Buildings and the appliances within them account for 40 percent of America's energy use and a third of our global warming emissions. A home energy audit is often the first step in making a home more efficient. But getting an audit done properly is not necessarily an easy process.
The result of all audits should include a list of specific recommended improvements and a payback analysis. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, a mid-size city, our energy provider offers a low-cost inspection of the thermal shell of a home but not a comprehensive energy audit that would include a Home Energy Efficiency Rating (HERS) with a blower door test (a diagnostic test designed accurately measure the air tightness of a home and locate sources of air leakage) and thermal imaging analysis. For this, we are on our own to look elsewhere.
Finding a qualified and ethical auditor is not a straightforward process. With the growth of the green building market, it is surprising that there is neither a national standard for an energy audit nor a nationally recognized certification for energy auditors. These gaps put customers at a disadvantage. There are many instances of companies that use the energy audit merely as an entry point in order to sell other products or services. A true energy audit should stand on its own and advocate for the homeowner's best interests.
A mishmash of entities certify energy auditors (but it’s unclear if standards are the same among them) and building performance ratings (a different and more comprehensive process). For example, the Energy Star website has a link to locate an “Energy Star for homes partner” which leads to a new homes partner locator tool for either builders, performance raters or lenders. Not much help for an old-house owner.
Doing a local search turned up a list that was hard to navigate - many providers cited years of experience as inspectors or builders, but that told me little about their training or qualifications to assess and recommend appropriate fixes to my old house. A significant problem is finding someone who will not recommend replacement products over fixes that are more appropriate. I experienced this with a very capable carpenter we hired to fix the framework around a bank of windows. He insisted that replacing the 14 windows in the entire room, which would take him a day, was a much better value for me than his spending 2.5 days in repairs. While I believe he sincerely felt that new windows were a superior product, it seemed apparent to me that his cut on the sale of the new product had to be better than the 12 extra hours of work involved in repairs. The potential benefits of reusing and improving, rather than replacing, facilities are covered in a report on building reuse I released.
Speaking of windows, extensive studies by the National Parks Service indicate that changes to windows should be based on factors other than energy savings; they estimate the "payback" for window replacement is in the range of 90 years. The studies affirm that the most cost effective and practical improvements are often the least expensive: adding insulation and air sealing. This adds another level of difficulty to the energy retrofit - finding qualified insulation and HVAC installers. Many are not knowledgeable about effectively and safely insulating buildings or increasing heating equipment performance efficiency, primarily because until very recently, there was little training available. If we are serious about scaling up energy efficiency retrofits, building owners need a better way to assess the qualifications of both inspectors and installers. An oversight body for a national certification would be a good step forward. But it should build into its specifications the vast amount of data showing the benefits of maximizing the use of existing materials, for example fixing and reusing windows and other parts of older homes. Reuse also avoids the negative impacts of sending usable materials to the landfill, as well as the energy and emissions costs in producing the new products. | 
