To retrofit or not? Making energy retrofit decisions through life cycle thinking for Canadian residences.

• A retrofit selection strategy employing economic and environmental decision criteria was proposed. • Building energy retrofits were evaluated through a life cycle thinking approach. • Retrofits with operational emissions savings may not be beneficial when considering life cycle impacts. • Energy mix and the heating system of the house greatly impact the effectiveness. • Retrofit selection changes with stakeholder priorities on environment and economics. Improving the energy performance of buildings has been a much-discussed topic over the past few decades. With the current focus on climate change mitigation, emissions reduction has also come to the forefront of this discussion. Retrofitting is an option to improve the energy and emissions performance of buildings. However, in the residential building stock, retrofit planning for existing buildings faces many complexities due to variations in climatic conditions and macro-environment as well as the presence of multiple stakeholder groups. Thus, in identifying solutions, it is necessary to take a holistic perspective that covers these different dimensions. In this paper, commonly used building energy retrofits were evaluated through a life cycle thinking approach. The performance of various retrofit options applicable for single family detached housing were evaluated using the HOT2000 energy simulation software package under the varying climatic conditions and energy supply scenarios across Canada. The retrofits were evaluated in terms of the additional investment, energy use and cost reduction achieved over the life cycle, and life cycle emissions reduction. The findings indicate that the provincial energy mix and the heating system of the house (i.e. electric or natural gas) play a major role in determining the effectiveness of a retrofit, and this "effectiveness" changes at different stakeholder levels. However, not all retrofits that reduce emissions make economic sense and vice versa when life cycle thinking comes into play. The findings will be useful for building owners and occupants as well as for policy developers and other decision makers interested in demand side management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]