context for conservation in ontario buildings: preliminary results for frpo pilot – or why...

Marion FraserFraser & 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Improved codes important but not sufficient do not address existing buildings code setting process “out of date” range of performance of buildings “built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 to energy efficiency until 2008

Model National Energy Code - Buildings (MNECB) developed in 1997 now outdated

Ontario Building Code referenced ASHRAE 90.1 in 1992/ MNECB in 1997

City of Vancouver – referenced MNECB

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

TRCA Sustainable Schools Program

Best School

Natural Gas - 4:1 range

TRCA Sustainable Schools program

Best School

Water - 5:1 range

TRCA Sustainable Schools program

Best School

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

Occupants• Occupant engagement

and recognition• education and support• measurement and

reporting

Technology/Retrofit Design

Build

ing

oper

atio

ns

Occupant behaviour

• Building Performance Audits should be used for all retrofit projects

Operations• benchmarking• operational best

practice• targets and reporting• training

Action

Plan

Allows building owners/managers to: 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

Uses integrated system of tools, performance standards, resources and information

Delivers staff training and best practices Engineering only needed for major projects Improved specifications for conservation projects Links to “Green” Procurement

Engages Occupants

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: 1,000,000 m2 (75 buildings)

National representation

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

2007

2005

SCHOOLS 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark96 Buildings (681,310 m2)

2005 Median: 188.72006 Median: 189.6Change in Median: -0.5%

Total Energy Savings: 2.3%GHG Savings: 0.6 kt

ekWh/m2

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0

2007

2005

ADMIN 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark51 Buildings (807,557 m2)

2005 Median: 324.02007 Median: 308.8Change in Median: 4.7%

Total Energy Savings: 4.7%GHG Savings: 3.3 kt

ekWh/m2

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

2007

2005

2005 Median: 399.92007 Median: 393.3Change in Median: 1.6%

Total Energy Savings: 3.5%GHG Savings: 9.2 kt

COMMERCIAL 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark45 Buildings (2,599,869 m2)

ekWh/m2

Even professional facility managers of Class A buildings found significant savings.

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