Building energy retrofits in Canada under government fiscal constraints.

Ali Madadizadeh, Kamran Siddiqui, Amir A Aliabadi

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ali MadadizadehDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

Kamran SiddiquiDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Amir A AliabadiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. aaliabad@uoguelph.ca.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada 401231Wellcome Trust 055725

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Residential building energy retrofits can significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and household energy costs when supported by effective fiscal policies. This study develops an integrated simulation–optimization framework to identify optimal retrofit strategies and fiscal parameters across ten Canadian cities. Results indicate that photovoltaic (PV) systems are favored in regions with high grid emission intensity or electricity prices, while thermal insulation levels remain near code minimums and improved air tightness is consistently preferred. Thermal energy storage and heat pumps are effective across most climates. Over a 20-year horizon, these strategies yield up to $7,000 in annual homeowner cost savings and over 100 tonne CO[Formula: see text]e of emissions reductions per building. Financial incentives including rebates ($23,000–$42,000), low-interest loans ($1,600–$8,000), and moderate energy taxes (0.4–8.8%) are essential to ensure affordability and adoption.

Indexed as

Building decarbonizationClimate-equity policyEnergy povertyMulti-objective optimizationResidential building energy retrofit strategies

Identifiers

PMID42045248

DOI10.1038/s41598-026-49147-1

PMCPMC13156324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.