Low-income energy efficiency should be an urgent priority as the federal government considers its next budget and implementation of its enhanced climate plan. Thus far, the federal climate strategy and "build back better" agenda have earmarked new funds for retrofits of commercial buildings and municipal-institutional buildings, as well as grants and an expected low-interest loan for residential homes. Energy- and emission-reducing retrofits deliver lower energy bills, more durable and comfortable buildings, as well as health improvements from better indoor environmental quality.

These programs are not easily accessible to lower-income homeowners or market renters, who cannot reasonably be expected to pay the up-front costs required to access later rebates or to take on additional debts to do so. Specific barriers can also include difficulty interpreting complex building-science concepts when English or French is not a first language, a lack of experience with Canadian home technologies, or a lack of trust in the government departments and utilities that typically administer efficiency or income assistance programs. Targeted strategies are also needed to reach the rural, immigrant and Indigenous populations that face higher energy poverty rates.

The U.S. Weatherization Assistance Program has been in place since 1976. Canada only briefly had an "EnerGuide for Low-Income Households" program in 2006, before it was cancelled by the then-newly elected Harper government. This initiative saw strong demand and demonstrated potential to cut energy bills by 40 per cent, yet only half of those savings were achieved because of arbitrary budget caps per home, according to a review from the non-profit Green Communities Canada.

Today, almost every province provides some form of low-income energy-efficiency assistance. The exception is Alberta, which could resume a comprehensive and well-designed program that it cancelled in 2019. However, many of these efforts face budget constraints due to, for example, utility regulators having restrictive cost-benefit screenings that often fail to consider the full benefits of reducing energy poverty (for example: health benefits, greenhouse gas reductions, lower risk of fires and carbon monoxide emissions, and reduced utility credit and collection costs). Existing efforts are largely focused on relatively incremental energy savings measures across a large number of homes rather than comprehensive energy- and carbon emission-reducing retrofits in each home that will make a major impact on household budget and quality of life. Federal funding can, for example, enhance a program currently focused on changing lights and showerheads to include more comprehensive upgrades to things like insulation and heating systems.