On the surface, the city's decision to scrap the EnerGuide building code it adopted in 2010 is simply a bureaucratic move that has limited public interest and one that really won't affect the average person.
But city council's close vote this week to axe the so-called EGH80 standards – higher than national standards for homes in the warmer south – without having any new rules in place for homebuilders, is actually a serious mistake that not only could hurt homebuyers, but also frustrate attempts to lower carbon emissions in the battle to stop damaging the environment.
Behind the scenes at city hall, it has also caused tempers to rise between councillors, especially since some are in the home-building or selling business and others have a vested interest in fighting climate change.
City hall's action on this issue was triggered by the federal government's decision to change the EnerGuide rating system at the end of this year to a new one that measures energy efficiency of a home in gigajoules.
That means a complete switch from the current system, which use a 0 to 100 rating scale – the more efficient a house, the higher the rating number. A house that leaks a lot of air, has no insulation and uses a lot of energy gets a low rating, whereas an airtight and well-insulated house that generates a lot of its own energy through renewable sources, such as solar panels or geothermal, gets a much higher rating. EnerGuide’s new gigajoules rating scale shows the energy performance of a home – with the lower the number, the better the energy performance. So now zero is the best energy performance a home can get, meaning the building produces as much energy as it consumes and also reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
As Yellowknife, understandably, is in the coldest zone when it comes to EnerGuide ratings, it's pretty clear there's a need for well-insulated homes to keep heating costs down in winter.
The problem is, it's expensive to build an energy-efficient home and with material costs already through the roof up here, home builders are always looking for ways to construct homes that can appeal to the broadest income market.
And there was also debate at council over whether builders were even following the EnerGuide provisions in the bylaw.
However, Ecology North states that homes built since the bylaw was enacted saved on average $2,800 per year in avoided energy costs, a total of $272,000 per year city-wide.
So why scrap the current EnerGuide system seven months before the new measurement regime is brought into place? And why do so with no replacement plan ready to go?
This is especially perplexing since the feds state that during the EnerGuide transition, "provinces and territories will keep using the 0 to 100 system until they are ready to adopt the new gigajoules per year system."
And there's this from the feds: "New homes in Northwest Territories have already switched to the new EnerGuide gigajoules rating system. The 0-100 rating system may continue to be in use as well, due to existing incentive programs."
That just adds to the confusion. Some clear answers are needed about this matter.
There needs to be tough energy efficiency guidelines for homebuilders in Yellowknife, as the cost of living must be kept down. Sure, building a truly energy-efficient house will cost more for the buyer on the front end, but that cost will be easily recovered over time in lower heating bills.
As for home builders' desire to appeal to the largest number of potential home buyers, this city could use some creative thinking in the way neighbourhoods are set up and the way lots are utilized in older areas. People don't necessarily need large poorly-insulated homes on huge lots. Groupings of tiny, well-insulated homes would be one thing to look at.