Across Canada, provinces like British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Ontario are investing in energy retrofits to cut emissions, lower energy bills, and improve health. But Alberta stands apart—not for what it’s doing, but for what it isn’t.

There, 42% of 598,000 homes built before 1980 need repairs and upgrades. But Alberta is the only province or territory that doesn’t allow utilities to engage in demand-side management (DSM) programs—initiatives that help people use less energy by funding things like insulation, heat pumps, and efficient appliances.

Amid increasing wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and rising energy prices, retrofit advocates are working to build institutional support for programs to make homes safer for Albertans. Though retrofits can be costly and complex, a new Pembina Institute report shows their full value emerges when health care savings are factored into the equation.

For example, researchers in England found that poor housing conditions cost their country’s health care system $3 billion each year. Simply fixing homes that were too cold would save the National Health Service $1.8 billion per year in avoided costs, the study found.

In New Zealand, researchers uncovered remarkable health and energy savings from retrofits made during a multi-year insulation and clean heating program, writes Pembina. After tracking hospitalization rates, prescription costs, and mortality across retrofitted and non-retrofitted homes, they found that insulation had the most benefit, while the biggest health savings came from reduced mortality. The program had a net return of $1.03 billion in health and energy savings—for every dollar spent, four dollars were returned.

The Energy Mix talked with report author Raidin Blue, an analyst with the Pembina Institute’s buildings program, about Alberta’s retrofit gap, its health and equity impacts, and what’s needed to drive policy change.

The Mix: Why is it important to highlight both health and energy savings when making the case for deep retrofits?

Retrofits aren’t just about energy—they have a broader value proposition that we aren’t capturing. We believe deep retrofits can be key to making life more affordable for Canadians, which is a huge priority right now. The business case for deep retrofits needs to be expanded to include non-energy benefits: improved health and safety, enhanced resilience, and better insurance coverage. When all of that is factored in, deep retrofits make strong financial sense.

The Mix: Who do you hope will act on this report—and what message do you want them to walk away with?

Building owners. I want them to understand that health is tied to housing—we spend 90% of our lives indoors. Poor ventilation? Air quality issues can damage your lungs. Struggling to keep your home warm in winter? Chronic cold is linked to cardiovascular issues. Both owners and tenants can face serious health impacts from their buildings, and retrofits are a powerful solution.

The Mix: You highlight vulnerable households—like low-income families and seniors—living in poor-quality housing, yet Alberta has no province-wide retrofit strategy.

However, we are seeing targeted programs like the Métis Government’s federally funded $9.24-million retrofit initiative. What would it take to build broader political or institutional support for retrofits in Alberta? And should the feds step up with funding?

People in Alberta want to retrofit. The demand is there. It is great to see this initiative from the Métis Government. The City of Calgary also expanded its Home Upgrades Program, and 20-some communities are involved in Alberta Municipalities’ Clean Energy Improvement Program (CEIP).

Unfortunately, CEIP programs are often out of reach for vulnerable populations, since the funding is tied to property taxes—and many low-income families and seniors don’t own their homes.

In provinces and territories where there are utility-led Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, retrofit initiatives are common, and many focus specifically on low-income housing. These programs offer stable, year-over-year funding that building owners can rely on. So a key first step would be for Alberta—a DSM outlier in Canada—to enable utilities to administer and invest in them.

At the federal level, the Canada Greener Homes Affordability Program has allocated C$800 to $900 million across the country to support retrofits in low- to median-income homes. So far, Alberta is the only province not actively working to access those funds. In most other jurisdictions, they’re managed through a combination of designated agencies and utilities.

To advance deep retrofits in Alberta and across Canada, all levels of government need to work more closely with important players like Natural Resources Canada, Infrastructure Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, insurance companies, and health authorities. We need to better understand the impacts of retrofits on everything from health to resilience to affordability—and then create stable supports and incentives. That’s when building owners will begin to see real returns on deep retrofit investments—beyond just utility bill savings and emissions reductions.

The Mix: You’ve drawn on international examples from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Are conditions in Alberta different enough that more local research is still needed? Where should that work start?

It is great to see that Australia created $840 in health savings per home, per winter, by retrofitting senior households. I think a health-focused retrofit study in Alberta would see significant health savings. We had hesitations with extrapolations because our examples vary from Alberta in both climate and by types of buildings—so we tried not to make direct comparisons.

Alberta-specific pilots would showcase the health benefits of retrofits to building owners, local and provincial governments, and the retrofit industry as a whole. Fortunately, these benefits are likely to emerge even without extensive data collection or formal studies. A good starting point could be post-retrofit surveys, where program managers ask tenants about increased comfort or improvements in their overall health and well-being. From there, deeper research could explore reductions in sick days or asthma symptoms. This means working with health care providers to make stronger links between retrofits, health outcomes, and avoided health care costs.

The Mix: Are there any promising examples in Canada—provincial or local—where health research is already influencing retrofit policy or program design?

Canadians are really starting to make this connection between our built environment and health. For years people have discussed active transportation, walkable cities, and their health benefits. The University of Alberta has a Climate Change + Health Hub and the Housing for Health initiative because these are important issues to Albertans.

Look to the 2021 heat dome, when 619 people died in British Columbia, 66 in Alberta. The B.C. government responded with a formal coroner’s investigation and the province worked with utility BC Hydro to provide free air conditioners to vulnerable people. Similar programs were also launched in Oregon and Washington State. These are promising, but still just responses to acute events—they don’t take a whole-building approach to deep retrofits. I want policy-makers and researchers to understand that—beyond heat waves—there are chronic health impacts associated with our housing.

The Mix: What makes you optimistic that this framing will gain traction? Are decision-makers starting to think differently about the value of deep retrofits?

Retrofits do make a difference and that gives me optimism. They are the one form of climate policy that does both climate mitigation and adaptation. They can make our homes healthier, safer, and more affordable. Part of our work over the next year will be to bring together all of these pieces for a complete deep retrofit business case. We just need coordinated efforts from all orders of government, utilities, insurance and investment sectors, and building owners, to keep Canadians healthy and safe.

This interview was updated June 11 to add a detail on the winter medical savings in the Australian study.