The main reason people give for not pursuing building energy improvements is "poor payback". Unfortunately those of us who have been using cost savings as the sole or primary justification for recommending measures are directly to blame for this. We have set up the expectation that all energy saving improvements will "pay for themselves in just a couple of years".
When this payback period stretches beyond 2 - 3 years businesses tend to lose interest. Homeowners pass if paybacks exceed 5 years, or less if they anticipate moving. So what can we do? How about ignoring payback altogether?
Let's ask this, are buildings created with a specific payback period in mind? Usually that answer is no. Buildings are built to serve a function or set of functions that range from creating shelter from the elements to massaging the owners ego. Are there reasons within that range that we can bring in to the retrofit proposition that can trump payback? I think the answer is yes, the challenge is shifting the conversation.
Comfort is a reliable sales point. Most of my residential work is still focused on comfort issues. How do we bring in other issues such as indoor air quality and building durability? Obviously if there are glaring defects in those areas owners will be on board. But how do we bring those in proactively?
Anybody willing to chime in? I presume that since this is a new venture it will take a bit to get going, but be brave and jump in. I hope we can share thoughts. and solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment