Many articles in this series show how building design can influence energy usage. Characteristics can be built in to save energy usage and cost, independent of behavior. These same energy efficiency strategies can also influence the health of those that spend time in the building, whether residents or workers who spend 40 hours per week there. A recent article from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy compiles recent evidence behind this conclusion. https://aceee.org/research-report/h1901
A poorly-sealed building envelope not only allows conditioned air, which required energy to be expended (electricity or fuel combustion), to leave, but also allows pests, moisture, and air pollution to enter interior spaces, raising the exposure of users to allergens, mold, and disease. Leaky windows and poor insulation can lead to drafts and extreme temperatures, triggering asthma attacks and leading to other respiratory illnesses. Inefficient appliances can affect air quality through incomplete combustion or improper venting. Together, these conditions contribute to increased rates of cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, heart disease, and stroke in the US, disproportionately affecting low-income people.
Energy efficiency programs can make homes healthier and save lives, while directly benefiting families financially. The problem is that energy efficiency upgrades require upfront costs to correct a condition or procure a new or better technology, upfront capital that poorer families (or companies) do not have.
The link between energy efficiency and public health is not recognized as energy efficiency programs have historically been implemented either by energy utility companies or government agencies focused on energy management; there has been no or little contribution from public health institutions. It is recommended that research be done to identify energy program elements that would also have the greatest impact on public health and data collection of collateral public health effects in buildings after undergoing energy upgrades. This bridging the gap may need the intervention of other government agencies, such as departments of health and housing. For example, elements of the national Affordable Care Act can use energy efficiency programs to help its goal of a healthier society (making fewer health insurance claims). If a given community is a focus of a weatherization or home energy efficiency program, data should be collected, not only concerning the amount of Btus of energy saved by the program, but also whether there has been a reduction in the number of emergency room visits for children experiencing asthma attacks, for example.
While the ACEEE study followed 23 potential frequently measured health indicators, most programs tracked 3 or fewer of them. Many of the energy programs did take steps to assess and communicate their health impacts, and, in some cases, bring in health care professionals to raise the effectiveness of the program. More needs to be done to show this cross-effectiveness of energy efficiency and health.
CCES has the experts to help you assess not only the cost savings of a potential energy efficiency program, but the potential health benefits, as well. We can help you design a program to measure and heighten beneficial health effects as your reduce energy usage, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.