Marion FraserFraser & Company
National Code Provincial Regulation Municipal Enforcement
Improved codes important but not sufficient do not address existing buildings code setting process “out of date” range of performance of buildings “built
to code” far greater than expected
National Building Code – no reference to energy efficiency until 2008
Model National Energy Code - Buildings (MNECB) developed in 1997 now outdated
Ontario Building Code referenced ASHRAE 90.1 in 1992/ MNECB in 1997
City of Vancouver – referenced MNECB
8 Ontario school boards design and performance of 68 newer schools benchmarking identified top schools building profiles/technical audits defined
common characteristics and design standards workshops, design charrettes with caretakers,
principals, board staff & design teams improved design for future schools and
operational standards, practices for existing schools
Electricity Consumption - 3:1 range
TRCA Sustainable Schools Program
Best School
Natural Gas - 4:1 range
TRCA Sustainable Schools program
Best School
Water - 5:1 range
TRCA Sustainable Schools program
Best School
Sustainable Schools Program Sharing benchmark information inspired
significant savings and ongoing improved practices
Design charettes led to design improvements and performance targets for new schools
Current Codes are far behind best practice
Codes not enforced Designers are not owners
Designer never pay an energy bill! Systems not commissioned; recommissioned “Lowest First Cost” not “Life Cycle Cost”
e.g. electric baseboard heaters Conventional Design Process
Disconnects between: Architecture – Engineering – Construction – Commissioning – Operations – Maintenance
No recognition of impact of occupants, custodians, maintenance procedures
Accountability Framework
benchmarking to establish energy performance standards for each building type
ongoing target-setting for individual buildings, portfolios
monitoring and reporting to all stakeholders on progress towards targets
verified and $ savings delivered continuous improvement
Occupants• Occupant engagement
and recognition• education and support• measurement and
reporting
Technology/Retrofit Design
Build
ing
oper
atio
ns
Occupant behaviour
• Building Performance Audits should be used for all retrofit projects
Operations• benchmarking• operational best
practice• targets and reporting• training
Action
Plan
Allows building owners/managers to: continuously assess and improve building performance – accessible,
on-line system, inexpensive improvements include operational and scheduling potential to pool $savings for managed capital improvements allows building owners to work towards LEED certification
Uses integrated system of tools, performance standards, resources and information
Delivers staff training and best practices Engineering only needed for major projects Improved specifications for conservation projects Links to “Green” Procurement
Engages Occupants
Assessment of performance, including carbon footprint and conservation potential
Data management and national (or international) benchmarking (building performance database)
Audit templates and performance standards Multi-year template for planning actions and
tracking improvements Ongoing measurement and verification
Commercial buildings: 3,000,000 m2 (60 buildings)
School boards: over 250 K-12 schools
Administration buildings: 1,000,000 m2 (75 buildings)
National representation
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0
2007
2005
SCHOOLS 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark96 Buildings (681,310 m2)
2005 Median: 188.72006 Median: 189.6Change in Median: -0.5%
Total Energy Savings: 2.3%GHG Savings: 0.6 kt
ekWh/m2
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0
2007
2005
ADMIN 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark51 Buildings (807,557 m2)
2005 Median: 324.02007 Median: 308.8Change in Median: 4.7%
Total Energy Savings: 4.7%GHG Savings: 3.3 kt
ekWh/m2
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
2007
2005
2005 Median: 399.92007 Median: 393.3Change in Median: 1.6%
Total Energy Savings: 3.5%GHG Savings: 9.2 kt
COMMERCIAL 2005-2007 Weather Normalized Benchmark45 Buildings (2,599,869 m2)
ekWh/m2
Even professional facility managers of Class A buildings found significant savings.
Ontario cannot rely on traditional conservation programming e.g., incentive/bulb; estimated savings – fools paradise – $ spent; are savings real?
gas DSM has always had strong role for performance improvement – boiler optimization; electric conservation – more about changing products
Conservation not “one shot” intervention – continuous improvement
long term, managed approach - better market for Ontario technologies, employment
makes conservation ongoing basis for cost savings Green Building Performance System should be used for all
ratepayer funded programs: Measures real savings Addresses all energy forms and water Flexible: consistency for LDCs - respects regional/fuel differences – weather
normalized◦ Linked to climate change