university of alberta energy efficiency lighting project€¦ · prepared by: blue source canada...

Prepared By: Blue Source Canada ULC (Authorized Project Contact)

Suite 1605, 840-7th Avenue SW

Calgary, AB T2P 3G2

T: (403) 262-3026

F: (403) 269-3024

www.bluesource.com

University of Alberta Energy Efficient Lighting Project

April 2018

DRAFT GHG REPORT v1.3

Jan 1, 2017-Dec 31, 2017


April 2018

Page | 1

Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 3

1 Project Description and Summary ................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Emission Claim .............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Project Implementation and Variances ....................................................................... 7

3 Review of Project Consistency with ISO-14064 Principles ......................................... 9

3.1 Relevance ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Completeness ................................................................................................................ 9

3.3 Consistency .................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Accuracy ........................................................................................................................ 10

3.5 Transparency ................................................................................................................ 10

3.6 Conservativeness ........................................................................................................ 10

4 Project Scope ................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Assertion of GHG Emission Reductions .................................................................. 10

4.2 Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 10

4.3 Project Eligibility ........................................................................................................... 11

4.4 Additionality .................................................................................................................. 12

4.5 Environmental Impact Assessments and Stakeholder Consultations ................. 13

4.6 Project History .............................................................................................................. 13

5 Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario .................................................. 13

6 Inventory of Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs................................................................ 16

6.1 Project Condition .......................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Baseline Condition ....................................................................................................... 21

6.3 Comparison of Project and Baseline SSRs ............................................................. 25

6.4 Quantification and Calculation of GHG Emissions and Reductions .................... 27

7 Data Quantification and Adjustments ........................................................................... 28

7.1 Calibration ..................................................................................................................... 28

7.2 Functional Equivalence ............................................................................................... 29

7.3 Interactive Effects ........................................................................................................ 29


April 2018

Page | 2

7.4 Adjustment for ECO Canada Funding ...................................................................... 30

7.5 Sample Calculations .................................................................................................... 30

7.6 GHG Assertion Consistency ...................................................................................... 31

8 Data Management, Monitoring and Control ................................................................. 32

8.1 Quantification and Monitoring .................................................................................... 32

8.2 Data Management and QA/QC at Blue Source ...................................................... 34

7.2.1 Blue Source Standards ....................................................................................... 34

7.2.2 Back-up Procedures at Blue Source ....................................................................... 34

7.2.3 Document Retention Policy at Blue Source ........................................................... 34

9 Statement of Senior Review ........................................................................................... 35

10 References ........................................................................................................................ 36

Appendix A: List of University of Alberta Facilities that Underwent Energy Efficiency

Retrofits ......................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix B: Back-up Procedures at Blue Source .................................................................. 40

Appendix C: Data Retention Policy at Blue Source................................................................ 42

Appendix D: Relumen Quantification Procedure .................................................................... 44

List of Tables Table 1. T12 and T8 Baseline Date Ranges for Re-Modeled Buildings during this

Reporting Period ........................................................................................................................... 8

Table 2. Barriers Assessment of Baseline Alternative Scenarios ....................................... 14

Table 3. Project Condition Sources, Sinks, and Reservoirs ................................................ 16

Table 4. Baseline Condition Sources, Sinks, and Reservoirs ............................................. 21

Table 5. Project and Baseline SSRs and Justification for Exclusion of SSRs .................. 25

Table 6. Data Quality Management Procedures for the Project .......................................... 33

List of Figures Figure 1: Project Element Lift Cycle Chart .............................................................................. 19

Figure 2: Process Flow Diagram for Project Condition ......................................................... 20

Figure 3: Baseline Element Life Cycle Chart .......................................................................... 23

Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram for Baseline Condition ...................................................... 24

Figure 5: GHG Reductions vs. Number of Retrofits .............................................................. 32


April 2018

Page | 3

List of Abbreviations ACCO Alberta Climate Change Office

Blue Source Blue Source Canada ULC

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide-equivalent

CSA Canadian Standards Association

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GWP Global Warming Potential

HDD Heating Degree Day

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon(s)

IPMVP International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

LED Light-emitting Diode

N2O Nitrous Oxide

PFC Perfluorocarbon(s)

SF6 Sulphur Hexafluoride

SGER Specified Gas Emitters Regulation

SSR Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs

U of A University of Alberta


April 2018

Page | 4

1 Project Description and Summary

Project Title University of Alberta Energy Efficient Lighting Project

(‘the Project’).

Project

Purpose/Objective

The Proponent has undertaken this Project as part of a

conservation program designed to increase electricity

savings and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the

campus’ various buildings. This Project is part of a

district-wide initiative administered by the U of A’s

Operations and Energy Management team.

Reporting period January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017

GHG Assertion for

Reporting Period

11,686 tonnes CO2e

Protocol Alberta’s Quantification Protocol for Energy Efficiency in

Commercial and Institutional Buildings (Version 1.0,

October 2010)

Expected Lifetime of

Project

Energy efficient lighting retrofits began crediting May 1,

2004. Lighting retrofit projects are ongoing and have

continued into 2017; however, no additional retrofits

were completed for this reporting period.

There is no specified end date for this project. All

retrofits that have reached their 10-year expected

lifetime have been remodeled to demonstrate the T12

phase-out and change in baseline scenario to T8 linear

fluorescent bulbs.

Project Type This is an energy efficiency project. Energy Efficiency is a

valid category under the Alberta-based Offset Credit

System and under the Canadian Standards Association

(CSA) GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry

Project Location This is an aggregation project of 41 facilities located at

the U of A Campus which is situated at 11487 89 Ave,

Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2M7. A list of the facilities that


April 2018

Page | 5

underwent an energy efficiency retrofit can be found in

Appendix A.

Conditions Prior to

Project Prior to the implementation of the project, original

lighting was utilized at the various U of A facilities. The

specific lighting varied depending on the facility.

Description of how GHG

Reductions are Achieved

Emission reductions are achieved through energy

efficiency retrofits undertaken across U of A facilities.

This is an indirect emission reduction activity as

electricity is produced offsite and purchased by the U of

A from the Alberta electrical utility grid. In the absence of

the project activity GHG emissions resulting from

electricity would not be reduced.

Project Technologies Energy efficiency retrofits consisted of lighting retrofits.

Retrofits were dependent on the pre-existing

infrastructure that was in place at the various facilities

before any energy efficiency retrofits were undertaken.

For this reason, the project retrofits are described below

in section 2 in a generic fashion.

Project Risks There are no material risks that have been identified for

this Project that would impact the quantification of GHG

emissions. The lighting retrofits completed by the

Proponent result in a permanent GHG emission reduction

since the displacement of the fossil fuels cannot be

reversed. This project type does not involve biological or

geological sequestration-related risks.


April 2018

Page | 6

2 Introduction This report provides details on the lighting efficiency retrofit projects undertaken by the

University of Alberta (U of A) (‘the Proponent’). The university has been located in Edmonton,

Alberta, for over 100 years and is now one of the top five universities in Canada and is included in

the top 100 universities in the world. The Proponent maintains a large inventory of buildings to

provide over 39,000 students with a world class learning environment.

U of A began the lighting retrofit projects in May of 2004, with new buildings being added to the

retrofit project on an ongoing basis. The lighting retrofit project, administered by the U of A’s

Operations and Energy Management team, was undertaken as part of a conservation program

designed to increase electricity savings and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the

university. The retrofits were completed in such a way to achieve maximum energy savings and

involved replacing older lighting technologies such as T12 fluorescent and incandescent lighting,

with newer, more efficient technologies including T5, T8 and/or LED lights, as well as redesigning

the lighting layout/fixtures and including advanced lighting controls such as occupancy and

daylight sensors.

Existing indoor lighting was retrofitted with approved energy efficient lighting sources to minimize

energy costs and to enhance the quality of lighting in each facility. Rather than obtaining only the

minimum energy savings achievable by implementing simple and straightforward methods, the

project aim was to harvest optimal savings by using a combination of methods and technologies

to maximize electricity savings:

• Older lighting technologies, such as T12 fluorescent and incandescent, are upgraded with

more modern, efficient technologies, such as T5, T8 and LED lights;

• Low watt lamps and under drive ballasts are also used to further reduce the energy used

by the luminaires;

• The efficiency of the luminaire itself is improved by using specular reflectors, prismatic

lenses and re-positioning the lamp holders, allowing the same (functionally equivalent)

level of illumination to be achieved using fewer luminaires;

• The operating hours of the luminaire are reduced by using lighting controls such as motion

sensors, photo sensors, multi-level switching or time clocks;

• The way the luminaire is installed within the space may be modified, so that fewer

luminaires are needed in a layout to achieve the same (functionally equivalent) level of

illumination in task areas.

These upgrades yield the most energy savings while improving the quality of the lighting and

decreasing the energy intensity of the space. Therefore, the project did not simply change the

bulb type, rather the U of A employed a combination of lighting technologies, improvements, and

design in the buildings.

The last quantification of emission reductions from the U of A Lighting Efficiency project took

place in 2017, and quantified emission reductions from 41 retrofits for the period of January 1,


April 2018

Page | 7

2015 to December 31, 2016. The Quantification methodology followed was Option D - Calibrated

Simulation model under Alberta’s Quantification Protocol for Energy Efficiency in Commercial and

Institutional Buildings (Version 1.0, October 2010). Blue Source worked with ReLumen Engineering

to produce the calibrated simulation model and details on the methodology used for this can be

found in the following report: CO2 Offset Quantification Procedure, Lighting Upgrade Projects

2002-2014, University of Alberta, Revision 5. As no other building retrofits took place during the

2016 vintage year, Revision 5 is still applicable to this reporting period.

2.1 Emission Claim

The emission reductions quantified in this report are for the period January 1, 2017 to December

31, 2017 and include the same 41 building retrofits from previous years.

Emission reductions quantified in this reporting period are: 11,686 tonnes CO2e1.

2.2 Project Implementation and Variances

The Government of Alberta is in the process of releasing a revised Energy Efficiency protocol,

whereby the existing two energy efficiency protocols will be combined into one over-arching

protocol. Starting January 1, 2019, projects must be updated to the new protocol. Therefore,

the 2019 vintage year of this project will be adjusted to meet the new protocol requirements.

i) Adjusted T8 Baseline Approach

Commencing with the 2015 project delivery (covering the period July 1, 2013 to December 31,

2014) the baseline approach for this project was altered so that any building that had retrofit

projects completed more than ten years ago is remodeled to reflect a new T8 baseline, instead of

the previous T12 baseline. This has been done to represent the gradual phase out of T12s from

the US and Canada lighting sector, while maintaining the savings from other upgrades made to

those buildings (advanced lighting controls, lighting space design, de-lamping etc.). The current

quantification period includes five new buildings that have been remodeled and are shown below

in Table 12.

To increase the accuracy of calculated emissions, the five buildings that are over this ten-year

threshold have been quantified using a combined T12/T8 baseline approach. The original T12

baseline is used from the start of the quantification period (January 1, 2017) up to the original

project completion date, plus an additional ten years. After this date, the new T8 baseline has

been used until the end of the quantification period (December 31, 2017). Therefore, the date

the T12 baseline range ends, is the date the project was completed less ten years ago. Even

1 Note that a 2.5% discount to the emission claim was applied to subprojects implemented before July 1, 2011, as

they received funding from Eco-Canada. This application is discussed below in proceeding sections.

2 Note that there are additional buildings, from previous reporting periods, which were previously remodelled to use

a combined T12/T8 baseline and that now use a wholly T8 baseline. See Appendix A for more details.


April 2018

Page | 8

though the Agricultural Greenhouses and the Agricultural Growth Chambers have surpassed their

10-year lifetime, they were not included in the adjusted baseline group as they were retrofitted

to high pressure sodium (HPS) and T12VHO bulbs rather than T8s. Table 1 below outlines the

buildings and the date ranges applicable to the separate baselines.

Table 1. T12 and T8 Baseline Date Ranges for Re-Modeled Buildings during this Reporting Period

Building T12 Baseline date range T8 Baseline date range

Agricultural Forestry Jan 1, 2017 - January 15, 2017 Jan 16, 2017 - Dec 31, 2017

Medical Sciences Jan 1, 2017 - April 4, 2017 April 5, 2017 - Dec 31, 2017

Arts Building & Convocation

Hall

Jan 1, 2017 – May 15, 2017 May 16, 2017 - Dec 31, 2017

Tory Jan 1, 2017 - June 28, 2017 June 29, 2017 - Dec 31, 2017

Physical Education East/West

(Van Vliet)

Jan 1, 2017 – Aug 23, 2017 Aug 24, 2017 - Dec 31, 2017

Since the last quantification, no new buildings retrofits or upgrades have been performed and

added to this quantification. See Appendix A for a full list of buildings included for this

quantification period.

ii) Removal of Reduction Targets applied to Electricity Grid Emission Factors

In previous reporting periods, the electricity grid emission factor for the province of Alberta was

increased by 15% and 20% to reflect the anticipated impact of the provincial government’s

Climate Leadership Plan (2015), and those values were applied to the 2015 and 2016

quantification years respectively. This adjustment has been removed for the current reporting

period, as it deviates from the application of the grid intensity factor in all other offset projects.

This change is accurate, conservative and consistent with standard quantification methodologies

in Alberta.

The adjustment methodology is also noted in the “CO2 Offset Quantification Procedure Lighting

Upgrade Projects 2004-2014” report provided by Relumen Engineering to quantify offsets,

however this methodology has been excluded from the project.


April 2018

Page | 9

3 Review of Project Consistency with ISO-14064 Principles

3.1 Relevance

The methodology referenced in quantifying GHG emission reductions from the U of A Energy

Efficient Lighting Project was developed and approved under the Alberta Offset System, regulated

under the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER). The Alberta Quantification Protocol for

Energy Efficiency in Commercial and Institutional Buildings (Version 1.0, October 2010) ('the

Protocol') was developed following the ISO 14064-2 standard as required under the Alberta Offset

System protocol development process. Additionally, the protocol development process included

a multi-step stakeholder review process consisting of a technical expert review, a broader

stakeholder review process and a public posting period, all of which were managed by the

Government of Alberta. At the time this quantification project commenced, the Protocol was the

only government-approved quantification protocol applicable to energy efficiency projects for

commercial and institutional buildings in Canada and was therefore considered to be the best

available quantification protocol to apply for this project. The Protocol is currently under review,

and the Project will be re-evaluated for necessary revisions following the release of the new

Protocol.

Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSRs) considered to be relevant and included for quantification

under the protocol are defined in Section 4 of this document, including justification for the

exclusion of SSRs identified in the life cycle elements of the project and baseline condition under

ISO 14064-2. SSRs for the project condition are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 1 and Figure 2.

SSRs under the baseline condition are summarized in Table 4and Figure 3 and Figure 4.

3.2 Completeness

The specific scope of this project has been limited to GHG emission reductions achieved through

the reduction in use of electricity through the implementation of energy efficient lighting retrofits.

This involves indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of grid electricity

generated in Alberta.

Data collection, monitoring, and quantification approaches are summarized in Table 9 of this

report.

3.3 Consistency

The Protocol used in the quantification of GHG reductions is consistent in its application of

functional equivalence between the baseline and project condition. The lighting in each of the

retrofitted buildings at the U of A operates in a functionally equivalent condition in the project

and baseline condition.

The use of a calibrated simulation to quantify energy savings is an approach that is recognized by

the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) guidance of


April 2018

Page | 10

energy savings quantification3. This approach is consistent with the definition of functional

equivalence under ISO-14064-2.

3.4 Accuracy

Bias and uncertainties in quantification were limited using a Simulated Lighting Systems Model. A

calibration adjustment derived from data logging activities is applied to the kilowatt-hour energy

savings for each simulated project model. Data collection, monitoring, and quantification

approaches are summarized in Table 8 of this report.

3.5 Transparency

Data collection, monitoring, and quantification approaches are summarized in Section 6 of this

report. The annual emission reduction claims are also summarized in this document to support

the transparency of the GHG emission reduction assertion.

3.6 Conservativeness

The calculations are considered conservative as the calibration factor adjustment is the median

between the calibration adjustments implied by the data logging measurements.

4 Project Scope

4.1 Assertion of GHG Emission Reductions

The total GHG emission reductions attributable to the Project for the period January 1, 2017 –

December 31, 2017 are:

11,686 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent

While previous quantification periods included outside funding sources, there were no retrofits

completed during the current reporting period that utilized funding from ECO Canada or any other

outside source (for more information on the ECO Canada Adjustment, please see Section 7.4).

4.2 Roles and Responsibilities

Project

Proponent

Contact

Information

University of Alberta

Michael Versteege

Manager

Energy Management & Sustainable Operations

Phone: (780) 492-4024

Email: [email protected]

Room 110

Heating Plant

University of Alberta

Edmonton, AB

T6G-2N7

Canada

Web: www.ualberta.ca

3 Efficiency Valuation Organization (2010) International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol. Concepts and Options of Determining Energy and Water Savings. Volume 1.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ualberta.ca/


April 2018

Page | 11

Authorized Project Contact

Blue Source Canada ULC Kelsey Locke, AIT Carbon Solutions Analyst Phone: 403-262-3026 x 228 Fax: 403-269-3024 Email: [email protected]

Suite 1605 840 - 7th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P 3G2 Canada Web: www.bluesource.com

Verifier

GHD Jennifer Packer, P.Eng Lead Verifier Phone: 1-519-340-4288 Email: [email protected]

455 Phillip St Waterloo, ON N2L 3X2 Canada Web: www.ghd.com

4.3 Project Eligibility

As a measure to mitigate GHG emissions, the Proponent has undertaken a voluntary energy

efficiency retrofit program. This Project represents the aggregation of individual lighting retrofits

implemented across campus. Energy Efficiency is a valid category under the Canadian Standards

Association (CSA) GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry.

The Proponent's energy efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions are quantified in

according to the Alberta Quantification Protocol for Energy Efficiency in Commercial and

Institutional Buildings (Version 1.0, October 2010) in this GHG Report. This government approved

protocol is intended to generate carbon offsets from the direct and indirect reduction of GHG

emissions resulting from the implementation of facility retrofits that result in overall energy

efficiencies. While the Protocol is currently being reviewed by the Alberta Climate Change Office

(ACCO) as part of the Carbon Levy Alignment process with the Alberta offset system, this is a

voluntary ongoing project under the Protocol and will be adjusted for future deliveries as

required.

The following characteristics of the project ensure it meets the required eligibility criteria of the

CleanProjectsTM Registry:

• The quantification protocol referenced was developed in accordance with ISO 14064-2,

and quantification procedures follow this standard;

• The protocol is being used in conjunction with the International Performance

Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)4. This guidance document represents

the industry standard for good practice guidance when determining energy savings.

• The GHG assertion will be verified by an independent third-party – GHD – prior to project

registration;

4 Efficiency Valuation Organization (2009), International Performance measurement and Verification Protocol: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings, Volume 1.


http://www.bluesourcecan.com/


http://www.ghd.com/


April 2018

Page | 12

• The facility operations are not subject to any regulations requiring the lighting efficiency

upgrades in Alberta. The project is not subject to any climate change or emissions

management legislation in the province of Alberta or federally in Canada;

• Potential GHG emission reductions generated by this project are not listed on any other

GHG reduction registry in Canada or internationally and this project has not participated

under any other climate change incentive programs and has not received any public funds

related to such initiatives.

Note that not all project eligibility criteria in the Alberta Offset System’s Quantification Protocol

for Energy Efficiency Projects are applicable to this project since these offsets are not being

created for compliance use in Alberta. Specifically, the requirement of having a Certified

Measurement and Verification Professional or a Certified Energy Manager with at least three

years of experience in implementing and quantifying energy efficiency projection sign off on the

offset project plan and project report are not applicable since these offsets are being created for

voluntary purposes. As such, the Alberta Offset System protocol is used as a source of best

practice guidance for quantifying GHG emission reductions, but the overarching project eligibility

criteria are defined by the registry on which the offsets are to be listed or otherwise defined by

the ISO 14064 standards.

4.4 Additionality

Assessing project additionality is a necessary criterion in the Alberta offset system to determine

whether a project is still eligible and that the project activity is not considered ‘business-as-usual’

in the sector or industry. Even though this is a voluntary project, a review of additionality

regarding lighting technology is presented below.

In conjunction with lighting space re-design and the installation of occupancy/motion sensors,

lighting systems were retrofit from compact fluorescent or linear fluorescent T12 bulbs to more

efficient linear fluorescents (such as T5 or T8), high pressure sodium (HPS) bulbs, or light emitting

diode (LED) bulbs.

Bluesource recognizes that T8 technology has become more common since this project

commenced, and this resulted in a change to the project methodology during the 2015 delivery,

which places a 10 year ‘time limit’ on the T12 baseline for each building. This reflects the lifetime

of the fixture, after which time they would need to be replaced and would then move to a T8

baseline (see also Section 1.1 on Project Variances). Moreover, the U of A retrofits not only

changed the bulb types, rather they re-engineered the lighting space for optimal coverage and

duration. Therefore, this additional design allows for greater energy savings compared to the

original T12 configuration, or T8 lighting alone.

Bluesource is aware that this baseline may need to be adjusted for any new lighting retrofits

completed in future years. Any such changes will be noted in future reports.


April 2018

Page | 13

4.5 Environmental Impact Assessments and Stakeholder Consultations

Neither an environmental impact assessment nor stakeholder consultations were required for

this project.

4.6 Project History

The U of A lighting efficiency retrofits began May 15, 2004 and are ongoing. There were 41

buildings included in the quantification of offset credits for this reporting period, as no additional

projects were added since the last quantification. Appendix A provides details of all the retrofits

that occurred at the various sites across the U of A beginning in 2004.

5 Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario Three possible baselines were identified in the development of this GHG offset project. These

include:

• Status quo (i.e. keep the original lighting systems in place with gradual replacement as

required);

• Redesign and retrofit only some of the buildings;

• The project scenario (i.e. complete redesign of building lighting systems to maximize

energy savings, lighting quality, and occupancy comfort).

Since the inception of the lighting efficiency program in 2004, over 85% of large campus buildings

have been retrofitted under its direction. In fact, the program has been so successful, that the

percentage of T12s the University must order has dropped significantly. This has only been made

possible due to the high percentage of university buildings in the energy efficiency program. In

absence of the program, maintenance would consist of simply replacing existing lighting with T12s

until forced to change to T8s due to the recent phase out of T12s. Due to University budget

constraints, lighting retrofits are considered a low priority and must compete with other needs

that are considered to be more pressing such as safety and advancing student amenities.

Therefore, if it were not for the lighting efficiency program none of the completed retrofits would

have taken place. As mentioned in Section 1.1, buildings with retrofits that are over ten years in

age relative to the current quantification period, shall have a new T8 baseline remodeled. In doing

so, energy output at each building location is modeled downward to reflect the industry phase

out of T12s.

The approach used to select and justify the relevant baseline scenario for this offset project

consisted of two components: identification of barriers facing each alternative and an assessment

of the expected costs to implement and operate each alternative.

The three options listed above were evaluated to assess the likelihood that each could represent

the baseline scenario. A barriers test is a common technique used to help justify the most realistic


April 2018

Page | 14

baseline scenario, where the most likely scenario is the option that does not have any significant

barriers to implementation. The relevant barriers affecting each of these scenarios are

summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Barriers Assessment of Baseline Alternative Scenarios

Relevant Barriers Alternative 1:

Keep existing lighting in place with gradual

replacement as required

Alternative 2:

Lighting redesign and retrofits of only a few

buildings

Alternative 3:

The project scenario

Financial/Economic Barriers

None. There are no significant additional upfront capital costs.

Electrical utility costs are unchanged from previous years’

operating budgets.

Partial. Upfront capital costs associated with

retrofits. Additional costs to hire third party energy

efficiency experts to evaluate energy

efficiency opportunities and to complete

retrofits. Costs for new fixtures and control

systems are also additional to simple bulb

for bulb replacement.

Yes. Significant upfront capital costs associated

with retrofits. Additional costs to hire third party

energy efficiency experts to evaluate energy

efficiency opportunities and to complete

retrofits. Costs for new fixtures and control

systems are also additional to simple bulb

for bulb replacement.

Technology Implementation,

Operation, maintenance and Disposal Barriers

None. Locally available fuels, materials, know-how, technology, and

other resources are not limited.

Yes. There are some barriers to implementing

the project scenario including increased use of university time and resources, hiring an energy expert and engineering firm to

assess and design each building.

Yes. There are

significant barriers to

implementing the

project scenario

including greatly

increased use of

university time and

resources, hiring an

energy expert and

engineering firm to

assess and design each

building individually.

Barriers due to prevailing practice

None. None. None. The retrofits are not the first of their kind.

Skills and Training Barriers

None. Existing personnel possess skills and

training required for operation, maintenance,

and monitoring.



and monitoring.



and monitoring.


April 2018

Page | 15

Using the Barriers Assessment, the most likely baseline scenario would be the continued use of

the existing lighting systems with gradual replacement as required, as this scenario has the fewest

barriers to implementation. The project condition (i.e. where lighting systems are retrofit and

redesigned) has the most significant barriers of financial/ economic expenditures as well as

technology implementations barriers. Therefore, the comprehensive nature of the Project

exceeds a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario.


April 2018

Page | 16

6 Inventory of Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs

6.1 Project Condition

SSRs were identified for the project by reviewing the relevant process flow diagrams, consulting with relevant industry stakeholders (through the

Alberta Offset System Quantification Protocol Development Process) and reviewing available good practice guidance. This iterative process

confirmed that the SSRs in the process flow diagrams included below cover the full scope of eligible project activities under the protocol.

The project condition is defined including the relevant SSRs and processes as shown in Table3 and Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.

Table 3. Project Condition Sources, Sinks, and Reservoirs

1. SSR 2. Description 3. Controlled,

Related or Affected

Upstream SS’s before Project Operation

P3 Raw Material Production and

Transportation

Raw materials, used in the manufacture of equipment for in the implementation of Energy

Conservation Measure and conventional building operation. Usually produced offsite and

transported to the manufacturing facility. Emissions will arise from the use of fossil fuels

and electricity during these processes. These raw materials may include but are not limited

to cement, plastic, aluminum, steel and rubber.

Related

P4 Manufacture of Equipment

Greenhouse gas emissions will arise from the manufacturing process of the equipment to

implement the Energy Conservation Measures and conventional building operation in the

project. Such emissions will likely be associated with the fossil fuels and electricity

consumed during the manufacturing process.

Related

P5 Transportation of Equipment

Equipment used in the implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures and

conventional building operation must be transported to the project site. Greenhouse gas

emissions will primarily be attributed to the combustion of fossil fuels during the

Related


April 2018

Page | 17

transportation process.

P6 Commissioning of Site

The development of the site (technically on-site before project) and installation of

equipment will result in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the use of fossil fuels and

electricity during this process. Related

Upstream SS’s During Project Operation

P1 Fuel Extraction and Processing

Each of the fuels used throughout the on-site component of the project will need to sourced

and processed. This will allow for the calculation of the greenhouse gas emissions from the

various processes involved in the production, refinement and storage of the fuels. The total

volumes of fuel for each of the on-site SS’s are considered under this SS. Volumes and types

of fuels are the important characteristics to be tracked.

Related

P2 Electricity Usage

Electricity will be used in the project condition. This power may be sourced either from

internal generation, connected facilities or the local electricity grid. Metering of electricity

may be netted in terms of the power going to and from the grid. Quantity and source of

power are the important characteristics to be tracked as they directly relate to the quantity

of greenhouse gas emissions.

Related

Onsite SS’s during Project Operation

P8 Building Energy Consumption

(with energy conservation measures)

Energy (including fossil fuel and electricity) is required on-site to operate the building.

Equipment utilizing this energy includes but is not limited to boilers, lighting systems, HVAC

Systems and ventilation systems. Controlled

P9 Maintenance/Operation

The facility and systems within the facility will require maintenance (both routine and non-

routine). Greenhouse gas emissions will arise from the use of fuels and electricity in

maintenance and/or operational procedures. Controlled

Downstream SS’s During Project Operation

P10 Disposal of Energy Conservation The disposal of some materials/equipment which compose all or a component of the Related


April 2018

Page | 18

Measure Equipment Energy Conservation Measures may result in greenhouse gas emissions. E.g. the disposal of

Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulbs to appropriately remove mercury, disposal of

transformer containing SF6

Downstream SS’s After Project Operation

P7 Decommissioning of Energy

Conservation Measure Equipment

Once the Energy Conservation Measure equipment comes to the end of its life Greenhouse

gas emissions may arise from the incremental use of fossil fuels and electricity during

equipment disassembly, disposal, and other required activities during the process,

compared to the baseline.

Related


April 2018

Page | 19

Figure 1: Project Element Lift Cycle Chart


April 2018

Page | 20

Figure 2: Process Flow Diagram for Project Condition


April 2018

Page | 21

6.2 Baseline Condition

The baseline condition selected and justified in Section 3, includes building energy consumption. The baseline condition is defined including the

relevant SSRs and processes as shown in Table 4 and Figure 3 and Figure 4, below.

Table 4. Baseline Condition Sources, Sinks, and Reservoirs

1. SSR 2. Description 3. Controlled,

Related or Affected

Upstream SS’s before Project Operation

B3 Raw Material Production

and Transportation

Raw materials, used in the manufacture of equipment for in the implementation of Energy

Conservation Measure and conventional building operation. Usually produced offsite and transported

to the manufacturing facility. Emissions will arise from the use of fossil fuels and electricity during these

processes. These raw materials may include but are not limited to cement, plastic, aluminum, steel

and/or rubber.

Related

B4 Manufacture of

Equipment

Greenhouse gas emissions will arise from the manufacturing process of the equipment to implement

the Energy Conservation Measures and conventional building operation in the project. Such emissions

will likely be associated with the fossil fuels and electricity consumed during the manufacturing process.

Related

B5 Transportation of

Equipment

Equipment used in the implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures and conventional

building operation must be transported to the project site. Greenhouse gas emissions will primarily be

attributed to the combustion of fossil fuels during the transportation process

Related

B6 Commissioning of Site The development of the site (technically on-site before project) and installation of equipment will result

in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the use of fossil fuels and electricity during this process. Related

Upstream SS’s During Project Operation


April 2018

Page | 22

B1 Fuel Extraction and

Processing

Each of the fuels used throughout the on-site component of the project will need to sourced and

processed. This will allow for the calculation of the greenhouse gas emissions from the various

processes involved in the production, refinement and storage of the fuels. The total volumes of fuel for

each of the on-site SS’s are considered under this SS. Volumes and types of fuels are the important

characteristics to be tracked.

Related

B2 Electricity Usage

Electricity will be used in the project condition. This power may be sourced either from internal

generation, connected facilities or the local electricity grid. Metering of electricity may be netted in

terms of the power going to and from the grid. Quantity and source of power are the important

characteristics to be tracked as they directly relate to the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions.

Related

Onsite SS’s during Project Operation

B8 Building Energy

Consumption (without

energy conservation

measures)

Energy (including fossil fuel and electricity) is required on-site to operate the building. Equipment

utilizing this energy includes boilers, lighting systems, HVAC Systems, ventilation systems, etc... Controlled

B9 Maintenance/Operation

The facility and systems within the facility will require will require maintenance (both routine and non-

routine). greenhouse gas emissions will arise from the use of fuels and electricity in maintenance

and/or operational procedures.

Controlled

Downstream SS’s during Project Operation

None

Downstream SS’s After Project Operation

B7 Decommissioning of Site

Once the site is no longer in operation, the site will most likely need to be decommissioned.

Greenhouse gas emissions will arise from the use of fossil fuels and electricity during equipment

disassembly, disposal, and other required activities during the process.

Related


April 2018

Page | 23

Figure 3: Baseline Element Life Cycle Chart


April 2018

Page | 24

Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram for Baseline Condition


April 2018

Page | 25

6.3 Comparison of Project and Baseline SSRs

Table 5 provides the justification for excluding certain source/sinks included in the Protocol from the project.

Table 5. Project and Baseline SSRs and Justification for Exclusion of SSRs

1. Identified SS’s

2.

Baseline

(C, R, A)

2. Project

(C, R, A)

4. Include or

Exclude from

Quantification

5. Justification for Exclusion

Upstream SS’s

P1/B1 Fuel Extraction

and Processing Related Related Excluded

Excluded since emissions from fuel production/distribution are

expected to be greater under the baseline condition

P2/B2 Electricity Usage Related Related Excluded

Excluded since emissions from electricity generation/distribution are

greater under the baseline condition where more inefficient lighting

was used and hence required more electricity consumption to run.

P3/B3 Raw Material

Production and

Transportation

Related Related Excluded

Excluded as per good practice guidance from Environment Canada: these

greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be insignificant over the

course of the project.

P4/B4 Manufacture of

Equipment Related Related Excluded

Excluded as per good practice guidance from Environment Canada; These



P5/B5 Transportation

of Equipment Related Related Excluded

Emissions from transportation of equipment are not expected to be

material given the long project life and the minimal transportation of

equipment typically required.


April 2018

Page | 26

1. Identified SS’s

2.

Baseline

(C, R, A)

2. Project

(C, R, A)

4. Include or

Exclude from

Quantification

5. Justification for Exclusion

P6/B6 Commissioning

typically required for

Energy Conservation

Measure

implementation on site


Emissions from the commissioning of the site are not material given the

long project life and minimal construction required for installing lighting.

Onsite SS’s

P8/B8 Building Energy

Consumption

(with/without energy

conservation measure)

Controlled Controlled Included

The difference in emissions from the baseline to the project period are

mainly due to implemented Energy Conservation Measures. However,

as this energy efficiency project involves replacing lighting only, only

electricity usage is considered rather than the whole energy use of the

building. Natural gas use is not affected by the change in lighting.

P9/B9 Maintenance

and Operations Controlled Controlled Excluded

Excluded on the basis that maintenance between the baseline and

project conditions will not change and thus can be excluded as they are

functionally equivalent.

Downstream SS’s

P7/B7

Decommissioning of

Site


Excluded as per good practice guidance from Environment Canada; These



P10 Disposal of

Equipment for Energy

Conservation Measure

N/A Related Excluded Excluded as emissions from equipment disposal are expected to be

minimal.


April 2018

Page | 27

6.4 Quantification and Calculation of GHG Emissions and Reductions GHG emission reductions from this project are quantified with guidance from IPMVP’s Option D

– Calibrated Simulation. This quantification option is used for energy management programs in a

facility where no meter existed in the baseline period or when monitoring of energy savings

associated with individual energy savings measures are too costly or difficult to monitor directly.

The following three equations serve as the basis for the quantification of emission reductions:

Where the following SSRs have been quantified as applicable to the project:

EmissionsBaseline = sum of the emissions under the baseline condition

EmissionsEnergyUsage(withoutECMs) = emissions under SS B8 Building Energy Usage (without

energy conservation measures (ECM))

Calibration error = Calibration achieved by verifying that the simulation model

reasonable predicts the energy patterns of the facility by comparing model results to a

set of calibrations data.

EmissionsProject = sum of the emissions under the project condition

EmissionsEnergyUsage(withECMs) = emissions under SS P8 Building Energy Usage (with energy

conservation measures)

Calibration error = Calibration achieved by verifying that the simulation model

reasonable predicts the energy patterns of the facility by comparing model results to a

set of calibrations data.

The following SSRs were not applicable to this project and as such were not quantified:

Emissions Fuel Extraction / Processing = emissions under SS P1/B1 Fuel Extraction and Processing

EmissionsElectricityUsage = emissions under SS P2/B2 Electricity Usage (upstream)

EmissionsMaterialProduction= emissions under SS P3/B3 Raw Material Production and

Transportation

GHG Emission Reduction = Emissions Baseline – Emissions Project

Emissions Baseline = Emissions Electricity Usage(without ECMs) - Calibration error in

the corresponding calibration reading

Emissions Project = Emissions Electricity Usage (with ECMs) - Calibration error in the

corresponding calibration reading


April 2018

Page | 28

EmissionsEquipment = emissions under SS P4/B4 Manufacture of Equipment

EmissionsTransportation = emissions under SS P5/B5 Transportation of Equipment

EmissionsCommissioning = emissions under SS P6/B6 Commissioning typically required for

Energy Conservation Measure implementation on site.

EmissionsMaintenance= emissions under SS P9/B9 Maintenance and Operations

EmissionsDecommissioning= emissions under SS P7/B7 Decommissioning of Site

EmissionsDisposal= emissions under SS P10 Disposal of Equipment for Energy Conservation

Measure

For justifications of exclusion from quantification see Table 5.

The annual CO2 reductions are determined by multiplying the difference between pre-project and

post-project annual energy consumption (kWh) and the electrical grid intensity factors for 2017.

7 Data Quantification and Adjustments

7.1 Calibration

Data logging activities were performed to provide measured support for the accuracy of the

Simulated Lighting Systems Model, in both 2010 and 2015. The measured data set illustrates

trends in peak load demand (kW) and consumption (kWh). In addition, data logging provides a

graphical representation of building occupancy patterns and provides validation for the operating

hours included in the simulated lighting model. The 1-week metering period captures building

occupancy patterns during a typical week during the University’s winter semester classes.

Data logging equipment used onsite included current transducers, voltage transducers,

SmartReader 3+ loggers and TrendReader Version TR2 2.31 software, all manufactured by ACR

Systems. Lighting throughout campus buildings is electrically fed by designated 347Vac lighting

panels. Lighting panels generally feed an entire floor or wing of a building. Data logging equipment

was connected to select 347Vac lighting panels to measure the total panel load (Phases A, B, & C

metered individually) as well as the building voltage over the course of a one-week period. Note

that for a sample case where multiple panels were metered simultaneously in the same building,

only voltage from one panel was metered and extrapolated to other panels during analysis.

Voltage drop is considered negligible.

Option D Calibrated Simulation Model requires the lighting system energy to be isolated from that

of the rest of the facility by appropriate meters. This was achieved through selecting designated

lighting panels serving each floor. There were many instances where lighting panels fed other

loads, such as transformers and subpanels. These cases were excluded from the sample

population selection. Data logging of a random sample of campus buildings (by floor) was

performed by ReLumen Engineering throughout the month of March 2010 as well as throughout

February 2015. Details regarding data logging, the sample population, and analysis for the

calibration adjustment calculations are attached in ReLumen Engineering’s CO2 Offset


April 2018

Page | 29

Quantification Procedure Lighting Upgrade Projects 2004-2014: University of Alberta (March,

2015).

The evaluation of the calibration adjustment using a total sum of the data logging samples and

the total sum of extracted lighting model values (as described in the procedure above) show a

44% spread in adjustment i.e. 72% (-28%) and 116% (+16%) between the worst and best-case

scenarios. The mean calibration adjustment implied using the total sum of data samples is found

to be 94.3%. Note, when using two data points, the mean is equivalent to the median value.

The same procedure and analysis was used to compare calibration adjustments derived from each

individual data logging sample (i.e. per lighting panel) and the extracted values from their

respective lighting models. With the revised data logging sample population, the median of and

mean percent differences were found 97.5% and 95.2%, respectively, from the percent

differences (between best and worst-case scenarios) of the original CO2 claim.

Compared to prior quantifications, the mean calibration factor of 94.3% was calculated and has

been truncated to 94% to remain conservative in the overall approximation of energy savings

predicted by the model. This represents a calibration adjustment of -6% and compared to the

previous calibration of -5% in the 2015 reporting period, increases the conservativeness of the

project calculations. This calibration adjustment of -6% is applied to the kilowatt-hour energy

savings for each simulated project model.

7.2 Functional Equivalence

The baseline scenario and project deliver the same type and level of product or service (i.e. they

are functionally equivalent). In both the baseline and project scenarios, the Proponent’s internal

lighting guidelines were followed. In some cases, lower light levels were adjusted upwards to

reflect the design guidelines. These guidelines were established by an engineering firm that

specializes in lighting and electrical consulting services. The guidelines are based on published

standards by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).

7.3 Interactive Effects

Energy flows affected by the energy efficiency retrofit must be taken into consideration. A lighting

load reduction can affect HVAC system use, but such effects are beyond the project measurement

boundary. The measurement boundary for this project encompasses just the electricity use of the

lighting and not their heating and cooling energy impacts.

To justify this exclusion, the interactive effect (i.e. the lighting retrofit’s effect on HVAC energy

requirements) must be assessed. In this case, heating and cooling demand (i.e. kilograms of steam

and cubic meters of chilled water) were plotted against heating and cooling degree data where

18 degrees Celsius is the base temperature. Heating and cooling data was chosen for several

buildings which had their own individual heating and cooling systems and where retrofits were

completed early in the project as to allow for data retrieval in a timely manner as a new platform

for data retrieval has been implemented.


April 2018

Page | 30

Only the plot of heating demand data versus temperature data showed a strong correlation. The

R-Squared value for heating degree days versus heating demand were 0.959 and 0.908 in the

project and baseline scenarios respectively. The R-Squared value for cooling degree days versus

cooling demand was only 0.444 and 0.649 in the project and baseline scenarios respectively and

were therefore not considered in the analysis.

The difference between the slope of the heating degree days versus heating demand in the

project and baseline condition varied from -30.58% to +6.81%. The average difference between

the heating degree days versus heating demand in the project and baseline condition was -4.92%.

This shows that there is no net increase in heating demand as a result of lighting retrofits. In fact,

the analysis shows an overall reduction of heating of -4.92%.

This analysis is consistent with engineering estimates conducted by an engineering consulting firm

that provided lighting and electrical consulting services for the project. That the lighting retrofits

have no effect on the building’s heating and cooling demands is consistent with lighting retrofits

that largely involve replacing T12 fluorescents with more efficient T5 and T8 fluorescents. It is

therefore safe to exclude interactive effects from the GHG emission reduction quantification.

7.4 Adjustment for ECO Canada Funding

The Proponent received a grant from ECO Canada to aid in funding the first lighting retrofits at

the University through their ecoENERGY Retrofit program. The funding amount was 2.5% of the

total cost to retrofit the buildings included in the first quantification. To be conservative, any

buildings with completion dates before July 1, 2011 have had a 2.5% discount applied to the

credits created. Any buildings with completion dates after this date have not had this discount

factor applied, as they were completed without funding from ECO Canada or from any other

outside organization. No additional funding from ECO Canada or an exterior source has been

received by the U of A after the initial funding amount.

7.5 Sample Calculations

Sample calculations are presented for the Agricultural Forestry building, as an adjusted T8

baseline was required for this quantification. Building energy consumption included in the

quantification is from electricity consumption only; therefore, annual energy use is represented

as kWh.

Example #1: Agricultural Forestry Building

The calculation of GHG emission reductions for the Agricultural Forestry building is as follows,

where the project completion date was January 15, 2007 and the combined T8/T12 baseline

methodology is required:

Emissions EnergyUsage = (T8 Annual energy savings * Grid intensity factor) * (Reporting end

date – T8 Start date)/365)

+ (T12 Annual energy savings * Grid intensity factor) * [(T12 end date – Reporting start

date)/365]


April 2018

Page | 31

Where:

Annual energy savings = (Annual quantity of electricity consumed in the baseline scenario

(kWh) - Annual quantity of electricity consumed in the project

scenario (kWh)) * Calibration error

and

Grid intensity factor = 0.64 tonnes CO2e/kWh according to the Alberta Carbon Offset

Emissions Factor Handbook (2015).

Calibration error = 6%

Therefore:

Emissions EnergyUsage T8 = [((1,130,517 kWh – 470,443 kWh) * (1 -0.06)) * 0.00064] *

((December 31, 2017 – January 16, 2017)/365)

+

Emissions EnergyUsage T12 = [((1,510,549 kWh – 390,155 kWh) * (1-0.06)) * 0.00064] *

((January 15, 2017 – January 1, 2017)/365)

=25 t CO2e (T8 baseline) + 379 t CO2e (T12 baseline) Annual Emissions Reduction

= 405 t CO2e

Eco-Canada Discount

As the Agricultural Forestry building was retrofitted prior to July 1, 2011, it would have received

eco Canada funding in support of the retrofit. Therefore, emissions are discounted 2.5%, as

indicated below:

= 405 t CO2e * (1-0.025)

= 394 t CO2e offsets claimed

7.6 GHG Assertion Consistency

The following figure illustrates GHG emission reductions over the entire life of the project (from

January 1, 2004 to the current quantification year, 2017) as a function of the number of retrofits

completed. In general, the trend shows that emission reductions increase over time as the

number of retrofits increases. However, where the number of retrofits remain constant, the


April 2018

Page | 32

reductions decrease as additional buildings are converted to the T8 baseline and a smaller

quantity of energy savings is realized.

Figure 5: GHG Reductions vs. Number of Retrofits

8 Data Management, Monitoring and Control

8.1 Quantification and Monitoring

Table 6, below, provides a summary for the data quality management procedures for the

Project.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# B

uild

ings

t C

O2e

GHG Reductions (t CO2e) Number of Retrofits


April 2018

Page | 33

Table 6. Data Quality Management Procedures for the Project

SSR identifier

or name

Data

parameter

Estimation,

modeling,

measurement or

calculation

approaches

Data

Recording

(electronic

or paper)

Data

unit

Sources/

Origin

Monitoring

frequency

Description

and

justification

of monitoring

method

Uncertainty Other details

Baseline/Project

Electricity

Usage

KWh of

electricity

consumed

Modeled using

IPMVP Calibrated

Simulation –

Option D.

Calibration is

done using data

logging

equipment used

onsite included

SmartReader 3 5

loggers and

SmartReader 3+6

loggers.

Electronic

and hard

copy

kWh

Calibrated

Simulations

conducted

by lighting

and

electrical

engineering

consulting

firm.

Monitoring

done for one

week to

capture

building

occupancy

patterns during

typical facility

operations.

This is the

most accurate

method given

the lack of

monitored

data in the

baseline and

the costs

associated

monitoring.

Uncertainty is low as

calibration is applied

to both baseline and

project conditions.

The accuracy of the

SmartReader3 logger

current transducer is

+/- 4% FS (Full Scale)

(above 10% of range)

The SmartReader 3+

logger current

transducer has an

accuracy of +/-

3.5% FS (above 10%

of range). Voltage

channels have an

accuracy of +/-

0.5% FS (5 VDC).

Operating hours of each

fixture per room is

approximated for the

baseline conditions and

entered into the

simulated lighting

model. The

approximated

operating hours are

derived from posted

campus building hours,

a survey of observed

occupancy patterns and

previous project

experience. Operating

hours in the baseline

and project condition

are assumed to be

identical.

5 Arc Systems, http://www.acrsystems.com/products/smartreader3/

6 Arc Systems, http://www.acrsystems.com/products/smartreaderplus3/

http://www.acrsystems.com/products/smartreader3/

http://www.acrsystems.com/products/smartreaderplus3/


April 2018

Page | 34

8.2 Data Management and QA/QC at Blue Source

7.2.1 Blue Source Standards

Blue Source Canada holds itself to the highest professional and ethical standards. Staff all have

experience in working on GHG projects and/or training in the use of ISO14064-2. Junior staff

members are mentored closely until their level of competence is deemed sufficient for them to

work more independently. This experience and training helps to ensure that errors and omissions

are minimized, and that project documentation is compiled in accordance with the principles of

relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and conservativeness.

Blue Source Canada operates a rigorous internal QA/QC process that is built around the principle

of senior review (i.e. calculations and reports are checked by experienced staff members prior to

being released). The quantification calculator, for example, will be checked for:

• Transcription errors/omissions

• Correctly functioning links/formulas in spreadsheets

• Correct and transparent referencing of data sources

• Justification of assumptions

• Use of, and compliance with, most up-to-date versions of protocols, technical guidance,

etc.

In addition, the Project Report is also senior-reviewed for errors, omissions, clarity, etc.

Any issues with any of the project documentation – including the calculator – are recorded using

Blue Source’s in-house QA/QC tracking sheet and, as necessary, comments are embedded into

the reviewed version of the documents and/or calculator. These must then be corrected before

any documents are sent to the third-party verifier.

Staff sign an “Attestation of Quality Assurance and Quality Control” to document that the QA/QC

process was followed.

7.2.2 Back-up Procedures at Blue Source

Electronic data is backed up by Blue Source’s IT service provider, Calitso. A recent copy of this

back-up procedure is provided in Appendix B.

7.2.3 Document Retention Policy at Blue Source

Blue Source operates a documentation retention policy, which all staff must abide by as a

condition of their employment. A copy of this document retention policy is provided as

Appendix C.


April 2018

Page | 35

9 Statement of Senior Review This offset project report was prepared by Kelsey Locke, Carbon Solutions Analyst, Blue Source

Canada and senior reviewed by Graham Harris, Principal Consultant, Firefly GHG. Although care

has been taken in preparing this document, it cannot be guaranteed to be free of errors or

omissions.

Prepared by: Senior reviewed by:

Kelsey Locke

04/12/2018

Graham Harris, Firefly GHG

04/17/2018


April 2018

Page | 36

10 References

Efficiency Valuation Organization. (2009). International Performance Measurement &

Verification Protocol: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water

Savings, volume 1.

Government of Alberta. Alberta Quantification Protocol for Energy Efficiency in

Commercial and Institutional Buildings, Version 1.0, October 2010.

ReLumen Engineering (2015). CO2 Offset Quantification Procedure Lighting Upgrade

Projects 2004-2014: University of Alberta.


April 2018

Page | 37

Appendix A: List of University of Alberta Facilities that Underwent

Energy Efficiency Retrofits


April 2018

Page | 38

Table 9 – List of U of A Facilities that Underwent Lighting Retrofits

BUILDING CODE COMPLETION DATE BASELINE

Biological Sciences Building 51550

Genetics Wing

May 15, 2004 T8

Psychology Wing

August 15, 2004 T8

Centre Wing

October 15, 2004 T8

Zoology Wing

January 14, 2005 T8

Microbiology Wing

April 13, 2005 T8

Botany Wing

June 24, 2005 T8

Agricultural Growth Chambers

December 10, 2005 T12

Law Centre 52950 June 12, 2006 T8

Earth Sciences Building 51050 October 8, 2006 T8

Agricultural Greenhouse 52650 November 10, 2006 T12

Rutherford Libraries (North / South) 53200/53850 November 10, 2006 T8

Agricultural Forestry Bldg* 51060 January 15, 2007 T12 until 2017-1-15

T8 starting 2017-1-16

Medical Sciences* 51500 April 4, 2007 T12 until 2017-4-4


Arts Building and Convocation Hall* 51250 May 15, 2007 T12 until 2017-5-15


Tory* 54550 June 28, 2007 T12 until 2017-6-28


Physical Education East / West (Van Vliet)* 53410 / 53400 August 23, 2007 T12 until 2017-8-23


Humanities 51260 February 8, 2008 T12

Universiade Pavilion (Butterdome) 54320 January 15, 2008 T12

Corbett 52100 April 17, 2008 T12

Chemistry Building, East 52000 June 30, 2008 T12


April 2018

Page | 39

Extension centre/Terrace 52200 April 21, 2009 T12

OSBM

July 15, 2009 T12

Morrison Structural Lab

October 22, 2009 T12

RCMS 53550 January 18, 2010 T12

Industrial Design

March 26, 2010 T12

Fine Arts

April 14, 2010 T12

Administration Building

May 31, 2010 T12

Students Union Building

December 15, 2009 T12

Hatchery

October 12, 2010 T12

Augustana Campus

November 8, 2010 T12

Mechanical Engineering


Education North

March 21, 2011 T12

HUB Main Floor

May 30, 2011 T12

Environmental Engineering

August 9, 2011 T12

Education South

September 14, 2011 T12

Timms

April 11, 2012 T12

Campus St. Jean

June 21, 2012 T12

Heritage Medical Research Centre


Augustana Residences


Clinical Sciences 2, 3, 5, 6 Floor Corridors


* Buildings that have been remodeled, providing a T8 baseline that has been used in

conjunction with a T12 baseline for this quantification period, for building retrofits completed

ten years ago.


April 2018

Page | 40

Appendix B: Back-up Procedures at Blue Source


April 2018

Page | 41


April 2018

Page | 42

Appendix C: Data Retention Policy at Blue Source

Last Revision: August 2, 2017

Document Retention Policy, version 1.4.

1. All documents relevant to Offset Projects will be kept, in at least

electronic format, and where possible, in hardcopy format, for

a. At least 10 years beyond the last year in which credits are created

(e.g. a project that creates credits between 2010-2018 will have

all records kept until at least 2028), or

b. As required by the Offset Project Program

whichever period is longer.

2. Hard copy documents will be kept in project folders in our Blue Source

Canada head office location, which is currently Suite 1605, 840 – 7th Av

SW, Calgary, AB, T2P 3G2. All electronic documents will be saved to the

appropriate project folder on the Calgary Server (“S:\ drive”).

3. The S:\ drive will be backed up in accordance with Blue Source’s IT

Backup Procedure, which may change from time to time.

4. Blue Source’s preference is to keep all documents in electronic form,

wherever possible.

5. All employees will comply with this policy as a condition of their

employment.

Yvan Champagne

President, Blue Source Canada ULC


April 2018

Page | 44

Appendix D: Relumen Quantification Procedure

CO2 OFFSET QUANTIFICATION PROCEDURE

LIGHTING UPGRADE PROJECTS 2004-2014 University of Alberta

Prepared By: Eric Budd, P.Eng.

ReLumen Engineering Inc. Edmonton, AB

March 13, 2015

REVISION 5

(REI Ref No. B252-R07)

x:\b252 blue source\b252-r07 uofa co2 quantification lighting retrofit projects 2014\02 quantification\uofa lighting co2 offsets quantification procedure rev 5 20150313.docPage 1 of 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The University of Alberta completed several lighting upgrade projects throughout campus buildings.

Projects summarized in this quantification report were completed between the years of 2009 and 2014.

This report outlines the methodology used to provide a conservative approximation of the total CO2

offset Tonnes attributed to the University of Alberta’s lighting upgrade projects. The methodology

follows the guideline requirements of Option D – Calibrated Simulation Model as per EVO 10000-1.2010

International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol.

A simulated lighting model is created for each lighting upgrade project to approximate the total lighting

energy used in baseline and post-project conditions. The model is developed from a data set of building

conditions, industry standards for lamp wattages, fixture/lamp quantities, and approximate operating

hours. This simulated model outputs a Summary of Measures sheet for each project which effectively

shows the energy savings attributed to lighting.

Lighting upgrade projects completed more than 10 years ago have been re-modelled using revised

baselines.

Operating hours input into the simulated lighting model assume peak load conditions. Data logging was

performed in March 2010 and February 2015 on a sample population of building lighting panels. This

was done to capture data to show actual building occupancy patterns and validate the peak load,

operating hours and total consumption used in the simulated model. The results of the data logging

analysis show that in all cases the measured values are less than the model values with respect to panel

peak load (kW), consumption (kWh), and operating hours (weighted average). The energy savings

derived from the simulated model can then be considered as a conservative approximation in

comparison to the measured data.

Data logging activities and available project documentation was collected and reviewed to substantiate

the results of the simulated lighting model. The results of comparing measured data sets to the

simulated model provided a means to effectively calibrate the model while maintaining a conservative

value of total lighting energy savings. A revised calibration adjustment of -6% has been applied to the

results of the simulated model.

All required project documentation not previously issued is available in the Appendix of this report. This

includes Lien Holdback Release Certificates and Summary of Measures – Electrical Savings sheets for

each project added to the quantification portfolio in addition to Lamp Type Input Wattage Data Sheets

and data logging results.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

Project Background ................................................................................................................ 3 Quantification Team ................................................................................................................ 3

Summary of Methodology ............................................................................................ 5

Calibrated Simulation (Option D) ............................................................................................ 5 Simulated Lighting Systems Model ......................................................................................... 5 Model Calibration .................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of CO2 Offset Quantification ..................................................................... 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 15

U of A Summary of CO2 Reduction 2004-2014, Rev 5 ...........................................................16 U of A Summary of CO2 Reduction 2015, Rev 5 ....................................................................17 Lien Holdback Release Certificates .......................................................................................18 Project Summary of Measures ...............................................................................................19 List of Assumptions and Explanation of Columns ...................................................................20 Default Operating Hours ........................................................................................................21 BC Hydro – Lamp Type Input Wattage Data Sheets ..............................................................22 Data Logging – Sample Population, Graphs & Analysis .........................................................23


INTRODUCTION

Project Background

Energy savings throughout the University of Alberta campus were achieved through building

lighting upgrade projects.

The University of Alberta identified a need for lighting upgrade projects based upon existing

building conditions and existing lighting systems within the building. Existing lighting was either

replaced or retrofitted with modern lighting system technologies. There were also instances on

many projects where lighting requirements were reviewed by the lighting engineering consultant

and modified to reflect changes in building use and occupancy requirements. As a side effect,

the lighting upgrade projects also promoted building occupancy awareness and campus wide

energy conservation which improved energy savings further.

The University of Alberta completed several lighting upgrade projects throughout campus

buildings. This report captures CO2 offset quantification of projects completed between the

years 2009 and 2014. Previously issued report Rev 2A summarized projects completed

between 2004-2010, Rev 3A between 2010 and 2013. The project and quantification

methodology was successfully verified in 2011 and again in 2013.

Quantification Team

ReLumen Engineering Inc. is an Edmonton based engineering firm that provides lighting and

electrical consulting services. ReLumen is a team of professional electrical and mechanical

engineers, energy managers, lighting specialists, power quality experts and project managers.

In addition to industrial and commercial project experience, ReLumen has performed lighting

and electrical audits and retrofits on over 500 schools, university buildings and health care

facilities. ReLumen has been involved in CO2 quantification projects for various clients over the

past 4 years.

ReLumen is also a consultant member of the BC Hydro PowerSmart Industrial Alliance program

and holds a direct service contract with BC Hydro as a lighting engineering specialist.

ReLumen’s simulated lighting systems model is recognized and approved by BC Hydro.


Blue Source Canada is North America’s premier greenhouse gas emissions related marketing

and technical services firm, with extensive experience in quantifying, documenting, and trading

greenhouse gas offsets and renewable energy certificates in Canada and the United States.

Blue Source holds the leading climate change offset portfolio in North America with more

publicly registered third-party verified GHG offsets, more historical GHG offset sales and more

GHG offset types by location, vintage and source than any other company in North America.

Blue Source is a leader in the development and application of GHG emission reduction

quantification standards. Blue Source has worked alongside industry stakeholders in quantifying

potential project-based emission reductions, and guiding proponents through the data collection

and verification process for the California Action Reserve, Voluntary Carbon Standard, Alberta

Offset System, American Carbon Registry and other emerging systems.

Blue Source is the largest contributor to the ISO 14064-2-based, Alberta Offset System

producing various system guidance documents and over 25 of the approved and pending

protocols with another set at various stages in the approval process.


SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY

Calibrated Simulation (Option D)

The International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) is a guidance

document describing the common practice in measuring, computing, and reporting energy

savings.

As outlined in the EVO 10000-1.2010 Protocol, Option D was selected to as the approach for

measurement and quantification of the University of Alberta’s energy savings attributed to

lighting system upgrades.

Lighting energy savings derived from the simulated model is calculated using the following

equation:

Energy Savings =

(Pre-Project Energy Use) – (Post-Project Energy Use) ± Calibration Adjustment

The calibration adjustment value is determined from analysis of data logging activities

performed on a sample population. The simulated model is then calibrated so that it predicts

energy patterns that approximately match actual metered data trends.

Simulated Lighting Systems Model

A simulated model of building lighting systems was created by ReLumen Engineering to provide

a realistic approximation of the expected energy savings attributed to upgraded lighting

technologies. This lighting model has been adopted by the University of Alberta and is used by

all consultants (ReLumen Engineering and others) for all lighting upgrade projects on campus.

The simulated model for each project is captured using MS Excel software. The MS Excel

workbook template is fairly elaborate, using a collection of large two dimensional data sets and

lookup tables. Several matrices within the spreadsheet workbook are used to summarize the

baseline and post-project conditions of the simulated model and approximate the energy

savings.

The initial step of a lighting upgrade project is to establish baseline conditions for the building.

Architectural drawings and an official list of building rooms complete with room number, square

footage and description of use, are provided by the U of A to the lighting consultant. This list is

imported into the simulated lighting model template.

Project models have been completed using a T12 baseline to reflect actual pre-project site

conditions. Retrofit projects replaced T12 with T8 lighting technology to achieve energy savings.

However, lighting upgrade projects completed more than 10 years ago and previously quantified

(and verified) using the actual pre-project T12 baseline condition have been re-modelled using a

T8 baseline to reflect modern lighting standards for this 2015 quantification.


A physical inspection of site conditions is performed by the lighting consultant. An audit tally of

existing fixture quantities, types, and number of lamps per fixture is completed on a room-by-

room basis of the building. In addition, lamp burnouts and de-lamping observed onsite are

noted to account for lighting energy removed from the Baseline. This collected information is

entered into the simulated lighting model to provide a baseline data set.

Operating hours for each fixture (per room) is approximated for the baseline conditions and

entered into the simulated lighting model. The U of A Lighting - Default Operating Hours table

lists the default operating hours assigned to the variety of rooms and typical spaces found at the

University of Alberta. Refer to the Appendix. These default operating hours are used as a

starting point; while conducting the lighting audit at the outset of the lighting upgrade project,

default operating hour values are modified to match lighting useage in the building as observed

onsite, posted campus building hours, a survey of occupancy patterns and previous project

experience. When the lighting project is complete, the model results will be back checked

against actual utility bills to determine the percentage of lighting energy useage in the building.

The operating hours are then slightly adjusted from the default values if the modeled lighting

energy usage amounts seem unreasonable

Once baseline conditions have been established in the simulated lighting model, existing utility

bills are reviewed by the lighting consultant to validate the entered data is correct and the

approximated operating hours are reasonable. Consideration is given to the fact that the utility

bills reflect total building load demand and consumption.

The lighting consultant provides recommendations for different retrofit measures for the lighting

upgrade project. This includes replacement fixture types and new lighting technologies which

will recognize energy savings. The U of A then provides approval of the recommended design

concepts outlined in this preliminary engineering phase and the consultant proceeds. A detailed

lighting upgrade detailed design refines the retrofit measures and the project is then issued for

tender. A contractor is awarded the tender and proceeds with construction.

Following completion of construction, the lighting consultant completes a post-project review of

the actual installation. Contractor as built mark-ups are reviewed and the completed installation

is confirmed onsite. A follow-up audit tally of all new fixture quantities, replacement types,

number of lamps per fixture and lighting energy added or removed is completed on a room-by-

room basis of the building and entered into the simulated lighting model to provide a post-

project data set. Operating hours under post-project conditions are assumed identical to the

operating hour approximations made under the baseline conditions.

The amount of lighting energy used is applied to baseline and post project conditions. These

values represent industry standards and manufacturer’s data for average energy use given

lamp types, lamp quantities per fixture, and ballast configurations (i.e. slaving). Available in the

Appendix are the BC Hydro Power Smart Input Wattage Data sheets for different lamp types

and conditions which reflect values input in the simulated lighting model.

A Summary of Measures – Electrical Savings sheet is produced as an output from the simulated

lighting model and provided for each project (building). Refer to the Appendix. These


summaries indicate baseline consumption (Previous Annual kWh Usage) and the approximated

savings (Annual Energy Savings) derived from the lighting model. A List of Assumptions and

Explanation of Columns sheet which describes the Summary of Measures is also available in

the Appendix.

As built drawings were reviewed and site inspections were performed by ReLumen Engineering

as part of the quantification process. This was done to confirm that the input values used in the

simulated lighting model (and as a result the derived savings) accurately reflect present site

conditions (i.e. no lighting fixtures were added or removed between the time the lighting

upgrade was complete and the present).

This Simulated Lighting Systems Model developed by ReLumen Engineering is recognized and

approved by BC Hydro. BC Hydro is a leading public works utility company in the areas of

energy conservation. BC Hydro standards historically have become accepted nationwide as

standard practice.


Model Calibration

Data Logging & Analysis

Data logging activities were performed as part of the initial CO2 offset quantification for the U of

A’s lighting systems. This was done to provide measured support for the accuracy of the

Simulated Model described previously. The measured data set would illustrate trends in peak

load demand (kW) and consumption (kWh).

In addition, data logging would provide a graphical representation of building occupancy

patterns and provide validation to the operating hours included in the simulated lighting model.

The 1 week metering period would ideally capture building occupancy patterns during the

University’s winter semester.

Additional data logging was performed as part of the 2015 year quantification to increase the

sample population to meet the growing total CO2 offset portfolio for the U of A.

Data logging equipment used onsite included current transducers, voltage transducers,

SmartReader 3+ loggers and TrendReader Version TR2 2.31 software, all manufactured by

ACR Systems.

Lighting throughout campus buildings is electrically fed by designated 347Vac lighting panels.

Lighting panels generally feed an entire floor or wing of a building. Data logging equipment was

connected to select 347Vac lighting panels to measure the total panel load (Phases A, B, & C

metered individually) as well as the building voltage over the course of a one week period.

Please note that for a sample case where multiple panels were metered simultaneously in the

same building, only voltage from one panel was metered and extrapolated to other panels

during analysis. Voltage drop is considered negligible.

Option D Calibrated Simulation Model (EVO 10000-1.2010) requires the lighting system energy

to be isolated from that of the rest of the facility by appropriate meters. This was achieved

through selecting designated lighting panels serving each floor. There were many instances

where lighting panels fed other loads, such as transformers and subpanels. These cases were

simply excluded from the sample population selection.


Data logging of a random sample of campus buildings (by floor) was performed by ReLumen Engineering throughout the month of March 2010 as well as February 2015. A list of samples collected with metering start and finish dates is as follows:

BUILDING FLOOR PANEL DESCRIPTION START FINISH

Chemistry East

1st Floor Panel H1A Lecture theatres, labs 4-Mar-2010 11-Mar-2010

Chemistry East

4th Floor Panel H4A Labs, Offices 4-Mar-2010 11-Mar-2010

Chemistry East

5th Floor Panel H5A Labs, Offices 4-Mar-2010 11-Mar-2010

Rutherford North

Main Floor Panel EE Library stacks, offices, common 11-Mar-2010 18-Mar-2010

Rutherford North

3rd Floor Panel CC Library stacks, offices, common 11-Mar-2010 18-Mar-2010

Bio Sci Centre Wing

1st Floor Panel C1L1 Labs, classrooms, offices 16-Mar-2010 23-Mar-2010

Bio Sci Centre Wing

2nd Floor Panel C2L1 Labs, classrooms, offices 16-Mar-2010 23-Mar-2010

Universiade Pavilion Catwalk Panel 6B Track, Infield, Bleachers etc 18-Mar-2010 25-Mar-2010

Clinical Sciences 3rd

Floor Panel 3A Labs, classrooms, offices 5-Feb-2015 11-Feb-2015

Fine Arts 3rd

Floor Panel H3B Labs, classrooms, offices 5-Feb-2015 11-Feb-2015

General Services 2nd

Floor Panel H3 Offices, common 28-Jan-2015 4-Feb-2015

Refer to the Appendix for data logging graph results. Graphs were created directly from logger

output (.dlf file) and printed via TrendReader software platform.

Data logger outputs were converted to comma separated values (.csv file) and then dumped

into MS Excel for analysis. Real power (VA) from all phases is summed together for each

record interval (1 sample per minute). A 0.9 power factor is approximated and used to convert

to kilowatts (kW). MS Excel was then used to used to analyze the data logging results

graphically and mathematically.

In order to accurately compare of data sets (i.e. model & logged data), post-project model data

was extracted to match quantities of fixtures connected to the logged lighting panel. This was

achieved through assessing as built drawings, panel schedules, and accessing the post-project

model data set. This allowed for a direct comparison between the logged lighting panel and a

subset of the post-project model. Please note post-project kilowatt-hours were adjusted to

reflect weekly consumption.

As stated in the description of the simulated lighting model, the model assumes peak load

demand (kW). As expected the peak load demand (kW) was shown to be greater in the post-

project model when compared to the data logging sample.


Using the trapezoidal rule the energy used between each sampling was calculated and then

summed together. This integration of the data set approximates the area underneath the

logged kW vs time operating curve. This gives the total energy use (kWh) during the week-long

data logging period. This calculation is recognized using the following formula:

xii

iitot

tPtPttE

1

11

2

)()()(

Etot = Total energy used over entire data logging period ti = Time at reading i ti+1 = Time at subsequent reading P(ti) = Power at time i P(ti) = Power at time of subsequent reading X = Total number of readings

The results show that the post-project model (subset) showed greater energy consumption

(kWh) than the data logged samples.

By dividing energy consumption (kWh) by peak load demand (kW), a weighted average or

equivalent weekly operating hours is calculated for both the post-project model and the data

logging results. In all cases from the 2010 data logging sample, the operating hours derived

from post-project model data subset and the data logging samples were within 10%. For the

additional data logging performed in 2015, data logging sample showed a wider variance. This

can be attributed to changes in load diversity (i.e. changing hours) and deleted load demand

(i.e. some breakers were observed to be turned off).

Refer to the Data Logging Comparison sheet located in the Appendix. Also available in the

Appendix are graphs produced for each logged lighting panel showing a comparison of pre-

project model, post-project model, and data logged kilowatt hours.


The data logging analysis graph set shows three curves per logged lighting panel: Pre-Project

Model kWh, Post-Project Model kWh and Post-Project Data Logged kWh. The proceeding

calculations represent the cases of differences between the areas under the three curves shown

on the data analysis graph sets.

All values for pre-project model, post-project model, and data logging from the data sample

population i.e. logged lighting panels are summed. These summed values are used in the

calculations in the following steps to evaluate the model calibration adjustment.

1. The following difference represents 100% energy savings approximated by the model.

This represents the basis of the CO2 offset tonnes claimed through the use of the

simulated lighting systems model.

(S Pre-Model kWh) - (S Post-Model kWh)

i.e. blue curve – pink curve

2. The following difference represents 116% energy savings approximated by the model.

(S Pre-Model kWh) - (S Post-Data Logged kWh)

i.e. blue curve – green curve 3. Pre-Project Model kWh are calibrated using the ratio of post-project data logged and

model kWh values:

(S Calibrated Pre-Model kWh) = (S Pre-Model kWh) x (S Post-Data Logged kWh) / (S Post-Model

kWh)

The post-project data logged kWh are subtracted from the calibrated pre-project kWh:

(S Calibrated Pre-Model kWh) - (S Post-Data Logged kWh)

i.e. calibrated blue curve – green curve

This illustrates the worst case scenario for calibrating the model using the data logging results, representing roughly 72% of the energy savings approximated by the model. This calculation suggests that since the post-project model kWh are greater than the data logged kWh, than the same must be true of the pre-project model kWh.


Calibration Adjustment

The evaluation of the calibration adjustment is derived from a comparison of data logging samples to the lighting models. Please refer to the analysis sheet located in the Appendix.

The evaluation of the calibration adjustment using a total sum of the data logging samples and the total sum of extracted lighting model values (as described in the procedure above) show a 44% spread in adjustment i.e. 72% (-28%) and 116% (+16%) between the best and worst case scenarios. The mean calibration adjustment implied using the total sum of the data samples is found to by 94.3%. Note, when using two data points the mean is equivalent to the median value.

The same procedure and analysis was used to compare calibration adjustments derived from each individual data logging sample (i.e. per lighting panel) and the extracted values from their respective lighting models. With the revised data logging sample population, the median of and mean percent differences were found 97.5% and 95.2%, respectively, from the percent differences (between best and worst case scenarios) of the original CO2 claim.

A median value is used when there are a few extreme data points that could impact the calculated average and misrepresent the data sample. In the case of the derived calibration adjustments using individual data logging samples (i.e. per lighting panel), similar results were found between the best and worst case scenarios. Therefore the mean is a more appropriate calculation.

Because a data logging sample population was used to determine the calibration adjustment factor to apply across the entire collection of CO2 savings, using the total sum of the data samples was a more suitable analysis method. Furthermore, the calibration adjustment is nearly identical using either of the calculation methods described above (total sum vs individual data logging sets).

The mean calibration factor of 94.3% has been truncated to 94% to remain conservative in the overall approximation of energy savings predicted by the model. A calibration adjustment of -6% is applied to the kilowatt-hour energy savings for each simulated project model.


SUMMARY OF CO2 OFFSET QUANTIFICATION

Annual energy savings (kWh) is calculated as follows:

Annual Energy Savings kWh = Post kWh - Baseline kWh +/- Calibration Adjustment

The revised Calibration Adjustment used for the 2015 quantification is -6% as determined by the

results and analysis of the data logging sample population.

Alberta Environment’s protocol for quantification of greenhouse gas emissions uses the

following equation to convert kilowatt-hours to tonnes of CO2:

1 Tonne of CO2 = 0.00065 x kWh

This emission factor is increased by 12% to reflect reduction targets that electrical generators

are subject to under the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. The following equation is used for

the purpose of the quantification of CO2 reduction for the University of Alberta’s lighting upgrade

projects:

1 Tonne of CO2 = 0.00073 x kWh

Using the above factor of 0.00073, annual energy savings (kWh) is converted to annual CO2

reduction (Tonnes).

Lien Holdback Release Certificates and in select cases equivalent documents such as

Certificates of Substantial Performance or correspondence which indicate project completion

are available for each building lighting project. This documentation indicates the project

installation was completed by the contractor and all deficiencies were resolved. The date of lien

holdback release (or appropriate dates indicated on equivalent documentation where

applicable) is used to signify project completion.

Annual CO2 Reduction (Tonnes) is summarized from project completion dates to April 30, 2015

(identified as the target date of sale) to calculate the Total CO2 Reduction (Tonnes) the

University is eligible to claim forward.

The total CO2 Reduction (Tonnes) as result of additional Lighting Upgrade Projects at the

University of Alberta not previously quantified, as well as previously included projects that have

had model baselines revised, referenced by this revision (Rev 5) of the quantification report is

2,665 Tonnes.

Please see attached U of A Summary of CO2 Reduction For 2015, Rev 5 located in the

Appendix.


CONCLUSION

This methodology for the quantification of Tonnes of CO2 offsets provides a conservative

approximation of energy savings attributed to Lighting Upgrade projects throughout the University of Alberta campus buildings This approach to quantification meets criteria and requirements outlined in the EVO International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol in addition to guidelines included in Alberta Environment’s protocol for the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions.


APPENDIX

Appendix

U of A Summary of CO2 Reduction 2004-2014, Rev 5

Appendix

U of A Summary of CO2 Reduction 2015, Rev 5

Appendix

Lien Holdback Release Certificates

Appendix

Project Summary of Measures

Appendix

List of Assumptions and Explanation of Columns

(re: Summary of Measures)

Appendix

Default Operating Hours

Appendix

BC Hydro – Lamp Type Input Wattage Data Sheets

Appendix

Data Logging – Sample Population, Graphs & Analysis

university of alberta energy efficiency lighting project€¦ · prepared by: blue source canada...

Documents