On inefficiency

I doubt many Canadians were gullible enough to believe the Cons when they claimed they had scrapped the EnerGuide program to try to make it more efficient, rather than because they didn't see the environment as worth any investment until public opinion forced their hand. But in case anybody was under the illusion that the Cons had actually put an improved system in place, the Star reports that the revised program - like the government which put it in place - is seriously lacking for both reliability and accountability:

The federal government's new program to evaluate the energy efficiency of Canadian homes and recommend upgrades has major flaws that will take months to fix, a Star investigation has learned.

After auditing the same Toronto house, four companies came up with four different energy ratings – ranging from 37 to 46 out of 100 – and called for renovations ranging from $3,000 to $25,000.

And while they all said replacing the old, wheezing furnace with a smaller high-efficiency model was a priority, as well as patching cracks that leak heat, other recommendations varied, from upgrading the fireplace to replacing three exterior doors. One auditor incorrectly stated the basement lacked insulation.

That means homeowners could spend big money on ill-advised retrofits and waste as much as $10,000 in grant money from the federal and provincial governments.

A year after scrapping the national EnerGuide for Homes program, the federal government relaunched it under a new name as part of the climate change plan. Under the $300 million ecoENERGY Retrofit program, run by Natural Resources Canada and due to end in 2011, homeowners can receive up to $5,000 in grants for doing things such as insulating walls or installing a solar water heater. Last month, the province announced it would match the federal grants.

To keep up, the number of companies offering home energy audits across the country has more than doubled to 70 since April. Most are scrambling to hire more auditors.

In the push to get certified auditors into the field, the government hired experienced people, but Suzanne Deschênes, manager of the ecoENERGY program, said perhaps they needed more training. And the government hasn't had time to check their work.

Of course, the lack of trained auditors couldn't have been helped by the Cons' own choice to make the field seem an unstable one through their earlier decision to scrap EnerGuide.

Hopefully the problem is one that will be reduced with time as both private auditors and their federal regulators develop a better idea of what they're doing. But the report makes clear that the Cons' supposed efficiencies are entirely likely to lead to serious inconsistency in the application of the program - meaning that some needed improvements likely won't get made, while other, less necessary work will receive significant amounts of public funding. And since it's far from clear that the Cons in particular are concerned with actually delivering results, there's little reason to be optimistic that the program will improve much as long as they remain in power.