Energy Use Inside and Outside the Dwelling – 2007 Survey of Household Energy Use – Supplemental Report

PDF Version | Contents | Next Page

Energy use outside the dwelling

Motor vehicles

Because the use of motor vehicles was the most common method of travel to work by Canadian households in 2007, it was important for SHEU-2007 to gather information on the characteristics of motor vehicles used by households.

Number of vehicles per household

Only 13 percent of households did not own or lease a motor vehicle in 2007 (see Figure 30). Among the remaining households that had a motor vehicle, there was almost an equal proportion of single- and multiple-vehicle households. Single-vehicle households accounted for 43 percent of all households, while multiple-vehicle households accounted for 44 percent.¹³

While there was an equal proportion of single- and multiple-vehicle households at the national level, the same cannot be said at the regional level (see Figure 31). Quebec was the only region that had a higher proportion of single-vehicle households (55 percent) than multiple-vehicle households (45 percent). Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia had the highest percentage of single-vehicle households and the highest percentage of regular public transit use (see Figure 28). Manitoba-Saskatchewan (42 percent) and Alberta (44 percent) had the lowest proportions of single-vehicle households. These two regions also had the highest proportions of households with three or more vehicles.

There was also a difference in the proportions of single- and multiple-vehicle households between urban and rural households (see Figure 32). Among households that had a motor vehicle, more than half of urban households had only one vehicle, while 63 percent of rural households had multiple vehicles. These results are not surprising, given that rural households have less access to public transit, and distances to possible destinations are typically longer in rural locations than in urban locations (see Figure 33). The combination of these factors could necessitate the use of multiple motor vehicles by rural households.

Vehicle type

SHEU-2007 also examined the types of motor vehicles used by households. The vehicle types considered by the survey were

• car
• minivan or van
• sport-utility vehicle (SUV)
• pickup truck
• motorcycle

More than two thirds of households reported that their primary vehicle was a car (see Table 5). The remaining households stated that a minivan or van (14 percent), SUV (10 percent) or pickup truck (8 percent) was their primary vehicle.

Table 5. Penetration rate of motor vehicle types among primary household vehicles, 2007

Motor vehicle type	Most used motor vehicle* (%)
Car	67
Minivan or van	14
Sport-utility vehicle (SUV)	10
Pickup truck	8
Motorcycle	-

* Among households that owned/leased at least one motor vehicle.
Numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

As shown in Table 6, a smaller majority of households reported that a car was their secondary vehicle (81 percent), compared with those who said it was their primary vehicle (67 percent). Because of this finding, pickup trucks had a significantly higher penetration rate for the secondary vehicle (25 percent) than for the primary vehicle (8 percent).

Table 6. Penetration rate of motor vehicle types among secondary household vehicles, 2007

Motor vehicle type	Second most used motor vehicle* (%)
Car	51
Minivan or van	11
Sport-utility vehicle (SUV)	11
Pickup truck	25
Motorcycle	2

* Among households that owned/leased at least two motor vehicles.

Model year

The primary motor vehicles used by households were newer than the secondary motor vehicles (see Table 7). Among households that had at least one motor vehicle, 67 percent reported that the model year of their primary vehicle was 2000 or more recent. In contrast, only 53 percent of multiple-vehicle households reported that the model year of their secondary vehicle was 2000 or more recent.

Table 7. Penetration rate of motor vehicle model years, based on household use, 2007

Model year	Most used motor vehicle* (%)	Second most used motor vehicle (%)
2005-2008	26	20
2000-2004	41	33
1995-1999	21	26
1990-1994	9	13
Before 1990	3	8

* Among households that owned/leased at least two motor vehicles.

Engine type

Among households that had a motor vehicle, more than 90 percent reported that their primary vehicle had either a four- or six-cylinder engine (see Table 8). Of these households, more used a four-cylinder engine vehicle as their primary vehicle (49 percent) than a six-cylinder one (42 percent).

Table 8. Penetration rate of motor vehicle engine types among primary household vehicles, 2007

Engine type	Most used motor vehicle* (%)
Four cylinder	49
Six cylinder	42
Eight cylinder	7
Hybrid (gasoline/diesel and electric motor)	1
Other	1

* Among households that owned/leased at least one motor vehicle.

Similar results were observed for the secondary motor vehicle used by households (see Table 9). Nearly 80 percent of multiple-vehicle households reported that their secondary vehicle had either a four- or six-cylinder engine. However, the penetration rate of the secondary motor vehicle was slightly lower than that of the primary vehicle. The penetration rate for eight cylinder-engine vehicles, however, was noticeably higher for the secondary vehicle. Only 7 percent of households with a motor vehicle reported that their primary vehicle had an eight-cylinder engine. In contrast, 18 percent of multiple-vehicle households reported that their secondary motor vehicle had an eight-cylinder engine.

Table 9. Penetration rate of motor vehicle engine types among secondary household vehicles, 2007

Engine type	Second most used motor vehicle* (%)
Four cylinder	40
Six cylinder	39
Eight cylinder	18
Hybrid (gasoline/diesel and electric motor)	1
Other	3

* Among households that owned/leased at least two motor vehicles.

Hybrid engines represented only 1 percent of both primary and secondary motor vehicles used by households. While these penetration rates were extremely low, the uptake of this energy-efficient technology will continue to be monitored.

Distance driven

Nearly 70 percent of Canadian households that had a motor vehicle reported that their primary vehicle was driven less than 20 000 kilometres (km) in 2007 (see Figure 33). A similar result was observed for households in urban locations, but the same cannot be said for households in rural locations. Among rural households that had a motor vehicle, approximately 60 percent reported that their primary vehicle was driven less than 20 000 km. So, generally, primary vehicles were driven more by rural households than by urban households. As previously mentioned, this is not surprising, because distances to possible destinations are typically longer in rural locations than in urban locations.

Importance of fuel efficiency in purchase decision

Almost half of Canadian households reported in 2007 that fuel efficiency was a very important factor when they purchased or leased their last motor vehicle (see Figure 34). An additional 40 percent of households reported that fuel efficiency was somewhat important. This means that the vast majority of households were conscious of fuel efficiency when they last purchased or leased a motor vehicle.

The highest proportion of those that found fuel efficiency was very important were households that drove their primary vehicle the least, less than 5000 km, and the most, 40 000 km or more (see Figure 35). Households that drove the least may have done so due to affordability, while those that drove the most may have done so due to the magnitude of the fuel expenditure.

Fuel efficiency would be expected to be an important factor in the multiple-vehicle household, too. That is because these households are more likely to have higher overall distances travelled and therefore are more likely to consume more fuel to drive their vehicles than single-vehicle households. However, survey results suggest that most multiple-vehicle households placed relatively the same importance on fuel efficiency as did single-vehicle households (see Figure 36). For example, 46 percent of single-vehicle households stated that fuel efficiency was very important the last time they purchased or leased a motor vehicle. Similar results were observed for households with two or three motor vehicles. However, the result was lower for households with more than three motor vehicles, because only 39 percent of these households reported that fuel efficiency was very important the last time they purchased or leased a motor vehicle. A possible explanation for this result is that a household’s fourth vehicle could be considered a luxury item that may be driven only seasonally, because 58 percent of these vehicles were driven less than 5000 km in 2007. Therefore, fuel efficiency would not be as important as other factors at the time of purchase.

Alternative fuels

Canadian households are not limited to using gasoline or diesel as a fuel source for their motor vehicles or gas-powered equipment. Several alternative fuels, such as ethanol-blended gasoline and biodiesel fuel, can now be used. Ethanol is a renewable fuel that burns more cleanly and completely than gasoline or diesel fuel. Biodiesel is a biodegradable fuel that can be used in any diesel engine. Both of these alternative fuels produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions at their point of combustion than conventional fuels.

SHEU-2007 found that among households that had a motor vehicle in 2007, 43 percent were aware that either ethanol-blended gasoline or biodiesel were available in their area (see Figure 37). However, this result varied significantly on a regional basis. For example, only 18 percent of households in the Atlantic Region reported that these alternative fuels were available in their area. On the other hand, the percentage was 66 percent for Manitoba-Saskatchewan.

Additionally, in each region, a high percentage of households did not know if ethanol-blended gasoline or biodiesel were available in their area. For example, more than 30 percent of Canadian households that had a motor vehicle in 2007 did not know if these alternative fuels were available in their area. This means that these results may underestimate the actual availability of these fuels in 2007 and that a significant proportion of Canadian households may be unaware of these fuel types.

¹³ Percentages reported in Figure 30 do not add up to the percentages in the text due to rounding.

Previous Page | Contents| Next Page