchasing a new home from a builder in the next 18 months. With the split being 6% who purchased a new home from a builder in the last 4 years and 4% who are contemplating purchasing a new home from a builder in the next eighteen months The completed surveys were drawn from the 10% of respondents who had recently purchased or who planning to purchase a new home. Question 2: How important is/was energy efficiency in your decision to purchase a new home? (One Response) 23% - Extremely important 39% - Very important 24% - Important 9% - Not very important 4% - Not at all important 1% - DON T KNOW When asked to rate the importance of energy efficiency as a factor in their decision to purchase a new home, 86% thought it was Extremely Important, Very Important, or Important. Energy efficiency was Not Very Important or Not at all Important for 13% of respondents in their decision to purchase a new home. Question 3: How would you assess or evaluate the energy efficiency of a new home? (Check all that apply) 77% - I look for an energy rating label such as EnerGuide, EnergyStar, R- 2000, or Built Green 69% - I do my own research to assess the energy efficiency of a new home 68% - I rely on the advice of the builder and/or an architect to assess the energy efficiency of a new home 51% - I rely on the advice of a family member, friend and/or colleague to 24

25 assess the energy efficiency of a new home 32% -I don t know how to assess the energy efficiency of a new home Other Specify: 5% - I rely on building inspectors/somebody who works in the field 1% - I rely on the advice of utility companies 1% - I look at the hydro bill every month 1% - I look for insulation (e.g. doors, windows, etc.) 1% - I rely on other home buyers. 5% - Miscellaneous 1% - None of the above More than two thirds (68%) of the respondents said they would rely on the advice of the builder and/or architect to assess the energy efficiency of their new home. At the same time, the JD Power survey suggests builders in many cases do not provide the information consumers might need. Question 4: Should the construction of single and multi family dwellings be subject to mandatory minimum levels of energy efficiency such as minimum levels of insulation and equipment efficiency? (One Response) 86% - Yes 11% - No 1% - Refused 2% - DON T KNOW Consumers across Canada appear to overwhelming (86%) support mandatory minimum levels of energy efficiency for the construction of single and multifamily dwellings. Question 5: The construction of single and multi family dwellings in Canada is regulated by provincial building codes, which are based on the model National Building Code of Canada. This building code currently includes no requirements for energy efficiency in houses or buildings such as minimum insulation levels or equipment efficiencies. Some provinces, like Ontario, have developed their own energy efficiency standards independent of the National Building Code of Canada. Should the National Building Code of Canada include energy efficiency requirements for houses and buildings to serve as a model for any province to adopt? (One Response) 72% - Yes, it is important to have a consistent national standard across all provinces 24% - No, it is better for each province to develop its own standards within provincial codes 3% - No, there is no need to establish energy efficiency standards within provincial codes 1% - Refused 25

26 1% - DON T KNOW The National Building Code of Canada regulates the construction of single and multi family dwellings in Canada and is the basis for which provincial building codes are set. It currently includes no requirements for energy efficiency, although some provinces, such as Ontario, have developed their own energy efficiency standards. Canadian consumers strongly support (72% of respondents) the inclusion of energy efficiency provisions in the NBCC that could act as a model for provincial codes. Only 3% of respondents did not want energy efficiency standards within provincial codes. Question 6a: Would you be willing to pay more for purchasing an energy efficient home? (One Response) 79% - Yes 18% - No 3% - DON T KNOW The large majority of respondents (79%) would be willing to pay more for purchasing an energy efficient home. When consumers Higher upfront costs do not appear to Question 6b: How much more would you be willing to pay? (One Response) Amount more willing to pay % of respondents under $10,000 19% $10,000 under $20,000 19% $20,000 under $50,000 16% $50,000 or more 5% Refused to comment 5% Don t Know 36% It is clear that consumers don t know how much energy efficiency costs. Code mandated energy efficiency costs likely less than $5000. More than 40% of consumers were willing to pay more than $5,000 for an energy efficient home. 26