Transcript Energy Efficiency in Canadian Buildings

Marion Fraser
Fraser & Company

National Code
Provincial Regulation
Municipal Enforcement

Improved codes important but not sufficient


 do not address existing buildings
 code setting process “out of date”
 range of performance of buildings “built to code”
far greater than expected

National Building Code – no reference

Model National Energy Code Buildings (MNECB) developed in 1997
to energy efficiency until 2008
now outdated

Ontario Building Code referenced

City of Vancouver – referenced
MNECB
ASHRAE 90.1 in 1992/ MNECB in
1997

8 Ontario school boards

design and performance of 68 newer schools

benchmarking identified top schools

building profiles/technical audits defined
common characteristics and design standards

workshops, design charrettes with caretakers,
principals, board staff & design teams

improved design for future schools and
operational standards, practices for existing
schools
Electricity Consumption - 3:1 range
Best
School
TRCA Sustainable Schools Program
Natural Gas - 4:1 range
Best
School
TRCA Sustainable Schools program
Water - 5:1 range
Best
School
TRCA Sustainable Schools program

Sustainable Schools Program
 Sharing benchmark information inspired significant
savings and ongoing improved practices
 Design charettes led to design improvements and
performance targets for new schools
Current
Codes are far
behind best
practice


Codes not enforced
Designers are not owners
 Designer never pay an energy bill!
 Systems not commissioned; recommissioned
 “Lowest First Cost” not “Life Cycle Cost”
 e.g. electric baseboard heaters
 Conventional Design Process
 Disconnects between: Architecture – Engineering – Construction
– Commissioning – Operations – Maintenance

No recognition of impact of occupants,
custodians, maintenance procedures
Accountability Framework

benchmarking to establish energy performance
standards for each building type

ongoing target-setting for individual buildings,
portfolios

monitoring and reporting to all stakeholders on
progress towards targets

verified and $ savings delivered

continuous improvement
•
•
•
•
Operations
benchmarking
operational best
practice
targets and reporting
training
Action
Plan
Occupants
• Occupant engagement
and recognition
• education and support
• measurement and
reporting
Technology/Retrofit Design
• Building Performance Audits should be used for all
retrofit projects

Allows building owners/managers to:

Uses integrated system of tools, performance standards,
resources and information

Delivers staff training and best practices

Engages Occupants
 continuously assess and improve building performance – accessible,
on-line system, inexpensive
 improvements include operational and scheduling
 potential to pool $savings for managed capital improvements
 allows building owners to work towards LEED certification
 Engineering only needed for major projects
 Improved specifications for conservation projects
 Links to “Green” Procurement

Assessment of performance, including carbon
footprint and conservation potential

Data management and national (or international)
benchmarking (building performance database)

Audit templates and performance standards

Multi-year template for planning actions and
tracking improvements

Ongoing measurement and verification

Commercial buildings: 3,000,000 m2 (60 buildings)

School boards: over 250 K-12 schools

Administration buildings:

National representation
1,000,000 m2 (75 buildings)
SCHOOLS 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark
96 Buildings (681,310 m2)
2005 Median: 188.7
2006 Median: 189.6
Change in Median: -0.5%
Total Energy Savings: 2.3%
GHG Savings: 0.6 kt
2007
2005
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
ekWh/m2
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
ADMIN 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark
51 Buildings (807,557 m2)
2005 Median: 324.0
2007 Median: 308.8
Change in Median: 4.7%
Total Energy Savings: 4.7%
GHG Savings: 3.3 kt
2007
2005
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
ekWh/m2
500.0
600.0
700.0
COMMERCIAL 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark
45 Buildings (2,599,869 m2)
2005 Median: 399.9
2007 Median: 393.3
Change in Median: 1.6%
Even professional
facility managers
of Class A
buildings found
significant savings.
Total Energy Savings: 3.5%
GHG Savings: 9.2 kt
2007
2005
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
ekWh/m2
400.0
500.0
600.0


Ontario cannot rely on traditional conservation programming e.g.,
incentive/bulb; estimated savings – fools paradise – $ spent; are
savings real?
gas DSM has always had strong role for performance
improvement – boiler optimization; electric conservation – more
about changing products

Conservation not “one shot” intervention – continuous
improvement

long term, managed approach - better market for Ontario
technologies, employment

makes conservation ongoing basis for cost savings

Green Building Performance System should be used for all
ratepayer funded programs:
 Measures real savings
 Addresses all energy forms and water
 Flexible: consistency for LDCs - respects regional/fuel differences – weather
normalized
◦ Linked to climate change