Fall 08
Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada
Foundation 3E Awards
Milan Nevajda – M.U.P Candidate 2013, McGill School of Urban Planning Daniel Schwirtz – M.U.P Candidate 2013, McGill School of Urban Planning David Singh – M.U.P Candidate 2013, McGill School of Urban Planning Project Supervisor: Ray Tomalty
M cGill School of Urban Planning Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Table of Contents Introduction ...... 2 Urban Energy Context ...... 2 Current Situation and Problems ...... 4 Project Details ...... 8 Energy Benefits ...... 9 Other Environmental Benefits ...... 18 Social Benefits ...... 18 Political Analysis ...... 22 Transferability and Scalability ...... 23 Main Actors ...... 26 Costs ...... 26 Project Assumptions and Risks ...... 26 Steps and Time Line ...... 29 Lead Agency ...... 30 Stakeholders ...... 30 Policy Changes ...... 33 Tracking ...... 35 Conclusion ...... 36 Citations ...... 37 Appendix I – Interviews ...... 41 Appendix II – Tables ...... 43
1 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Introduction
In 2005, the City of Ottawa adopted the Green Building Policy for the Construction of Corporate Buildings (GBP), which mandates that all new municipal building must be built to a LEED building efficiency standard. Although this was a positive step towards reducing building energy consumption, more can and should be done to reach this goal. In contrast, several European countries have adopted standards that go far beyond what even LEED Platinum buildings attain. One such program, from Germany, is called the Passive House (PH) standard which limits energy use in buildings to a mere 15 kWh/m2 for heating purposes, and a maximum 120 kWh/m2 for total energy demand annually. The first phase of our project is to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a PH standard as a baseline for all new municipal buildings in the City of Ottawa. These new municipal buildings would then act as an example to show that ambitious energy efficiency standards are feasible. It is the ultimate goal of this proposal to build capacity and momentum in efficient construction that can eventually be rolled out to the private (commercial and residential) market. The subsequent report outlines the need for more progressive energy efficiency standards, how PH standards work, potential energy savings that can be realized in the municipal buildings sector by switching from LEED to PH standards, and a feasibility and implementation analysis. Our analysis considers a wide range of potential costs and benefits associated with adopting such a standard. Furthermore, we present a sensitivity study to illustrate a meaningful range of outcomes that can result from our recommended policy changes.
Urban Energy Context
Municipal buildings fit in the commercial and institutional buildings sector, a group that together consumes over 31% of the secondary energy generated in Canada; institutional buildings alone represent 14% of total secondary energy demand (NRCAN, 2010). A community energy conservation and reduction plan that does not consider built structures would be ignoring the single largest factor driving energy consumption in Canada. Furthermore, buildings can remain operational for generations, which increases the ecological and energy-related consequences of poor construction. In other words, energy- guzzling buildings not only increase our reliance on, and demand for, energy, but they also commit us to a legacy of energy inefficiency. Buildings consume energy in a number of forms as needed by the processes inside. In Canada, the vast majority of energy demand in municipal buildings is for space heating (47% according to Statistics Canada), and this is acquired from a composite of energy sources that include electricity, natural gas, propane, and other heating oils (Harvey, 2010a ). Electrical energy use stems from the need to power electrical equipment (computers and their peripherals, as well as lighting), while space-heating requirements largely dictate the use of natural gas (for boilers) and other heating fuels (figure 1).
2 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Figure 1 - Commercial/Instutional Energy Use by End-Use, 2008 (percentage) Source: Statistics Canada, 2010 Lighting Auxiliary 11% Auxiliary Equipment motors 19% 9%
Water Heating 8%
Space Cooling 5%
Space Heating 47% Streetlighting 1%
Table 1 – Energy Intensity of Institutional Buildings in Ontario (GJ/m2/annum) Building Type GJ/m2/a kWh/m2/a * Accommodation 0.64 177.78 Office 1.05 291.67 Non-Food Service 0.63 175.00 Warehouses 0.35 97.22 Administration 0.93 258.33 Education 0.38 105.56 Health Care 0.96 266.67 Public Assembly 0.56 155.56 AVERAGE 0.6875 191.97 * Conversion factor: GJ/kWh = 0.0036
The National Capital Region has nearly 1,300 buildings in active use, and the City of Ottawa controls the largest share of these buildings (1,001 in fact). Table 1 presents the average energy intensity of operating commercial and institutional buildings in Ontario based on use (condensed to types relevant to the institutional sector). In light of these figures, the PH standard represents at least a 60% decrease in energy intensity. The excess energy consumed presently is equivalent to throwing energy away. Our proposal, to drastically improve the efficiency of municipal corporation buildings, will bring a higher standard to bear on municipal buildings. This in turn will reduce total heating/cooling demand, improve the indoor environment, and build capacity within the construction sector to promote better construction in the future.
3 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Current Situation and Problems
Currently, neither PH standards nor similarly ambitious energy efficiency programs have been implemented in Canada on a meaningful scale. LEED certification has become the pre- eminent standard in North America despite mounting evidence questioning actual energy savings achieved by implementing this standard. One report, in particular, from the Canadian Institute of Research in Construction found that, on average, LEED certified buildings in the US used 18-39% less energy than a typical building (Newsham, Mancicni, & Birt). However, it was also shown that 28-35% of LEED certified buildings actually used more energy than the benchmark (Newsham, Mancicni, & Birt), raising questions about the correlation between LEED certification and tangible energy savings. Although the City of Ottawa is taking steps in the right direction with the Green Building Policy for the Construction of Corporate Buildings, the LEED certification system is simply not ambitious enough nor effective enough to achieve the energy reductions that can and should be strived for. Our goal is to be among the first projects to demonstrate that PH-grade standards can be achieved in Canada. In demonstrating the feasibility of this type of model, we aim to provide the City of Ottawa with a convincing report that would either modify the “Green Building Policy for the Construction of Corporate Buildings” or lead to the creation of a new policy which moves away from LEED certification standards and instead opts for the PH type of model that we suggest. The results of this project would be threefold. First, significant energy reductions would be achieved for municipal buildings in Ottawa. Second, the City of Ottawa would become a cutting edge role model for green building in Canada: Implementing a progressive energy efficiency model similar to PH would make Ottawa a city that truly is leading by example. Third, energy efficiency programs will begin to have a bigger impact on residential developments, which offer the potential of huge aggregate energy use reductions.
Precedents
There are two types of precedents with relevance to our project. The first deals with carrying out PH construction in our geographical context. The second relates to the implementation of municipal policies that mandate more stringent construction guidelines. In terms of construction-based precedents, there are multiple examples worldwide. According to the PASS-NET database, there were a documented 21,490 PH projects built as of 2009, distributed throughout 10 countries: Austria, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, and the United Kingdom (Lang, 2009). A report compiled by researchers at the University of Nottingham (Ford, Schiano-Phan, & Zhogcheng, 2007) in conjunction with the Passive-On project explored the feasibility of PH projects in Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and the United Kingdom. All projects were shown to meet the requirement of 15kWh/m2/year for space heating (and cooling, depending on the location) except for the projects in Spain and one of the projects in France. Despite not meeting the 15kWh/m2/year criteria, however, these projects still demonstrated significant energy saving potential in applying PH technology. In the United States there are currently 31 certified projects listed on the PHIUS website, demonstrating that the concept is feasible in North America (PHIUS, 2012). Furthermore, Canada is home to the home that inspired the PH model: the Saskatchewan Conservation House (1977). More recently, during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Whistler, BC the Austrian Ski Team chalet was PH certified. More locally, the Rideau Residence in
4 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Ottawa, built by VERT design, was initially intended to be certified as LEED platinum but was certified PH by the American PassivHaus Institute (PHIUS). Unfortunately, the certification was later rescinded in Germany, but the project nonetheless confirms that PH standards, or standards very close to PH, can be achieved in Canada. Policy precedents are more challenging to find, but examples exist, and the framework for implementing them in Canada can also be found. Our project’s focus is to significantly reduce energy consumption in buildings owned by the Ottawa municipal corporation. Our approach is to implement a municipal policy mandating that new municipal buildings meet more stringent energy saving measures like those stipulated by the PH standard. There are several cities that have successfully implemented such a program. In 2007, Frankfurt, Germany made a resolution requiring all new municipal buildings including schools, daycare centers and nursing homes to meet the PH standard (Harvey, 2010). A similar program was initiated in Wels, Austria and Freiburg, Germany in 2008, and Hanover, Germany updated its policy from only effecting daycares (set in 2005) to encompassing all municipal buildings (ibid.).
Figure 2: Illustration of German Building Standards (Stepped, Shaded Area) Following Advances in Construction Techniques through Research and Development (Curved Line) Source: Lausten, J. 2008. Energy Efficiency requirements in Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings. IEA
Politically, Europe is far more progressive in terms of green building practices (figure 2). This has allowed many countries to take a firmer stance on climate change mitigation efforts such as building code improvements. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which requires the reduction of building emissions to meet Kyoto protocols is a prime example of this initiative. This national movement to save energy is especially reflected in the political empowerment of municipalities to adopt green practices. This is not the case in Canada where, for the most part, the majority of power when dealing with land and property resides with the provinces. The ability to change building codes lies at the provincial level. The National Research Council of Canada develops a national model building code, but the provinces decide whether or not to adopt it. Lack of consensus between the provinces, therefore, may prevent stricter regulations from being adopted at a national level (Jackson, 2010). Again, this is not the case in Europe where building codes closely follow benchmarks set by cutting-edge research and development (European Commission, 2009).
5 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Such progressive energy regulations have not yet made their way to North America, but there does seem to be a burgeoning movement for a greener built environment. Currently more than 26 municipalities in Canada have incorporated LEED standards as requirements for civic buildings (FCM, 2010). Most notably, Calgary, Toronto, Kingston, Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax and Ottawa have stipulated some level of LEED certification for municipal buildings larger than 500m2. As these regulations have been adopted relatively recently, energy reductions have not yet been published systematically. Nevertheless, some broad statements can be made. In terms of energy efficiency, the PH standard states that the maximum energy that can be used for space heating is 15 kWh/m2/year with a total maximum primary energy usage of 120 kWh/m2/year. According to the PH Institute (PHI), these standards represent a 75% decrease in energy consumption compared to the current building codes in Germany and a 90% decrease in energy consumption based on the existing building stock (PH Institut, 2011). All buildings are monitored throughout their construction and rigorously tested to assure that standards are met. Furthermore, certification is only granted after a building has been monitored over a period of time to ensure energy usage remains within the prescribed limits. Based on these rigorous standards and assured energy consumption, rough estimates could easily be made given the surface area of a building. Direct energy savings from LEED certification is more ambiguous. The point system used stipulates the following categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Untangling the points system to actually determine how much energy is being saved is complicated. Several studies have attempted to catalogue the energy savings of typical LEED certified buildings. One report in particular from the Canadian Institute of Research in Construction (Newsham, Mancini, & Birt, 2009) found that, on average, LEED certified buildings in the US used 18- 39% less energy than a typical building. However, it was also shown that 28-35% of LEED certified buildings actually used more energy than the benchmark, raising questions about the correlation between LEED certification and tangible energy savings (ibid.). Therefore, without directly measuring the energy savings of each municipal building in the above cases, it becomes very difficult to even estimate the amount of energy saved in Canada, or Ottawa for that matter.
The City of Ottawa
Canada is a large country with diverse climate conditions each of which would require specific building techniques to meet PH standards. Some parts of Canada share similar climates to Northern Europe where the majority of PH buildings have been constructed. For example, Toronto’s average daytime temperature range is between -1.3°C to -7°C in the winter while in Oslo, Germany the range is -2°C to -7°C for the same period (Jackson, 2010). In a study conducted by the University of Nottingham, outdoor temperature and thermal radiation was monitored in Canada and Europe to establish a base level determination of where similar building practices could be used (Ford, Schiano-Phan, & Zhogcheng, 2007). The Rideau Residences, a PH project in Ottawa, failed to acquire designation from the German PH branch because they did not meet the standard’s energy use limitations and it had a thermal bridge that was not properly insulated (Holladay, 2012). Neither of these issues relate to climate. The City of Ottawa has shown a clear interest in reducing energy consumption by constructing energy efficient buildings. In 2005, the City adopted the GBP, which requires that all new City buildings be built to LEED Certified standards. To date, the City has
6 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh completed three LEED certified buildings, and has another 22 buildings in the design, construction, and evaluation stages. All of these buildings should meet a LEED standard, but most strive for Silver designation. Along with adopting the GBP the City has promoted and profiled private sector green buildings to advance their understanding of better construction techniques, to disseminate information to builders, and to draft a Green Building Checklist for the municipality. Taken together, these policies make up what the City of Ottawa refers to as their “LEED by Example” campaign. The City of Ottawa has also explored a Pay As You Save (PAYS) program, a version of the American PACE system, which has not yet been adopted. Innovative financing programs like PAYS and PACE open new doors that help businesses and residents afford to construct green buildings. Our proposal would supplement a wider push to adopt citywide PAYS-type programming by making green construction more accessible. This is one of the long-term spillover benefits of our program. Ottawa has demonstrated an interest in improving its energy efficiency. Furthermore, the city provides a context that is reflective of many challenging environments faced in Canada, but is still amenable to PH development. As a result, our recommendations could be more easily adapted for use beyond Ottawa, in large and small municipalities. Therefore, we expect to achieve significant energy savings in the city proper, and to cultivate a building-efficiency knowledge and skill base that could be rolled out for tremendous energy reductions throughout Canada. Because our project is directed at discretionary municipal policy and not changes to the building code, the policy is in line with the existing powers available to the City (the existing GBP shows that the City can adopt a stringent building standard). Political adoption is therefore not an issue of jurisdictional authority but of political will. PHIUS has recently partnered with RESNET and has been accepted as the state of Oregon’s “reach code”, signaling that wider adoption is already underway in the US; if history proves true, standards like the PH may be the future for Canada as well (Macdonald, 2012). The cost of energy is a big factor in the wider adoption not only of the PH standard, but of more stringent energy-conservation regulation in general. In 2007 the cost of energy peaked in Germany at 0.25$US/kWh while Canada continued paying 0.075$US/kWh (Jackson, 2010). This affected the investment climate in Canada as lifecycle costs are higher and the payback period is more unattractive from the point of view of developers or landlords. In our situation, the municipality retains ownership of their building stock; they are therefore capable of accepting a higher payback period during the early years of PH policy adoption. Alongside the cost-induced push toward energy efficiency, Europe has implemented a series of strong financial incentives to make green building more feasible. For example, in Germany the Kredistanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) has a program that offers low-interest loans of up to €75 000 for renovations and new construction. In 2008 the KfW provided financial support to 280,000 projects, doling out approximately €6,700,000,000 (European Commission, 2009). This same degree of financial support may not be available in Canada but programs do exist and will be discussed in subsequent sections of the report. The German government is a leader in progressive building regulations because it actively adopted standards that reflected best in the construction industry while maintaining reasonable financial viability – see figure 2 (Jackson, 2010). These progressive regulations coupled with financial incentives and an energy saving culture have created a demand for energy efficient buildings; this in turn has evolved the quality of materials and level of construction expertise available. Ultimately, these forces have made PH construction progressively cheaper. In Canada, the proliferation of expertise and building supplies specifically tailored to PH standards has not yet occurred, however the opportunity
7 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh exists. A Canadian PH Institute has settled in Wakefield, Québec just 30km from Ottawa. It offers training and education services to advance the skillsets of the construction industry. Many high-efficiency buildings materials and products can be found in Canada (as proven by the construction of the Rideau Residences project). The feasibility of creating a supply chain of materials and the availability of PH expertise will be a major consideration in our project.
Project Details
We have structured our project in a way that will feasibly introduce PH standards into the Canadian context. Addressing challenges and limitations such as possible political resistance and lack of capacity in the construction sector, we see our proposed municipal project as a way for such a standard to eventually reach wider dissemination: By proposing PH standards to simply replace the current LEED standards stipulated by the GBP we are working within the powers of the municipality and subsequently are reducing potential political friction; by introducing PH standards through the municipality there is a larger financial capacity to support projects as capacity is built in the construction sector in order to make projects in the residential/private sector more feasible in the long run. Within this broader context of substantial potential energy savings, our initiating project proposes the specific following elements:
1) A draft of the existing GBP be amended to: a. Adopt Passive House standards instead of LEED certification. b. Replace the stipulation that only buildings greater than 500m2 will be considered for the policy (City of Ottawa, 2005) will be replaced by ALL new buildings AND those requiring major renovations. 2) Propose that a financing program be put in place to make passive house projects in the residential and private sector more financially attainable.
Our project focuses on the amendment of the GBP rather than the residential/private sector analysis and we provide the following elements to argue for the proposed amendment: First is a policy document outlining the new municipal regulations requiring a heightened building energy efficiency standard. Second is a supporting financing policy that is meant to generate funds for the municipal project. The third component of the proposal deals with implementation and considers such factors as developing skillsets in the construction industry to meet higher efficiency standards, product and services sourcing (e.g. are the materials and technical know-how readily available, and how will they be sourced if not?), as well as financing and budget forecasts (given the existing condition of the municipal building stock, how many buildings would be subject to the retrofit program annually, and what kind of cost burden does this entail?). The fourth and final element of the proposal is evaluative: we will provide energy reduction estimates under various financing and energy pricing scenarios. These scenarios include: construction financing at low medium and high financing rates using credit market projections for the future cost of financing. Energy price scenarios will consider gradual increases of the cost of energy units consumed by buildings (natural gas and electricity mostly). With this in mind, we have limited the scope of our analysis to the first phase of our project: the governmental procurement program targeting municipal buildings. To obtain a realistic estimate of potential energy savings and GHG emission reductions we have refrained from projecting the effects on future projects and have limited ourselves to
8 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh analyzing a sample of the existing municipal building stock. The City of Ottawa manages over 1,000 buildings covering nearly 14 million square feet of floor space. Many of these are irrelevant to our proposed energy reduction strategy because they do not require space heating or electricity throughout the year – or they are specialized buildings that do not lend themselves to PH upgrades. The total number of buildings was therefore reduced to remove buildings that do not lend themselves to PH renovation due to use (table 3) and where data limitations exist (concerning the year of construction). The remaining buildings (i.e. the sample) represent approximately one third of the building stock, and nearly 60% of the total built floor area managed by the city (table 4) As of 2011, the city employed 11,931 full time and 4,739 part time employees, the majority of which would be the direct benefactors of this project (Mediacorp Canada Inc. , 2012). Ancillary benefits to the more than 900,000 residents of Ottawa are discussed in this report as well. Particular growth in the green construction sector as well demand for training through technical colleges can be expected to have positive effects on the local economy. Our timeline for overall initial implementation is 6-20 years but our analysis will forecast potential energy savings for the next two decades. We will vary construction costs and the cost of different energy sources to provide a robust financial analysis. Sources and methodology all conform to current literature.
Table 3 - Ottawa Building Types Not Included in the PH Energy Reduction Strategy due to Data Limitations or Inappropriate Use Ambulance Facilities Campsite Facilities Change Facilities Equestrian Facilities Hunt Camps Light Rail Stations Marinas Parking Facilities Pedestrian Bridges Portable Trailers Pressure Reducing Valves Garages Private Residential Buildings Salt/Sand Domes Solid Waste Facilities Storage Facilities Stormwater Treatment Facilities Temporary Structures Transitway Stations Unknown building types Utility Structures Pump Stations Wastewater Treatment Facilities Water Tanks, Pumps, Reservoirs, Wells Woodhuts Workshops
Table 4 – Sample Buildings Representativeness of the Ottawa Building Stock Total Number of Buildings 1,001 Total Built Area 13,939,261 Sample Number of Buildings 328 Sample Built Area (ft2) 8,332,371 Sample Size (%) 32.77% Sample Area Size (%) 59.78%
Energy Benefits Current Energy Scenario
Two methods are used to estimate the total energy consumption of the sample to set a baseline current energy use scenario. The first draws from Natural Resources Canada data relating energy consumption intensity with the year of construction. Table 5 provides a
9 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh summary of the 328 sample buildings according to their year of construction. It is interesting to note that the majority of the built stock in Ottawa was constructed between 1960-1989, which is also the period of the poorest quality construction according to NRCAN (2008) – see figure 3-4.
Table 5 – Energy Intensity of Establishments by Activity Grouping, by Floor Area Category, 2008 Total Floor NRCAN Number of Area of Year of Energy Buildings Sample Energy Use (GJ/yr) Construction Intensity in Sample Buildings (GJ/ft2)* (ft2) Before 1920 24 244,974 0.0883 21,621 1920-1959 17 286,287 0.0938 26,863 1960-1969 56 1,262,379 0.1310 165,363 1970-1979 74 1,568,295 0.1310 205,436 1980-1989 82 2,171,731 0.1329 288,517 1990-1999 40 2,216,143 0.1087 240,887 2000 or Later 35 582,562 0.0994 57,910 Sum 328 8,332,371 1,006,598 Average 0.1121 * Average energy intensity data source: NRCAN. 2008. Office of Energy Efficiency: 2008 Commercial & Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey, Summary Report. Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/cices08/chapter5.cfm?attr=0
Figure 3 - Buildings according to Year of Construction in the Ottawa Sample (n=328)
Before 1920 2000 or 7% Later 1990-1999 11% 12% 1920-1959 5%
1980-1989 25% 1960-1969 17%
1970-1979 23%
10 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Figure 4 - Energy Intensity of Buildings According to Year of Construction, data from NRCAN (2008)
0.14 ) 2 0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 Energy Intensity of the Building (GJ/ft
Year of Construction
The sample comprises 328 buildings varying in age from 1894-2011 and encompasses a total floor area of 8,332,371 ft2. Building use varies considerably and the buildings are spatially dispersed throughout the 2,796 km2 territory of the city (City of Ottawa, 2012). Within each age category of the sample buildings, a total floor area can by generated from the sum of all building floor areas. The NRCAN 2008 Commercial & Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey, Summary Report, derives average energy intensity characteristics based on building age of all commercial and institutional buildings in Ontario. These findings are relevant and useful for this study because the energy context for the NRCAN data is consistent with what the City of Ottawa would be facing. By multiplying the energy intensity by floor area one can generate an average annual energy use value, which we find to be 1,006,598 GJ/year. With the building-age method of calculating energy use in the sample, it is important to recognize the limitations of the data. The total projected energy consumption for the 328 buildings should not be taken as an accurate reflection of the energy consumption for individual buildings. This is the reason for grouping the buildings in bands according to their age of construction. The total projected energy consumption is a valid figure when considered on aggregate over the entire sample of municipal buildings. The second method for establishing a current energy-use baseline is to work back from data on total energy use by the municipality. Table 6 converts the reported total energy consumption for the city, by energy type, into a consistent unit (gigajoules). This gives a total energy use scenario for all municipal buildings that can be used to estimate the energy consumed by the sample building set (n=328). From the table it is clear that the city consumed 1,125,047 GJ of energy in total for the year 2008, across all four energy forms. From table 4 we know that the sample of buildings represents 59.78% of the building stock. This fraction of total energy used by the city (in GJ) equates to 672,511 GJ – considerably less than the 1,006,598 GJ projected in the building-age method shown above, but this is expected since many
11 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh buildings not included in the sample did not exhibit conventional institutional work environments (so heating and electricity needs could be minimal). Using the fixed floor area of the sample (from table 4: 8,332,371 ft2) the implied energy intensity using the city’s energy data is 0.0807 GJ/ft2 (compared with 0.1121 GJ/ft2 in the former building-age derived scenario – see table 3). This represents a 28% decrease in energy intensity, which in turn produces a much more conservative energy consumption scenario.
Table 6 – Projections of Energy Savings and Intensity Based on Buildings Data Catalogue Energy Use Data: Ottawa Conversion to GJ Electricity (kWh) 308,031,808 1,108,915 Natural Gas (m3) 18,198,163 476 Propane (L) 401,641 10,254 Heating Oil (L) 188,770 5,403 TOTAL 1,125,047 Sample Energy Consumption (59.78% of total) (GJ) 672,511 Sample Projected Energy Intensity (GJ/ft2) 0.08 * Source: Natural Resources Canada. 2012. Office of Energy Efficiency: 2008 Commercial & Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey, Summary Report. Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/cices08/chapter3.cfm?attr=0
Both methods for calculating current energy consumption are valuable, and both have inherent flaws that could only be resolved with detailed data on individual energy consumption in each building. The problem with the first approach is that NRCAN’s energy intensity data is gathered for all commercial and institutional buildings across Ontario. This may not be perfectly applicable to the City of Ottawa, which may have been more diligent in upgrading and repairing its buildings versus the average. Furthermore, the NRCAN study included all commercial operations, so businesses such as food retailers that can have significantly larger energy profiles than office buildings, are represented in the study. On the other hand, the City of Ottawa’s data only provides global energy consumption; the sample buildings (that is, buildings in the municipal stock that are energy consumptive, complete from a data perspective, and suitable for PH upgrades) may command a much larger share of the energy budget than other buildings. Doing a simple area-based proportionality between total energy and sample energy consumption is likely underestimating the energy intensity of the sample buildings. In light of the advantages and disadvantages of these two scenarios, it is clear that together they offer a range within which energy savings through PH upgrades can be estimated. Our financial analysis shows the cost scenario using the optimistic and pessimistic energy conservation outlook.
12 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Table 7– Summary of Program Energy and GHG Savings Using C&I Using City
Report Data Total Number of Buildings 1,001 1,001 Total Built Area 13,939,261 13,939,261 Sample Number of Buildings 328 328 Sample Built Area (ft2) 8,332,371 8,332,371 Sample Size (%) 32.77% 32.77% Sample Area Size (%) 59.78% 59.78% Average Energy Intensity of Sample 0.1121 0.0807 (GJ/ft2) Current Energy Consumption (GJ/yr) 1,006,598 672,511
Proposed Energy Scenario
Our project scenario would result in the conversion of all municipal buildings to the PH standard as they come due for major renovation. The standard calls for a maximum energy consumption in buildings for all purposes (heating and cooling, electrical load, and other operations) to be no higher than 120 kWh/m2/year. This is the largest amount of energy consumption allowed by the standard and is the figure used to identify the minimum potential energy savings resulting from the proposed PH Green Buildings policy for Ottawa. Buildings that achieve higher energy efficiency will generate greater savings still but are not considered in this proposal. Using the sample set of buildings identified above (n=328), the total built floor area that can be converted to PH standards is 8,332,371 ft2. Table 8 shows the equivalent energy intensity of the PH efficiency scenario in gigajoules for comparison with current projected energy consumption (table 7). In the table an alternative, less aggressive version of the PH standard, is considered that relaxes the PH maximum energy intensity allowance by 25%. This alternative PH scenario, called PH+25 provides a sensitivity analysis to show what the energy savings could be in the event that the renovations did not succeed in achieving the PH standard.
Table 8 – PH Energy Intensity Conversion 25% Higher than PH PH Maximum Maximum kWh/m2/yr 120 150 GJ/kWh 0.0036 0.0036 ft2/m2 10.76391 10.76391 GJ/ft2/yr 0.0401 0.0502
Using the PH energy intensity figures and floor area affected, the projected energy consumption for the City of Ottawa after a complete PH renovation of the sample buildings is 334,412 GJ/year in the PH case and 418,015 GJ in the PH+25 case (table 9). This corresponds to a 67% and 58% reduction in energy for the city’s buildings. Table 10 shows a summary of the energy consumed and saved assuming a more conservative current energy consumption scenario (using city energy-use data). This figure is difficult to translate to the entire built stock because not all buildings are viable PH projects.
13 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Table 9 – Savings Generated from Converting the Entire Sample Building Set to PH Standard (120 kWh/m2/yr) and Near-PH Standard (150 kWh/m2/yr) – Optimistic Energy Consumption Scenario Using C&I Energy Intensity Data (Scenario 1 of current Energy Use) Scenario PH PH+25* PH Energy Intensity (GJ/ft2/yr) 0.0401 0.0502 Built Area of Sample (ft2) 8,332,371 8,332,371 Current Energy Consumption (GJ/yr) 1,006,598 1,006,598 PH Scenario Energy Consumption (GJ/yr) 334,412 418,015 Energy Saved (GJ/yr) 672,186 588,583 Average Energy Reduction (%) 67% 58% * The PH standard calls for building energy consumption at a maximum of 120 kWh/m2/year. The 125% PH scenario assumes the maximum is lifted by 25% to 150 kWh/m2/year.
Table 10– Savings Generated from Converting the Entire Sample Building Set to PH Standard (120 kWh/m2/yr) and Near-PH Standard (150 kWh/m2/yr) – Pessimistic Energy Consumption Scenario Using City Energy Data (Scenario 2 of current Energy Use) Scenario PH PH+25* PH Energy Intensity (GJ/ft2/yr) 0.0401 0.0502 Built Area of Sample (ft2) 8,332,371 8,332,371 Current Energy Consumption (GJ/year) 672,511 672,511 PH Scenario Energy Consumption (GJ/yr) 334,412 418,015 Energy Saved (GJ/yr) 338,099 254,496 Average Energy Reduction (%) 50% 38% * The PH standard calls for building energy consumption at a maximum of 120 kWh/m2/year. The 125% PH scenario assumes the maximum is lifted by 25% to 150 kWh/m2/year.
As with many municipal building efficiency policies, a minimum floor area is applied so that small structures are not subject to the regulations. This is done to pursue economies of scale with respect to retrofit investment and potential energy savings. Our proposal does not apply such a condition because PH projects have been achieved at the small-scale residential level and large-scale institutional level. Furthermore, the existing Green Buildings policy uses a floor area minimum of 500m2, which represents approximately 4% of the buildings (by floor area) in the sample set.
Energy Savings and Beneficiaries
Table 11 and figure 5 summarize the four energy savings scenarios discussed above. These savings accrue to the municipality directly and would be felt through the financial savings from decreased energy requirements; the scale of monetary savings is discussed in the subsequent section on financial implications.
14 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Table 11 – Summary of Potential Energy Savings Accruing from Two Baseline Energy Use Scenarios and Two PH Retrofit Scenarios in the City of Ottawa PH PH+25* PH PH+25* Scenario C&I C&I City Energy City Energy Intensity Intensity PH Energy 0.0401 0.0502 0.0401 0.0502 Intensity (GJ/ft2/yr) Built Area 8,332,371 8,332,371 8,332,371 8,332,371 of Sample (ft2) Current Energy 1,006,598 1,006,598 672,511 672,511 Consumption (GJ/year) PH Scenario Energy 334,412 418,015 334,412 418,015 Consumption (GJ/yr) Energy Saved 672,186 588,583 338,099 254,496 (GJ/yr) Average Energy 67% 58% 50% 38% Reduction (%) * The PH standard calls for building energy consumption at a maximum of 120 kWh/m2/year. The 125% PH scenario assumes the maximum is lifted by 25% to 150 kWh/m2/year.
Figure 5 - Energy Savings Resulting from PH Retro its of the Built Stock of Ottawa Municipal Buildings: Four Scenarios
80% 67% 70% 58% 60% 50% 50% 38% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% the Sample Building Set (n=328)
Percent Reduction in Energy Use in PH-C&I Energy PH+25-C&I PH-City PH+25-City Use Energy Use Energy Use Energy Use Energy Reduction and Baseline Scenarios (C&I: Energy baseline derived from C&I energy intensity by year of construction, City: Energy baseline derived from municipal energy data and proportional loor area)
15 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
GHG Reductions Associated with the Project
Table 12 illustrates the total energy use as reported by the City of Ottawa, by fuel type (the same data was used to generate the conservative current energy use scenario in the previous sections)1. Using this table it is possible to compute a composite emission factor for Ottawa’s buildings by taking the weighted average emission factor of each energy type.
Table 12 – Energy Consumption Data, 2008: City of Ottawa Emission Weighted 2008 Energy 2008 Facilities % Factor (EF) EC Consumptio O Energy Source Total Energy (kg (%Total·EF) n CO2e/GJ) (kg CO2e/GJ) Electricity 47.22 28.19 308,031,808 59.7% (kWh) Natural Gas (m3) 18,198,163 39.0% 55.93 21.82 Propane (L) 401,641 0.7% 64.84 0.45 Heating Oil (L) 188,770 0.6% 68.74 0.41 TOTAL 100.00% 50.87 Source: Isernhagen, B. February 22, 2012. Personal Interview.
The composite emission factor is found using:
EC = ∑{(fE·EE)+(fNG·ENG)+(fp·Ep)+(fHO·EHO)} [Eq. 1] where, EC is the composite emission factor of the energy consumed (kg CO2e/GJ) fi is the fraction of municipal energy consumption by fuel type, i (%) Ej is the GHG emission factor of each energy type, j (kg CO2/GJ)
Using the weighted average emission factor (EC) GHG reductions and program costs can be completed (the latter is discussed in subsequent sections). To derive GHG reduction figures, we used the following formula:
GHG = (ECO)·(Es)·(Ftons) [Eq. 2] where, GHG is the GHG reduction (tonnes of CO2e) EC is the average emission factor calculated in Eq. 1 Es is the energy saved after PH retrofits in each scenario (kg CO2e/GJ) Ftons is the conversion factor for kilograms to US short tons (907.18474 kg/ton)
Table 13 and figure 6 summarize the potential GHG reduction that can be expected from each of the four scenarios outlined above. With a high-intensity, high PH energy reduction we find the largest GHG reductions at 37,696 tonnes CO2e, the annual equivalent to preserving 339 acres of rainforest from deforestation or recycling 11,915 tonnes of waste from landfill. In the worst case scenario, our proposal could save 14,272 tonnes CO2e,
1 The municipal energy budget includes electrical power used for street lighting and traffic signals. This skews the energy composition for building use by emphasizing electrical energy. While this is an undesirable factor, building-only energy consumption data was not available for the purposes of this report. The breakdown of energy consumption by type provides a valuable initial projection of the building energy scenario in Ottawa.
16 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
(equivalent to preserving 128 acres of rainforest or recycling 4,511 tonnes of waste) (EPA, 2011).
Table 13 – Summary of Potential Energy and GHG Savings Accruing from Two Baseline Energy Use Scenarios and Two PH Retrofit Scenarios in the City of Ottawa PH PH+25* PH PH+25* Scenario C&I Intensity C&I Intensity City Energy City Energy Energy Saved (GJ/yr) 672,186 588,583 338,099 254,496 GHG Reduction (tons of CO2e) 37,696 33,007 18,960 14,272 * The PH standard calls for building energy consumption at a maximum of 120 kWh/m2/year. The 125% PH scenario assumes the maximum is lifted by 25% to 150 kWh/m2/year.
Figure 6 - GHG Reductions Resulting from PH Retro its of the Built Stock of Ottawa Municipal Buildings: Four Scenarios e) 2 40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 PH-C&I PH+25-C&I PH-City PH+25-City GHG Reduction in Sample Buildings (tons CO Energy Use Energy Use Energy Use Energy Use Energy Reduction and Baseline Scenarios (C&I: Energy baseline derived from C&I energy intensity by year of construction, City: Energy baseline derived from municipal energy data and proportional loor area)
Assumptions and Sensitivity Analyses
The key assumptions made in this report on energy savings potential relates to the ability of the city to achieve a PH or near PH standard of energy efficiency on its entire building stock. There may be buildings, for cultural or historical reasons as an example, that cannot be brought to PH standards without significantly altering their historical condition. For the most part these buildings have been removed from the sample and have been accounted for (all heritage buildings were removed), however some of the built stock that remains in the sample may not be amenable to PH renovation. Simple sensitivity analysis has already been considered by incorporating optimistic and conservative current energy use projections alongside PH and PH+25 energy efficiency cases. If the floor area that can undergo PH renovation is smaller than the sample set then the energy and GHG reductions will be reduced in proportion to the floor space that is not
17 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh applicable. This is true when dealing with aggregate figures but will need to be calculated on an individual building basis as projects are rolled out.
Other Environmental Benefits
In addition to the energy savings calculated above, there are many other secondary environmental benefits that will come as a result of our proposed policy. The ancillary benefits of reducing energy inputs and outputs include enhancing and protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, improving air and water quality, reducing waste streams, and conserving and restoring natural resources. Although LEED buildings also lead to many of these secondary environmental benefits, the benefits would be stronger under a PH framework. These benefits are directly linked to the amount of energy savings that come from green buildings. Since PH is a much stricter standard than LEED, more energy is saved and the potential ancillary environmental benefits are greater. Many of these environmental benefits will impact not only the City of Ottawa, but its surrounding area as well. Protecting ecosystems, reducing waste and air pollution, and conserving natural resources provide benefits in some form or another to everyone. On a larger scale, these benefits play a role in achieving national and international environmental goals, and act to satisfy philosophical ideals of environmental justice.
Social Benefits
There is a growing body of research indicating that there are a number of social benefits that result from the construction and occupation of green buildings – the two biggest of which being increased productivity and health benefits (Miller, 2009). With regards to increased productivity, studies have suggested that employees who work in green buildings may be between 3-5% more productive compared to employees working in non-green buildings (Miller, 2009). This is due to a wide variety of reasons, which can be grouped into three main categories – indoor environment, aesthetics, and attitudes. Productivity and indoor environment seem to be very much related. Indoor environment accounts for things such as indoor temperature, indoor air quality, indoor pollution (which may come from outdated technologies within the building), and indoor lighting. Green buildings create atmospheres that regulate these variables, which results in the creation of more pleasant and comfortable workplaces – which in turn increase productivity. Productivity and aesthetics takes into consideration variables such as work place paint colors and office layout. Research has suggested that the colors green building typically use make for a more vibrant and engaging work place, which results in higher levels of productivity (Miller, 2009). Similarly, green buildings are found to be more efficiently and creatively organized, again leading to increased productivity (Miller, 2009). Productivity and attitudes includes variables such as worker engagement and innovative work environments. When workers are more passionate and interested in the job, or if they feel as though they are working in a dynamic and creative work environment, productivity levels typically increase. Research suggests that there is a link between green buildings and these types of work environments. With regards to health benefits, studies have suggested that employees who work in green buildings take on average 5 less sick days per year. This results in a productivity increase of up to 2%, which makes the overall productivity increase (accounting for the factors discussed earlier) in the range of 3-7% (Miller, 2009). The health benefits that come with green buildings are a result of the reduction or elimination of many health hazards that
18 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh are common in non-green buildings. These hazards include inadequate ventilation, chemical contaminants from indoor and outdoor sources, and biological contaminants. Needless to say, these health benefits are important not only in terms of worker productivity, but in and of themselves. In addition to helping increase productivity and reduce illness, green buildings also have a wide variety of other social benefits within the city they are located in. Green buildings often act as a symbol that the community is dedicated to sustainability, or they may act as a symbol which encourages other individuals, businesses, or governments to be more environmentally mindful. Green buildings often also have some kind of educational component to them. Building tours or community outreach programs are common tools that are used to make known the specific technologies and systems used within these buildings. In these senses, the social benefits of green building are not restricted to those who occupy them – there are also wider community benefits.
Financial Analysis
In our financial analysis, we examined the net costs and savings to the City of Ottawa for our project under a wide variety of scenarios. Working on the assumption that in a 5 year period, 20% of the municipal building area could be retrofitted to the PH Standard, we set up a framework that looked at the costs of such a project with varying energy prices, varying PH construction premiums, and varying productivity increases. This framework is broken down into 5, 5-year phases – meaning that in 20 years the whole municipal building stock in Ottawa could be retrofitted to the PH standard. Although there would be other costs associated with our project, such as training and maintenance costs, these variables would not have a significant impact on the overall financial feasibility of our project. For this reason, and to provide a more straightforward financial analysis, maintenance and training variables were omitted from the analysis. The basic framework analyzes costs in the following way: First, annual energy savings are converted into financial savings by using current energy costs. These savings are broken down per year based on the amount of floor area that has been retrofitted. The financial savings are shown under three different energy costs scenarios – 1% annual energy increases, 3% annual energy increases, and 5% annual energy increases. The total savings from energy reductions are shown in table 14 below using a 12-year and 30-year outlook. It is also important to point out that all values in our financial analysis have been converted to present value to account for the time value of money.
Table 14 – Total Savings from Energy Reductions Scenario 12-Year Savings 30-Year Savings 1 1% Annual Energy Cost Increase $9,054,106.27 $20,807,491.36 2 3% Annual Energy Cost Increase $10,194,710.58 $27,465,647.81 3 5% Annual Energy Cost Increase $11,503,097.15 $36,930,194.57 All costs are represented in present value
Second, the cost of building to the PH standard is calculated. Because we could not find a reliable cost per square meter for PH retrofits, we used PH construction premiums to measure the costs of our project. Since construction costs would be higher than retrofit costs, these premiums represent the highest cost scenario, and likely overestimate the cost of our project. This means that the numbers in our financial analysis are very conservative. The costs were calculated under three different PH construction mark-up rates – 5%, 10%, and 15% cost markups compared to standard building costs in Ottawa. The standard
19 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh building cost used was $200 per square foot. The total costs from building to the PH Standard are shown in table 15 below, using a 12-year and 30-year outlook.
Table 15 – Total Costs from Building to the PH Standard in Ottawa Scenario 12-Year Outlook Savings 30-Year Outlook Savings 1 5% PH Premium $23,866,326.51 $32,738,149.13 2 10% PH Premium $47,732,653.01 $65,476,298.26 3 15% PH Premium $71,598,979.52 $98,214,447.39 All costs are represented in present value
Third, financial savings from productivity increases were considered. These savings were calculated by taking the portion of the City of Ottawa’s annual budget that goes towards salary and compensation, 1.2 billion dollars, and reasoning that at least 50% of this amount goes towards compensation for workers that work in the municipal building stock. The annual productivity savings were then calculated based on a 3%, 5%, and 7% productivity increase. The total savings from productivity increases are shown in table 16 below using a 12-year and 30-year outlook.
Table 16 - The Total Savings from Productivity Increases Scenario 12-Year Savings 30-Year Savings 1 3% Productivity Increase $14,450,909.72 $48,953,063.19 2 5% Productivity Increase $24,084,849.53 $75,181,295.22 3 7% Productivity Increase $33,718,789.35 $114,223,814.11 All costs are represented in present value
Finally, the net savings were calculated for each combination of scenarios (27 in total). These net savings are summed up in table 17 below. With regard to the scenario coding, the first number refers to the energy reduction scenario, the second number refers to the PH premium scenario, and the third number refers to the productivity scenario.
20 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Table 17 – The Net Savings for the PH GBP Scenario Code 12-Year Net Savings 30-Year Net Savings 1-1-1 $ (361,310.52) $37,022,405.42 1-1-2 $ 9,272,629.29 $63,250,637.44 1-1-3 $18,906,569.10 $102,293,156.34 1-2-1 $(24,227,637.03) $ 4,284,256.29 1-3-1 $(48,093,963.54) $(28,453,892.84) 1-2-3 $ (4,959,757.40) $ 69,555,007.21 1-2-2 $(14,593,697.22) $ 30,512,488.31 1-3-3 $(28,826,083.91) $ 36,816,858.08 1-3-2 $(38,460,023.72) $(2,225,660.82) 2-1-1 $ 779,293.79 $ 43,680,561.87 2-1-2 $10,413,233.60 $ 69,908,793.90 2-1-3 $20,047,173.42 $108,951,312.79 2-2-1 $(23,087,032.72) $ 10,942,412.74 2-3-1 $(46,953,359.22) $(21,795,736.39) 2-2-3 $ (3,819,153.09) $ 76,213,163.66 2-2-2 $(13,453,092.90) $ 37,170,644.77 2-3-2 $(37,319,419.41) $ 4,432,495.63 2-3-3 $(27,685,479.60) $43,475,014.53 3-1-1 $ 2,087,680.37 $53,145,108.63 3-1-2 $11,721,620.18 $79,373,340.65 3-1-3 $21,355,559.99 $118,415,859.55 3-2-1 $(21,778,646.14) $ 20,406,959.50 3-3-1 $(45,644,972.65) $(12,331,189.64) 3-2-3 $ (2,510,766.52) $ 85,677,710.42 3-2-2 $(12,144,706.33) $ 46,635,191.52 3-3-3 $(26,377,093.02) $ 52,939,561.29 3-3-2 $(36,011,032.84) $ 13,897,042.39 All costs are represented in present value
There are some significant values to point out in table 17. Looking at the 12 year outlook (which is typically the outlook which the municipality takes when examining the financial feasibility of a project), we see that under a scenario where energy costs increase at an annual rate of 5%, the PH premium is 5%, and productivity increases are 7% (scenario code 3-1-3), it is possible to realize a $21.3 million savings from our policy. This is a best- case scenario. On the other hand, in the worst-case scenario (1-3-1), where annual energy increases are only 1%, the PH premium is 15%, and productivity increases are 3%, the proposed retrofits come at a cost of $48 million. This is a large gap. Looking at a mid-way scenario (2-2-2), however, if annual energy increases are 3%, the PH premium is 10%, and productivity increases at 5%, the cost is only $13.4 million. This is still a significant amount of money, but it is important to consider what happens as time goes by under this scenario. Although the net cost with a 12-year outlook is $13 million, with a 30-year outlook there is actually a $37.1 million savings. These savings will continue to grow as the outlook period increases. A final note about our financial analysis is that it uses a conservative value for financial savings that come from energy reductions. Using our data, there were two different ways to calculate energy savings – by reverse engineering the City of Ottawa’s emissions profile (conservative), or by using the age of buildings and energy intensities provided by Natural Resources Canada (non-conservative). The financial analysis based on
21 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh the non-conservative energy calculations can be seen on spreadsheet two of the financial analysis excel file.
Cost Distribution and Funding
With regards to the distribution of costs for this proposal, we are placing the responsibly on the City of Ottawa. There are, however, a number of federal, provincial, private, and non- profit sources of funding for green building projects. The Canada Green Building Council acts as the ultimate resource for matching green building projects with funding opportunities. They estimate that there are hundreds millions of dollars available for green building projects. These funding opportunities are an excellent strategy for reducing or eliminating the upfront costs of PH projects, thus reducing the time it takes for real annual financial savings to be recognized.
Political Analysis
Given the enormous energy and cost benefits made available by the program, the municipality stands to drastically reduce its energy costs while simultaneously gaining ancillary productivity, recruitment, and worker-health reduction benefits. The second major proponent of the program would be municipal workers who stand to enjoy improved indoor working conditions. Environmental groups, particularly those interested in resource conservation and climate change (because of the decreased reliance on fossil fuels brought on by greater energy efficiency) would also be strong supporters of the program but not because of any direct benefit to the organization, rather, because of the contribution that the policy makes to improve sustainability of the city. At the same time, the City of Ottawa would also have to bear the brunt of added costs associated with better quality construction. Retraining skilled workers, integrating new design paradigms, and absorbing new costs associated with better materials and design processes would drastically mark up PH products as compared to the convention construction counterpart. The developer community would not bear the majority of this cost because the responsibility would be shifted to the municipality.
While the developer community is nascent with respect to PH construction, the cost of early projects would be considerably higher than the conventional construction scenario. Because the developer community would transfer these costs to the municipality, the dispute remains between municipal departments responsible for renovations, expenses, and salaries. The department of finance would be a strong opponent to the proposed policy because, until PH construction costs decrease through learning by doing, early projects cannot meet reasonable payback period mandates (currently 12 years at the maximum). The buildings and engineering department, as well as human resources (in charge of salaries and benefits) would gain the majority of the benefits from the program.
Overcoming the disconnect between municipal departments that realize the benefits of the program and those that bear its costs is a challenge. Sustainable, integrated design processes that lead to PH developments may require a reevaluation of the bureaucratic structures governing municipal budgets. For this program, the long-term infrastructure savings and worker benefits should to be emphasized. By connecting the project to people, the program can gain valuable support from the community and government agencies that are ultimately responsible to constituents.
22 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Transferability and Scalability
The feasibility of our project is dependent on several key assumptions stated in detail in our Project Description Paper:
1) PH standards are transferrable: They can be directly implemented and replace current LEED requirements stipulated by the ‘Green Building Policy for the Construction of Corporate Buildings’ in Ottawa. 2) PH standards can be met in a Canadian climate. 3) By the time PH standards are implemented by our proposed policy, relevant expertise will be available in Canada to construct buildings to this standard. 4) By the time PH standards are implemented by our proposed policy, materials meeting PH standards will be available in Canada. 5) By the time PH standards are implemented by our proposed policy, construction and material costs will adequately balanced by energy costs to provide a financially feasible payback period. 6) By the completion of our policy program (10 years), construction and material capacity will be competitive enough to make residential projects financially feasible. 7) The public will be amenable to adopting the PH standard.
If these assumptions prove true, our project has a high possibility of transferability and scalability to other municipalities in Canada. This is proven by the rate at which passive house construction has grown in Europe over the past decade. From a humble 213 projects in 2000 to over 60,000 documented projects in 2012 (Lang, 2010). It must be taken into account there is a strong push from European governments, especially in Germany and Sweden, to promote green building practices, along with financial incentives, but that does not mean that Canada cannot follow suit. Canada, as of yet, has not put in place a building efficiency standard even close to the level of passive house, but there is burgeoning interest from municipalities nation-wide to adopt green practices: Currently more than 26 municipalities in Canada have incorporated LEED standards as requirements for civically owned buildings (FCM, 2010). Most notably; Calgary, Toronto, Kingston, Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax and Ottawa have stipulated some level of LEED certification for buildings larger than 500m2. Furthermore, despite not being able to rival financial programs such as the Kredistanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) offered in Germany (low interest loans of up to €75,000 for renovations and new construction) programs in Canada do exist (European Comission, 2009). Specifically for our purposes, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has a Green Municipal Fund Program supported by a $550,000,000 endowment (FCM, 2012). It also may be argued that size of municipalities may be a concern in terms of tax dollars the government can afford to use on such projects. Cities like Hanover and Frankfurt, which in 2007 made a resolution similar to our proposed project, are very large cities, but places such as Wels, Austria with a population of under 60,000 have initiated such programs as well. Though not completely transferrable to the Canadian context, these examples show the potential for these projects to be implemented in smaller municipalities (Harvey, 2010). Furthermore, as we have demonstrated in previous reports, there is also a high likelihood that many of our assumptions are supported in the Canadian context. For example, though Canada is a large country with a diverse climate, there are areas that are very comparable to European conditions: Toronto’s average daytime temperature range is between -1.3 to -7°C whereas the range in Oslo, Germany is -2 to -7°C (Jackson T. , 2010). To
23 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh demonstrate the direct transferability of this technology from location to location, the University of Nottingham performed a study in which the authors mapped outdoor temperature and thermal radiation as a base level determination of where similar building practices could be used (Ford, Schiano-Phan, & Zhogcheng, 2007). Similar practices could easily be used in Canada once successful projects are identified. Furthermore, studies have been performed and successful projects have been undertaken in diverse locations such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, proving the versatility and flexibility of this standard in varied climates (Ford, Schiano-Phan, & Zhogcheng, 2007). The few projects that did not succeed do show that modifications do need to be made that are location specific, but by no means preclude the attainment of the passive house standard. Finally the success of passive house projects in the Unites States, 31 projects documented with PHIUS at the writing of this report, is potentially the biggest indicator of success and transferability of passive house projects in the Canadian context (PHIUS, 2012). In terms of energy prices, there are forecasted rises on the horizon. In the next decade 100 new power plants with extensive infrastructure costs are going to be built in Canada (Dublinsky, 2011). Most of those costs will be born by energy consumers: BC hydro has already increased rates by 7.3 percent and announced a further increase of 30% over the next three years (Dublinsky, 2011). The Ontario government have announce similar increases with a projection of an overall 46% percent rise by 2015 (Dublinsky, 2011). Furthermore, a report published by GLJ petroleum consultants forecast that crude oil and natural gas liquids will increase 4 times in cost over the next decade (GLJ Petroleum Consultants, 2012). If these forecasts are accurate the financial feasibility of passive house projects becomes substantially more appealing. Finally industry capacity to build to the passive house standard needs to be touched on. Currently the additional cost for constructing to the passive house standard is suggested to be anywhere between 5%-25% (Passive Houes E-Design, 2012; Nandram, 2012; CanPHI, 2012; MOSART Architecture, 2012; Parker, 2008; Hogan, 2011). This range offers considerable variability in the financial feasibility of projects. As shown by the Audenaert, De Cleyn, and Vankerchkhove study, passive house projects costing an additional 16% are quite prohibitive (Audenaert, De Cleyn, & Vankerckhove, Economic Analysis of Passive Houses and Low-Energy Houses Compared with Standard Houses, 2008). However under an assumption of 15% growth/year in energy prices the passive house standard does become quite profitable (Audenaert, De Cleyn, & Vankerckhove, Economic Analysis of Passive Houses and Low-Energy Houses Compared with Standard Houses, 2008). Granted a scaling factor would have to be used to compare the high energy prices in Europe to the considerably lower costs in Canada, but the forecasted price increases in energy costs in Canada provide promise that passive houses will not only become financially feasible but financially advantageous in the near future. Furthermore, the progression of construction methods in Europe show how costs can be reduced and variability narrowed. One of the reasons that PH technology is becoming more affordable in Germany and Switzerland is due to the increasing competition in supply of building materials specifically made to meet this standard. In these countries the additional cost of building to this standard is as low as 4- 6% (European Commision, 2009). The prevalence of prefabricated PH products have the potential to drive these costs down even further. One company in BC, BC PH Ltd, is already pursuing this initiative which shows promise that affordable passive houses will soon be available in Canada (This company worked in collaboration with Durfield Loghome Construction to design the Austrian Ski Team PH for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Whistler, BC).
24 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
These factors combined, not only demonstrate the transferability of PH technology to the Canadian context, but also show potential for considerable potential to up-scale initiatives in the future as construction costs decrease and energy prices increase
Main Actors
The main actors in this project are the Ottawa municipal corporation, the construction industry and all its sub-trades, lending institutions, and existing Green Building agencies such as the Canadian Green Building Council and the Canadian PH Institute. The municipal corporation is the main proponent of the policy. It is the architect of the policy we are proposing. Furthermore, implementation of the program rests solely on the City’s shoulders. The municipal corporation must also play a critical role in building capacity among necessary partners and other stakeholders that will be needed to successfully execute the program. This will involve training and education for the construction industry, coordination of skills and knowledge development among administrative staff and practitioners, and the necessary monitoring programs required to ensure building efficiency is maintained.
Costs
Policy and Program Development: There will be standard costs for developing and implementing a new building code for municipal buildings. These costs should be no higher than those incurred for any new municipal policy.
Legal Review: legal costs are associated with the development of the new municipal policy. The extent of this financial burden depends on the time taken to draft and revise the plan, proceed through the necessary legal reviews, and implement the policy.
Site design and planning: These costs depend on the builder or developer commissioned to complete the work for the municipality. Familiarity with the most stringent practices in building efficiency is rare. Experienced companies would have streamlined processes for efficient site design thereby reducing these costs. On the other hand, an inexperienced firm facing a steep learning curve and exorbitant external consulting and oversight costs would drive design and planning costs up. Nevertheless, hyper-efficient buildings require a diligent, iterative, and integrated design process, which is by nature more expensive than traditional site design and development.
Consultation: The PH Institute has established a Canadian chapter 45km north of Ottawa in Wakefield, QC. The institute will need to be contracted in the early years of policy implementation to oversee projects and ensure proper procedures are being followed. Until adequate and cutting-edge skills in hyper-efficient building construction is developed in Canada (as it has been in Europe for example), consultants will need to be commissioned to guide and train the local construction industry in advanced techniques. The Maison du Développement Durable in Montréal is an excellent example of a single project that required the guidance of an outside consultant to achieve an exemplary energy profile.
Construction: Hyper-efficient buildings, the world over, are more costly to produce. This is in part because of the added planning and design work that is required, but also because better materials, more advanced technology, and more skilled labour are required. Initial
25 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh up-front costs to the municipality for the construction of hyper-efficient buildings will increase as a result. According to current estimates of the cost of PHs in Europe, “the extra- investment for construction and engineering systems ranged from 0% to 17% of the total cost with a mean value of 8% over the different implementations. The payback time was estimated to be around 25 years” (Georges, 2012) but the added cost of efficient construction was mostly due to “the immaturity of the equipment sector and it was expected that mass production of passive house elements would lead to more favorable performance” (Georges, 2012). These findings support our proposal to start developing PH quality construction capabilities in Canada as soon as possible.
Ongoing Administration and Project Tracking: The current GBP incorporates administrative tasks including an ongoing initiative to track and update program progress. This will be continued with our proposed project and should not cost more than the current program.
Certification: One of the main inhibiting costs of LEED initiatives is the high cost of obtaining official certification. Certification of PH Projects is ongoing throughout the construction process and the cost of this certification varies depending on the scale of the project.
Education and training: The Canadian construction industry, even those practitioners with LEED certification, report a general disbelief in green building systems. The industry still views energy efficient construction as cost prohibitive, highly complex, and the ultimate responsibility of the property owner (Chen, 2011) (Issa, Rankin, & Christian, 2010) (Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance, 2009). Issa et al. (2010) interviewed 1200 LEED-certified practitioners and concluded that this perspective must change and the only means of doing so will be through greater training for the construction trades and increased investment in knowledge transfer between research institutions and practitioners (Issa, Rankin, & Christian, 2010). Training and networking programs that achieve this will be an added cost but the municipal corporation of Ottawa should not be the sole investor in these strategies.
Financing: With up to 17% of added initial capital construction costs to achieve PH-grade buildings, the City of Ottawa will also have to take on a larger cost of borrowing. The added costs, together with long-term, compounding, property-backed financing will increase the transfer of payments to lending institutions and increase the overall payback period for each construction project. The municipality will need to revise its existing mandate to extend minimum payback timeframes (at least in the early years of the program).
Insurance: Hyper-efficient construction requires the deployment of many new technologies and the implementation of new methods. In Canada many of the systems and methodologies are foreign to the insurance industry, resulting in increased insurance premiums for these projects.
Project Assumptions and Risks
Assumptions
The vision for a PH Green Building Policy makes a number of assumptions for program development, discussed below. Multiple risks must also be considered for the proper, safe implementation of our project.
26 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
1) PH standards are transferrable: Considerable effort was made by the CaGBC and its affiliated parties to adapt LEED standards to the Canadian context. A study was performed in 2002 by Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, UBC, ECD Energy and Environment Canada to adapt version 2.1 of the US Green Building Council’s LEED certification program and harmonize LEED standards with existing BREEAM standards (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 2002). This study was part of the successful introduction of the LEED standard in Canada in the fall of 2004 (NC 1.0). A similar process could be taken to adapt and harmonize PH standards in order to create a Canadian rating system recognized by the PHI in Germany. 2) PH standards can be met in a Canadian climate. Energy efficient homes modeled around PH principles have been built in Canada. The Saskatchewan Demonstration House, built in the 1970s is evidence of our ability to construct these buildings. The Rideau Residences in indicates the possibility of achieving high energy efficiency in Canada. Successful PH projects in the United States further support Canadian efforts at PH implementation. 3) Relevant expertise will be available in Canada to construct PH buildings. The Canadian PH Institute does not presently offer courses to train construction professionals. Using the international PH Training Program and working in affiliation with the PH Institut in Germany, the CaPHI is developing a manual for PH building techniques in Canada (Canadian PAssive House Institute, 2012). 4) Materials that meet PH standards will be available in Canada. Material availability is less of a concern in Canada due to its typically colder climate. Companies such as Loewen, Accurate, Dorwin, and Thermotech are already producing triple glazed windows and there are a multitude of companies that supply adequate types of insulation. Furthermore since the PH standard is performance based, it offers a considerable amount of flexibility in terms of how the requirements are met. The Rideau Residences, despite having its PH certification revoked, was purportedly built with materials sourced from North America (Defendorf, 2011). 5) By the time PH standards are implemented by our proposed policy, construction and material costs will adequately balanced by energy costs to provide a financially feasible payback period. Over the next decade, 100 new power plants with extensive infrastructure costs are going to be built in Canada (Dublinsky, 2011). Most of those costs will be born by energy consumers: BC hydro has already increased rates by 7.3 percent and announced a further increase of 30% over the next three years (ibid.). The Ontario government has announced similar increases with a projection of an overall 46% percent rise by 2015 (ibid.). Furthermore, a report published by GLJ Petroleum Consultants forecast that crude oil and natural gas liquids will increase fourfold in cost over the next decade (GLJ Petroleum Consultants, 2012). We expect that these projected energy prices may be enough to offset the increased costs of constructing to PH standards. One of the reasons that PH technology is becoming more affordable in Germany and Switzerland is due to the increasing competition in supply of building materials specifically made to meet this standard. In these countries the additional cost of PH building is as low as 4-6% (European Commision, 2009). If this program is met positively in the Canadian market a similar trend could happen. As shown by the PHI Low Energy and Standard Construction Comparison in Europe (Audenaert, De Cleyn, & Vankerckhove, 2008) the feasibility of constructing to PH standards increases as the price of energy increases. With an inordinate amount of energy infrastructure planned in Canada over the next decade, the energy costs borne by consumers are expected to rise considerably (Dublinsky, 2011).
27 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
FCM’s ‘Green Municipal Fund’ is a potential source of funding (FCM, 2012), but with the scale of buildings recorded in the 2010 report on the green building initiative in Ottawa (Schepers, 2010), further provincial and federal funding will most likely have to be secured. The same studies to overcome political resistance will have to be used to craft proposals and secure this funding. PAYS financing or a similar program must be established: As mentioned in the ‘Steps and Time Line’ section of this paper, the success of the PACE financing program in municipalities in the southern United States can be used as a model in Canada. However, several issues must be overcome first – see Appendix 1. Firms may also need to invest in products such as the ‘reputation insurance’ mentioned in ‘Stakeholders’ section of this report (Cheatham, 2009). 6) The public will be amenable to adopting the PH standard. The major concern with public acceptance has to do with education and awareness. People are generally unaware of the direct and ancillary benefits (such as increased comfort) of green buildings and typically are misinformed about green building technology. Typical consumer concerns are that green buildings are complicated and require additional maintenance. Proper promotion and education will be important in the second phase of our project (a residential program financially supported by the federal and provincial government). Public support is important even for municipal buildings because public funds will need to be committed to get the program off the ground. Public support will make the PH GBP more politically palatable.
Risks
8) Political Resistance. Implementation of PH standards may meet strong political resistance at the outset due to the cost and a unfamiliarity with the project. Studies will have to be performed to present the long term benefits so that policy-makers can be brought on board. This report provides a starting point for such a document. 9) Inexperience in the construction industry. Construction mistakes may lead to post- construction problems, which may hurt the initial perception of the program. Several projects in the US faced this issue when the PH standard was first brought over to North America (Brew, 2010). By providing quality training, using the lessons learned from previous projects, can mitigate this risk. 10) Energy prices will remain low and material and construction costs will remain high, decreasing the financial incentive to implement PH standards. With expected energy cost increases in the future, green buildings will have more of a financial incentive. Decreasing construction costs are dependent upon growing expertise and material supply. Our report will include a financial sensitivity analysis that includes variance in energy savings and construction costs. 11) By the time our policy is implemented the required human resources and expertise may not be readily available. Currently the Canadian PH institute only offers six one-week courses per year, which may be insufficient to meet the capacity required for our program. The policy research and development phase should provide enough time for the CaPHI to expand its operations – it will have a strong incentive to do so because the City of Ottawa will present a large and stable client for its services. 12) Ensuring that the relationship between the Canadian PH Institute and the PH Institute in Germany does not erode. Due to several faulty certifications and the introduction of a third standardization party, the German PH Institute severed ties with their US counterpart (Michler, 2011). We need to learn from the mistakes made in the US to ensure this does not happen in Canada.
28 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
13) Material suppliers may not be aware of the unique requirements of PH projects. Manufacturers will have to be informed and brought into program development discussions. This may take some time and result in some confusion during the initial phases of development. 14) Relatively few PH exist in Canada. There will most likely have to be an adaptation and troubleshooting phase as initial projects are undertaken to account for Canada’s unique climate. There is an International PH Database as well as resources from the PH Insitute in Germany that can provide assistance. 15) Cultural Support of Efficiency is lacking in Canada. There is a distinct difference in the attitude towards energy savings between Europe and North America. This may be in part due to higher energy prices but there is also a strong push from governments to promote energy savings, which creates a natural climate for progressive change. For example, in Germany the government has set a target to lower greenhouse gas emissions to below 40% of the rates in 1990 by 2020 (Jackson, 2010). Canada by comparison has only set a goal of reducing to 17% below 2005 rates by 2020. This lack of national initiative may provide a substantial barrier to gaining widespread support.
Steps and Time Line
Development of the PH GBP will be coordinated by the city of Ottawa. The Design & Construction Division of the Real Property and Asset Management branch (RPAM) is responsible for all new or renovated city buildings; hence the development and management of the new policy will rest on their shoulders. Much like the existing Green Building Policy, the Supply Services division (SSD) will also play a role in ensuring that all future RFP and tender documents detail the new efficiency standards. As a result the SSD will need to be integrated in the policy design and development process. The implementation steps are as follows: 1) Stakeholder and industry consultations to develop the new policy and ensure adequate stakeholder input (1 year) 2) Project planning: business and environmental case development (1 year) 3) Policy drafting and completion (estimated timeframe: 8-14months). This process will likely stretch to the maximum end of the projected implementation timeline due to the significance of the proposed changes. The implementation process is as follows (Sanger, 2012): a. Planning office: drafting b. Legal review process c. Revision and modifications d. Presentation to council e. Passing of the bylaw 4) Policy implementation (2 years) 5) Ongoing monitoring and program revision
Training and Education in the Construction Trade
Training programs for the construction industry in partnership with local schools and training centres are an essential phase in the success of our proposed program. Algonquin College is the dominant vocational training school in the capital region and is in prime position to develop an advanced construction degree. The college is already engaged in the curriculum development process for a green buildings certificate program. The PH Institute
29 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh should be an integral partner in the development of this training program (This relationship would be facilitated by the CPHI). The City of Ottawa will need to provide both capital and networking resources to bring these players together and initiate the certificate program appropriately. The training and development program should be initiated as soon as possible, and it is to remain an ongoing initiative on behalf of the city and college. There are already several such state-college partnerships in effect, such as the Job Readiness Training program. This shows that ties and frameworks exist for such a partnership with Algonquin College.
Lead Agency
The lead agency for our project is the City of Ottawa, specifically the Real Property and Asset Management Branch. It is this branch which is responsible for projects which fall under the GBP which is the policy of interest for our project. While the mandate for this branch of the City of Ottawa is quite extensive and covers many topics outside the concern of this project, the branch does place great importance on green buildings and the broader objectives that green buildings aim to address. These objectives include aligning the design and construction of municipal buildings with the commitments made in the Ottawa 20/20 Environmental Strategy, reducing operating costs to the City through efficient energy use in buildings, reducing landfill requirements by reducing waste generated by buildings, and demonstrating leadership in commitments to sustainable design. The GBP is the centerpiece policy that the Real Property and Asset Management Branch has developed to meet these objectives. Responsibility for the different components of The GBP is distributed between three groups of people/divisions. Departmental Managers are responsible for ensuring that all projects that fall under the GBPCCB include the required 5% investment funding necessary for supporting LEED certified projects, the Design and Construction Division is responsible for delivering the LEED certified projects, and the Supply Services Division (which works with the Finance Branch) is responsible for the paperwork that states the requirements that delivered projects must meet LEED standards. With regards to our project, the Real Property and Asset Management Branch of the City of Ottawa would be the agency that would be working with our new policy. Under our policy, the goals and objectives of the GBPCCB would remain the same, however LEED requirements would be replaced with PH requirements. With these adjustments, the Real Property and Asset Management Branch would be in charge of ensuring that there was adequate funding for PH projects, ensuring that buildings which fall under the policy are designed and constructed to PH standards, and dealing with the paperwork required for such projects. At the moment we are in the process of discussing our project with the Real Property and Asset Management Branch. This document will be updated once this discussion has occurred.
Stakeholders
Canada PH Institute
The Canada PH Institute (CPHI) is a non-profit organization based out of Wakefield, Quebec. They are an official partner of the PH Institute (PHI) in Darmstadt Germany and are registered to sell the PH Planning Package (PHPP) and provide training to construction
30 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh professionals. They are also currently working with the PHI to certify various projects in Canada and other locations. The mandate of the CPHI is as follows:
“Our goal is to provide Canadians with the knowledge, tools, networks and confidence to design and construct buildings which meet the world’s highest level of energy efficiency, the international PH Standard. to provide Canadians with the knowledge, tools, networks and confidence to design and construct buildings which meet the world’s highest level of energy efficiency, the international PH Standard (CPHI, 2012).”
Their major role in our project, would be to build capacity in the construction sector by providing training to professionals. Their training is based on the international PH training program (CEPH) and has been adapted for the Canadian context. Last year CPHI offered six, week long intensive courses at various locations around Canada. We need to talk to CPHI about the possibility of increasing the number of courses and providing more region specific courses in order to increase capacity in the Ottawa area. The CPHI could also act as a facilitator and partner in establishing an advanced construction degree program at Algonquin College which would be affiliated with the PHI in Darmstadt, Germany.
City of Ottawa - Real Property and Asset Management Branch
This branch is in charge of managing all City properties and 900+ buildings as well as managing the construction of new projects. A description of this branch, their mandate, and the role they will play in our project has been discussed in the ‘Lead Agency’ section of this report. This Branch would be in charge of drafting a new policy or amending the current GBP. An unofficial interview was carried out with a planner working for City of Ottawa. He defended the current LEED certification program stating that new revisions in the standard addressed the energy efficiency concerns posed by recent research.
Green Design and Consulting Firms – VERT Design (Example)
Design and consulting firms specifically specializing in green building design would have to be brought in to ensure that buildings and houses were specifically designed according to PH Standards. One example of such a firm is VERT Designs based in Ottawa. They recently received certification from the PH Institute US (PHIUS) on a residential project, the ‘Rideau Residences’. Thought there has been some dispute about the certification from the international affiliate, PHI in Darmstadt, Germany, PHIUS still upholds the certification. VERT design is an ideal company for implementing projects aiming at meeting the PH Standard: They see each project through to completion providing advice and ensuring that the building or residence is being constructed to meet certification goals. This is critical as constant advising is ideal to ensuring PH standards are met during the construction phase. Specific testing for overall certification will have to be contracted out (covered later).
Green Construction Firms – BOTAN & RND (Examples)
Construction firms specializing in green buildings will have to be contracted to build both municipal and residential projects. BOTAN and RND are examples of a construction firms in the Ottawa area that fit this criteria. BOTAN has the following mandate:
31 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
“Our purpose is to provide our clients with the latest in high performance building methods, materials and systems for a more comfortable living and working experience, meanwhile affording a better future for us all (BOTAN, 2012).“
We were able to get in touch with the President of RND construction, Roy Nandram. He answered several questions that are key to understanding the capacity of the construction sector as well as several challenges our project proposal may face. A transcription of our conversation with Roy is included in Appendix I at the end of this document.
Building Testing Companies – Homesol (Example)
Building to the PH Standard requires that certain tests be performed, such as the ‘Door Blower Test’ (used to measure ACH – Air Changes per Hour). These tests would have to be performed by firms that have the proper equipment. Homesol is a company that offers certification for a wide number of standards including the PH standard. The company is based in St. Almonte but does serve the Ottawa area. They provided the testing for the ‘Rideau Residences (Defendorf, Canada's First Residential Passivhaus Building, 2011).’
Green Building Insurance Firms – AIG & GenWorth Financial (Examples)
Insurance is a factor that we will have to consider moving forward with this project both from a consumer perspective and from the perspective of construction and design firms. On the construction side, it may be necessary for firms to purchase some form of ‘reputation’ insurance. For example, AIG offers ‘AIGRMGreen Reputation Coverage’ which helps a company pay for costs related to an adverse public reaction to the company’s failure to meet an energy efficient standard (Cheatham, 2009). For consumers, there are certain incentives that insurance companies are using to promote the purchase of green homes. For example, Genworth Financial has an ‘Energy Efficient Housing Program’ that offers a 10% reimbursement on insurance premiums among other benefits for purchasing a home that meets a recognized green building standard (GenWorth Financial, 2012).
Federal and Provincial Government
The cooperation of the provincial and federal government will be needed in order to fund and support this project. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has set up a ‘Green Municipal Fund’ program which is directly funded by the federal government (FCM, 2012). Grants are available for creating plans and performing studies for projects. Low interest loans are also available along with grants for the construction of projects. This funding, however, is not guaranteed: Municipalities have to go through an application process. Plans are reviewed by the Green Municipal Fund Council and are selected through a competitive process. The Federal Government has also just renewed its EcoEnergy Retrofit program which provides grants to homeowners implementing green retrofits to their homes (Government of Canada, 2012). This could be a resource that could be used for the residential portion of our project. We are not aware of any specific provincial programs that offer assistance for green building practices but we will continue to perform research in this area.
32 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Vocational Training Centres – Algonquin College (Example)
As mentioned in the ‘Steps and Timeline’ section, Algonquin College could play a major role in providing education to construction professionals through the development of an advanced construction degree program in affiliation with the PHI in Darmstadt, Germany. The City of Ottawa would provide the networking connections and funding to make this program possible.
Residents of Ottawa
Residents of Ottawa will be key players in the residential part of our project. As we have heard from the president of RND (See Appendix I), it takes a certain motivation from homeowners to take on the task of building hyper-efficient homes. It will be up to individual homeowners to apply for the financial program we are proposing (PAYS or similar) and initiate the process of green retrofits or building their homes to PH standards. Education programs may be supported through a program similar to Ontario’s ‘Go Green Fund’ initiative (program completed in 2011) in order to inform homeowners about the benefits of building green (Ontario Provincial Government, 2008).
Policy Changes
The policy changes for our project will occur in one of two ways – either through an amendment to the GBP, or through the creation and implementation of a new policy, similar to the GBP but requiring PH standards for newly constructed municipal buildings in Ottawa.
The ideal scenario would be to amend the GBP such that the mandate and framework of the policy remained the same, but the requirements changed from a LEED certification to the PH standard. In order for this occur, it must be shown that a PH program would not only achieve much higher energy reductions than LEED, but also that it would be financially feasible and realistic from a design and construction point of view. From the work we have done so far, this seems to be possible and will be evaluated upon further in the report.
In the case that the GBP cannot be amended, a new policy may have to be drafted and presented to the Ottawa City Council. This policy would be drafted in much the same way as the GBP, but may have different requirements for the financing of potential projects and the distribution of responsibilities. This scenario is less desirable than the former scenario, but would still be acceptable.
Feasibility
Though this report is partially addressing and researching the feasibility of implementing the PH standard in Canada, it truly is only a precursor and guide to the measures that will have to be taken in order to ensure the feasibility of the project. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, a study may have to be performed to reconcile PH standards to the Canadian context and other existing standards in order to facilitate wider dissemination. A similar process that was undertaken by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute in order to get a Canadian version of the LEED standard may be explored (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute , 2002).
33 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
FCM’s ‘Green Municipal Fund’ offers funding for studies of this kind (FCM, 2012).
Drafting a New ‘Green Building Policy’
A new version of the GBP will have to be drafted, or amended, and adopted. According to Daniel Sanger, from the drafting process to adoption and implementation could take anywhere from 8-14 months (Sanger, 2012). He suggested that consultation be performed with professionals in the design and construction sectors to determine if Ottawa has the capacity to build to the PH standard (Sanger, 2012). Staff time at the city as well as consultation cost over the duration of drafting, revision, and adoption will have to be taken into account. This should not be beyond the means of the municipal budget.
Capital Investment
A status report in 2010 of projects undertaken since the inception of the GBP showed that the city had undertaken projects with capital values of anywhere from $1.5 million to $58 million dollars (Schepers, 2010). Forecasted projects for 2012 had estimated values of up to $40 million dollars. The larger projects ($40 million and $58 million) seem to be the outliers; most projects are under the $10 million mark. However, the number and values of these projects indicates that there is a significant budget for constructing municipal buildings. Based on the size of buildings and estimates of additional construction cost to meet PH standards, we will make rough estimations of project costs. Though the total municipal budget remains vague at this point, additional funding sources have been identified to supplement this budget: FCM’s ‘Green Municipal Fund’ provides funding for this type of project, and further Federal Funding may be available as well. Capital investment costs will include: Consulting Planning and Design Costs Construction Costs (Infrastructure, building, and other) Building Testing and Other Certification Costs Any insurance or associated legal costs
Capacity Building in the Construction Sector
The reason that additional capital costs for constructing buildings to meet PH standards in Germany, Austria, and Sweden are generally estimated as low as 4-6% is because appropriate capacity and specialized products have been established due to high demand driving competition in the construction industry (European Comission, 2009). Investment will be required to get the Canadian construction sector to this point, but this will take time. Investment will have to be made be made by firms as demand for PH products increases. With the comparatively low cost of energy in Canada this capacity building in the construction sector will be necessary to make wider adoption of the PH standard feasible. Current estimate of 5-15% (Passive House E-Design, 2012) and even upwards of 25% (Nandram, 2012) additional cost in the current Canadian climate limits who can build to this standard.
34 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Training Construction Professionals
Human resources will also have to be invested in for this project to be successful. The number of consultants, designers, and construction professionals who are trained and experienced enough to meet PH standards in industry will have to be increased. Training programs will have to be expanded to meet increasing demand and firms will have to pay for their employees to be trained. Alternatively the municipality could offer some sort of subsidy to encourage training and build this capacity. In terms of expanding training programs, CPHI will have to expand the capacity and frequency of their training sessions. Additionally, as mentioned in the ‘Steps and Timeline’ section of the report, CPHI could work to facilitate a connection between the PHI in Darmstadt, Germany and Algonquin College in Ottawa to develop an advanced construction degree program.
Financial Incentives for Home Builders
In order to mitigate the additional capital costs of building green, the municipality may have to provide financial incentives to make residential projects feasible. One option that the city of Ottawa is exploring is the PAYS program mentioned in the ‘Steps and Timeline’ section of this report.
Public Education Programs
Another component that may be considered as a resource for this project is public education. Funding for an initiative to educate homeowners about the benefits of green construction/retrofitting could be met through a program similar to Ontario’s ‘Go Green Fund’ (Ontario Provincial Government, 2008).
Tracking
The province of Ontario recently adopted a new regulation under the ‘Green Energy Act’ dubbed the ‘Energy Conservation and Demand Management Plans Act’ (Ontario Regulation 397/11), which requires that prescribed public agencies “prepare, publish, make available to the public and implement energy conservation and demand management plans or joint plans” (Ontario Legislative Assembly, 2011). To date the City of Ottawa has collected its data on building-based energy consumption in partnership with utility authorities based on billing cycle with some recalibration to reflect fluctuations throughout each cycle (Isernhagen, 2012). New buildings that fall under our proposed Passive-House Green Building regulation would simply continue this program. The City of Ottawa is to remain the managing body of data collected on building-related energy consumption, and it will gather its data using existing reporting by the utility companies. The only added difference will be that new hyper-efficient construction will require BAS systems and local demand management. These systems require computerization of the HVAC and electrical systems within buildings. The City of Ottawa will need to expand its existing energy use database so that the automated systems can be searched for energy use data and tracked accordingly as well.
35 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Table 18 – Steps, Time Line, and Feasibility Step Description of Purpose Substep Year Length of Feasibility/ Initiated initiative Cost Policy Legal adoption of the Consultations 0 1 High/Low Development new PH standard for Policy Drafting 1 8-14 months Low/Med building construction Implementation 2 2 High/High Review 4 Ongoing High/Low Training Partnership with Development 1 1 High/High Program Algonquin College for an advanced training degree in green Implementation 2 Ongoing High/Med construction PAYS Financing plan to Development 2 2-3 Med/Med Program spearhead future retrofit programs on privately owned Implementation 6+ Ongoing Med/High buildings
Conclusion
Canada is lagging behind in terms of energy efficiency: LEED certification shows meager reductions in comparison to such standards as PH in Germany and Minergie in Switzerland. Despite this growing disparity, there is still resistance to reaching for higher standards in Canada. We recently held a symposium in which our projects were presented to researchers and practitioners in the field of urban planning, architecture, and energy related fields. When we gave the estimate that our project would call for an estimated 80% improvement in current standards in order to achieve our estimated 60-70% energy reduction, these professionals said that such a dramatic increase was infeasible. From their feedback, a 20% reduction was proffered as a feasible ‘next step.’ From the analysis performed in this report, however, we would argue that our proposed project is not only feasible, but necessary.
Regardless of the common call for reductions in GHG emissions and electricity consumption in order to save the planet and conserve resources, which this project provides, we have shown further precedents to consider. Increasing energy costs in the future will make these types of projects make financial sense: the more energy savings invested in now the greater the savings will be in future. Furthermore, the projected increase in productivity by implementation of more stringent energy standards will keep Canada competitive in a global economy that has the potential to quickly outpace us if we decide to retain such poor standards.
36 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Citations
Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance. (2009, March). Energy Efficiency in the Provincial Building Code. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from aeea.ca: http://www.aeea.ca/pdf/EE%20in%20the%20AB%20Building%20Code%20-%20AEEA%20- %20March%202009.pdf ASHRAE. (2005). ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook 2005. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers Athena Sustainable Materials Institute . (2002). LEED Canada Adaptation and BREEAM/Green Leaf Harmonization Studies. Merrickville, Ontario: Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Atikol, U., Assefi, H., Azizian, M. R., Gharebaghi, M. (2008) Effect of Demand-Side Management on the Feasibility of High-Performance Windows. 3rd IASME/WSEAS Int. Conf. on Energy & Environment Audenaert, A., De Cleyn, S.H., & Vankerckhove, B. (2008). Economic Analysis of Passive Houses and Low-Energy Houses Compared with Standard Houses. Energy Policy, 36, 47–55 Birt, B.; Newsham, G.R. (2009). Post-Occupancy Evaluation Of Energy and Indoor Environment Quality In Green Buildings: A Review. National Research Council Canada - Institute for Research in Construction, NRCC - 5121 Bluyssen, P.M. (2009) The Indoor Environment Handbook: How to Make Buildings Healthy and Comfortable. Sterling, VA: Earthscan BOTAN. (2012, 03 5). About Us. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from botan.ca: http://botan.ca/ Brew, J. S. (2010). Passivhaus Application in the U.S. - Lessons Learned. Boulder, Colorado, United States. Canadian PAssive House Institute. (2012 19-February). 2012 Training Coruses in Passive House Design and Construction. Retrieved February 19, 2012 from passivehouse.ca: passivehouse.ca/services.html CanPHI. (2012, March 26). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from passivehouse.ca: http://passivehouse.ca/FAQ.html Cheatham, C. (2009, 8 5). A Green Building Holy Grail: LEED Certification Insurance. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from GreenBuildingLawUpdate.ca: http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/2009/08/articles/legal-developments/insurance/a- green-building-holy-grail-leed-certification-insurance/ Chen, Q. (2011). Barriers and Impediments to a Holistic Approach to Promoting Super-Energy Efficient (SEE) Homes. Journal of Green Building , 6 (1), 93-103. City of Ottawa. (2005). Green Building Policy for the Construction of Corporate Buildings - Corporate Policy. Ottawa: City of Ottawa. City of Ottawa. (2012, March 27). About Ottawa. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from ottawa.com: http://ottawa.com/about/faq_e.shtml CPHI. (2012). About Us. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from passivhouse.ca: http://passivehouse.ca/CanPHI.html CSA Standards. (2007) CAN/CSA-A440.4-07 - Window, Door, and Skylight Installation. Defendorf, R. (2011). Canada's First Residential Passivhaus Building. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from GreenBuildingAdvisor.com: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building- news/canada-s-first-residential-passivhaus-building
37 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Dublinsky, Z. (2011). Electric Shocker: Power Prices Set to Rise Sharply. Retrieved February 19, 2012 from CBC News Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/13/f-power-2020-rising- electricity-costs.html EPA, U. (2011). Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from Clean Energy: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results European Commission. (2009). Low Energy Buildings in Europe: Current State of Play, Definitions and Best Practice. Brussels: European Commission. FCM. (2010). Municipalities - LEEDers in the Canadian Green Building Market 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012, from FCM.ca: http://www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca/news_events/_newsletters/april-2008/leed.asp FCM. (January 30, 2012). Green Municipal Fund. Retrieved 2012 January 30, 2012 from fcm.ca: www.fcn.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund.htm Ford, B., Schiano-Phan, R., & Zhogcheng, D. (2007). The Passivhaus Standard in European Warm Climates: Design Guildelines for Comfortable Low-Energy Homes. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. GenWorth Financial. (2012, 3 7). Energy Efficient Housing Program. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from genworth.ca: http://www.genworth.ca/content/genworth/ca/en/products/features/energy_efficient_housing.ht ml Georges, L. (2012). Environmental and Economic Performance of Heating Systems for Energy Efficient Dwellings: Case of Passive and Low-Energy Single Family Houses. Energy Policy (40), 452- 464. GLJ Petroleum Consultants. (2012,). Pricing Forecast. Retrieved March 26, 2012 from glja.com: http://www.glja.com/pricing-forecast Government of Canada. (2012). ecoENERGY. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from ecoaction.gc.ca: http://ecoaction.gc.ca/ecoenergy-ecoenergie/retrofithomes-renovationmaisons-eng.cfm Green Energy Act Alliance. (2012). Green Energy Act Alliance: Ontario Bill 150, Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from greenenergyact.ca: http://www.greenenergyact.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1114&SiteNodeID=202&BL_Expa ndID= Harvey, L.D.D. (2006). A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District Energy Systems: Fundamentals, Techniques, and Examples. London, UK: James and James Harvey, L.D.D. (2010a). Energy and the New Reality I: Lowering Dependence on Fossil Fuels. London, UK: Earthscan. Harvey, L.D.D. (2010b). Energy and the New Reality II: Carbon-Free Energy. London, UK: Earthscan. Harvey, L.D.D. (2010c). Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services. London: Earthscan. Hogan, M. B. (2011). A Thesis: A Design Approach to Achieving the Passive House Standard in a Home Energy Retrofit. Department of Architecture . Portland: University of Oregon . Holladay, M. (2012). greenbuildingadvisor.com. Retrieved January 20, 2012 from Is This Building Passivhaus-Certified?: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/building- passivhaus-certified IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer. (Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press
38 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Isernhagen, B. (March 7, 2012). Planner, Sustainability and Environment - City of Ottawa. (M. Nevajda, Interviewer) Issa, M., Rankin, J., & Christian, A. (2010). Canadian Practitioners' Perception of Research Work Investigating the Cost Premiums, Long-Term Costs and Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Buildings. Building and Environment , 45 (7), 1698-1711. Jackson, T. (2010). Why Canada is Lagging Behind Europe in the Widespread Application of Sustainable Building Technology. ISEMA , 41-55. Johnson, R.W., Bernabei, L.J., & Smith, J.M. (2006). Green Building Design for Schools - The Next Time Around. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, 26(2), 56-77 Lang, G. (2009). International Passivhaus Database. Wien, Hollandstrasse: Austrian Society for Environment and Technology Lausten, J. 2008. Energy Efficiency requirements in Building Codes and Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings. IEA MacDonald, C. (2012). Passive House Divided. Retrieved January 29, 2012 from Architecture Week: www.ArchitectureWeek.com/2012/0111/environment_1-1.html Mediacorp Canada Inc. . (2012). Employer Review: Ottawa, City Of. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from eluta.ca: http://www.eluta.ca/top-employer-city-of-ottawa Michler, A. (2011). Passivhaus Institute Ends Relationship with Passive House Institute US. Retrieved February 19, 2012 from Inhabitat.com: http://inhabitat.com/passivhaus-institute-ends-relationship- with-passive-house-institute-us/ Miller, D. (March 7, 2012). Environmental Sustainability Branch - City of Ottawa. (M. Nevajda, Interviewer) MOSART Architecture. (2012). Costs and Savings. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from mosar.ie: http://www.mosart.ie/passive-house/costs-and-savings.html Nandram, R. (March 9, 2012). President/Project Manager, RND Construction. (D. Schwirtz, Interviewer) National Capital Commission, 2011. Building a Greener Capital: Annual Environmental Report 2010- 2011. [cat. number: W91-4/2011E-PDF] Newsham, G.R., Mancini, S., Birt, B.J. (2009). Do LEED-certified Buildings Save Energy? Yes, but … Energy and Buildings, 41, (8), 897-905 Okeil, A. (2010) A Holistic Approach to Energy Efficient Building Forms. Energy and Buildings, 42(9), 1437–1444 Ontario Legislative Assembly. (2011). Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Bill 150: Regulation 397/11 , 4(1). Ontario Provincial Government. (2008). Ontario Calls for "Community Go Green Fund" Applications. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from news.ontario.ca: http://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2008/10/ontario- calls-for-community-go-green-fund-applications.html Papadopolous, A.M., Theodosiou, T.G., Karatzas, K.D. (2002). Feasibility of Energy Saving Measures in Urban Buildings: The Impact of Energy Prices and the Acceptable Pay Back Time Criterion. Energy and Buildings, 34(5), 455-466 Parker, D. (2008). Very Low Energy Homes in the United States: Perspectives on Performance from Measured Data. Energy & Building, 41(5), 1-28. Passa, J., & Rompf, D. (2007). Energy Efficient Sustainable Schools in Canada South. Journal of Green Building, 2(2), 14-30
39 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Passive House E-Design. (2012). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from passivedesign.ca: http://passivedesign.ca/faqs.html Passivhaus Institut. (2011). What is a Passive House? Retrieved January 29 2012 from passiv.de: http://www.passiv.de/07_eng/PHI/Flyer_quality_assurance.pdf Dr. Wolfgang Feist, W., Pfluger R., Kaufman B., Schnieders J., & Kah, O. (2007). Passive House Planning Package: Specifications for Quality Approved Passive Houses. Passivhaus Institut: Darmstatd, Germany. PHIUS. (2012, March 27). Certified PHIUS Projects. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from passivehouse.us: http://www.passivehouse.us/projects.php Pietrzyk, K. (2010). Thermal Performance of a Building Envelope – A Probabilistic Approach. Journal of Building Physics, 34(1), 77-97 Roots, P., & Hagentoft, C. (2007) Heat Loss Due to Thermal Bridges in a Foundation with Floor Heating. ASHRAE Sanger, D. (March 5, 2012). Borough Council Representative: Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, City of Montréal. (D. Schwirtz, M. Nevajda, & D. Singh, Interviewers) Schepers, N. (2010). Green Building Policy - 2010 Status Report. City of Ottawa, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability. Ottawa: City of Ottawa. Tollin, H. (2011). Green Building Risks: It's Not Easy Being Green. Environmental Claims Journal , 23 (3-4), 199-213. Wang, L., Gwilliam, J., & Jones, P. (2009). Case Study of Zero Energy House Design in UK. Energy and Buildings, 41(11), 1215-1222
40 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Appendix I – Interviews
A transcription from an email conversation with David Miller, Environmental Sustainability Branch, City of Ottawa, regarding PAYS financing for energy-efficient building retrofits:
Q: Can you comment on Ecology Ottawa's PAYS (Pay As You Save) program? It is a financing program similar to PACE?
The City of Ottawa continues “to track the progress in [PAYS] but there are several challenges we would need to look at first and it needs to fit into all the other priorities we have in terms of the existing building sector within our limited resources. Concerns to address include: § Need for legislative change to really operationalize the program. I understand the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) have now requested these changes as well but it takes time. § While it is suggested that PAYS can pay for itself, any initial pilot or set-up would require considerable initial effort that is not funded till a program would reach a critical mass – these kind of resources for new programs are not readily available at the municipal level at present. § The finance and admin effort involved in a PAYS loan would suggest that there is a fairly high minimum investment needed to make it worthwhile (would not do a PAYS loan for a $2,000 insulation upgrade such as is done under the eco- energy programs). The business case would need to assess what real demand there would be for such a program and determine if the volume would in fact sustain a revenue neutral program. Also have to assess if the type of work involved really required a PAYS program (would it happen anyway, is it covered by other programs such as the utility incentives) as we need to assess what the most efficient use of municipal resources are (should we focus on promoting/enhancing existing utility incentive programs in the short term, should we focus on low income programs, etc.) § What will be the reaction of the mortgage lenders So while the idea is attractive intuitively (having people finance energy retrofits from property taxes and essentially pay it back with energy savings), there are challenges and complexities involved. It is noted as a possible action in the Energy Plan and we continue to watch the developments, the Vancouver pilot project, etc.
A transcription from an phone conversation with Roy Nandram, President/Project Manager for RND Construction in Ottawa, regarding the construction of buildings meeting PH Standards:
Q: Have you constructed to PH standards?
A: We have built projects very close to, and perhaps in one instance even meeting, the requirements for passive house standard but we have not sought certification.
Q: In your opinion, are PH projects financially feasible?
41 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
A: The only way I see PH projects being feasible if their backed by governments with deep pockets or if they are taken by individual homeowners with the capital and motivation to build to such a high standard.
Q: From a construction standpoint do you think building to the PH standard is possible?
A: At our firm, we have the experience and training to build to the highest standards in the world. It’s not a question of construction feasibility its simply a question of cost to the client.
Q: Do any of your staff currently have training to build to the PH standard?
A: Currently 3 of our staff have training with that specific standard.
Q: How much additional capital, approximately, would be required to build to such a high standard in the current Canadian context?
A: We don’t have any projects currently that meet the PH standard, but I can give you an example of a project that is close. We have a project on Wood Avenue that meets the LEED Platinum standard. That project cost about 25% more than a project built to regular standards.
42 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Appendix II – Tables
Municipal Buildings Considered in the Energy Reduction Estimate Survey Year of Building Description Building Type Area (ft2) Construction Ledbury Park Community Building 860 2011 Norm Childs Park Community Building 2,607 2011 Huron Towers Day Care Centre 2,802 2010 McKellar Park Community Centre 2,880 2010 Albion Heatherington CC & Park Community Centre 3,730 2009 Fire Station 73 - Vars Fire Station 8,801 2007 West Carleton Community Complx Arena 32,270 2007 Fisher Heights Park/CC Community Centre 2,500 2005 Rideau View Park/Fire St. #37 Fire Station 12,551 2005 Blackburn Park Nursery School 2,227 2003 Porter Island Long Term Care Facility 139,769 2003 1851 Merivale Road Veterinary Facility 1,835 2001 Fire Station 81 - Stittsville Fire Station 12,460 2001 Parkwood Hills School Age Day Care Centre 2,264 2001 Peter D. Clark Long Term Care Long Term Care Facility 29,206 2001 Stonecrest Park Community Building 2,825 2001 Woodridge Court Day Care Day Care Centre 3,970 2001 Woodroffe School Age Day Care Day Care Centre 1,550 2001 1725 St.Laurent Admin Space ADMINBLDG- OPS 837 2000 180 Elgin Admin Space ADMINBLDG- OPS 4,151 2000 Fire Station No. 92 Osgoode Fire Station 4,298 2000 Goulbourn REC Cmplx Recreation Complex 118,400 2000 Greenboro Pavillion Community Building 3,730 2000 Library: Stittsville Public Library 12,700 2000 Manordale Park Community Building 3,253 2000 Parkwood Hills Com. Police Police Station 336 2000 Peter D. Clark Long Term Care Long Term Care Facility 107,136 2000 Police -South Ottawa Community Police Station 1,276 2000 Police Professional Developmen Police Station 36,711 2000 Police: Abbeyhill Road Police Station 8,665 2000 Police: Concourse Gate Police Station 2,376 2000 Pump House Park Community Centre 3,007 2000 Quatre Saisons Day Care Day Care Centre 1,658 2000 Rideauview Community Centre Community Centre 6,500 2000 Somerset St Community Police Police Station 2,421 2000 Blackburn Park Community Centre 2,738 1999 2020 Walkley Road ADMINBLDG- OPS 38,390 1998 Fire Station 64 - Carp Fire Station 4,888 1998 Fire Station 72 - Cumberland Fire Station 6,600 1998 Fire Station 93 - Greely Fire Station 5,670 1998 Fisher Park/Elmdale TennisClub Clubhouse Facility 1,560 1998 Tanglewood Park Community Centre 3,658 1998 100 Constellation, Nepean ADMINBLDG- HQC 387,627 1997 100 Constellation, Nepean ADMINBLDG- HQC 421,534 1997 Library: Blackburn Hamlet Public Library 7,333 1997 Ogilvie Complex/Trillium Park Public Library 14,300 1997
43 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Leitrim Complex Fire Station 15,000 1996 Barrington Park Public Library 17,182 1995 Fire Station 82 - Richmond Fire Station 7,082 1995 Walter Baker Park/Kanata Rec C Performing Arts Facility 15,038 1995 Charles Sim Workshop Cmplx Police Station 30,800 1994 Fire Station 94 - Manotick Fire Station 8,106 1993 Rockcliffe Park Library/Comm. Community Centre 5,324 1993 W Carleton Library/Huntly Comm Public Library 5,773 1993 West Carleton Community Complx ADMINBLDG- DSC 20,587 1993 West Carleton Community Complx ADMINBLDG- DSC 22,312 1993 Deevy Pines Park Community Centre 17,057 1992 Jetform Park Stadium 133,000 1992 NCC - Valleystream Park Clubhouse Facility 617 1992 Ray Friel Recreation Complex Recreation Complex 191,672 1992 Robert Pickard Environmental C ADMINBLDG- OPS 50,037 1992 Robert Pickard Environmental C ADMINBLDG- OPS 52,939 1992 Fire Station 35 - Alta Vista Fire Station 12,000 1991 Fire Station 53 - Fallingbrook Fire Station 18,794 1991 Fire Stn 54 - Blackburn Hamlet Fire Station 13,369 1991 Greenboro Park & CC Community Centre 55,909 1991 Jim Durrell Recreation Cmplx Arena 72,156 1991 Pierre Rocque Park Community Centre 2,119 1991 600 Terry Fox Drive ADMINBLDG- OPS 1,479 1990 Fire Station 43-Bell's Corners Fire Station 8,334 1990 Kanata Client Services Office ADMINBLDG- DSC 8,718 1990 Nepean Sportsplex -NCC Clubhouse Facility 1,118 1990 Osgoode CCentre/Arena/Library Public Library 3,229 1990 Ottawa City Hall Complex ADMINBLDG- HQC 240,748 1990 Ottawa City Hall Complex ADMINBLDG- HQC 291,346 1990 Carleton Lodge Long Term Care Facility 90,718 1989 Clyde Avenue Works Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 31,872 1989 Clyde Avenue Works Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 39,116 1989 Dick Bell Park Marina 7,175 1989 Fire Station 91 - Metcalfe Fire Station 8,259 1989 Library: Carlingwood Branch Public Library 19,690 1989 Library: Elmvale Acres Public Library 7,493 1989 Manordale Park Fire Station 6,130 1989 Villa Marconi Long Term Care C Day Care Centre 8,262 1989 Walter Baker Park/Kanata Rec C Arena 106,878 1989 Westcliffe Park Community Building 3,335 1989 Andy Sheilds Park/Greely CC Community Centre 10,352 1988 Hintonburg Park Community Centre 25,800 1988 Leisure & Wave Pool Cntr Indoor Pool 34,195 1988 Viewmount Park & Fire Station Fire Station 9,706 1988 Ben Franklin Place ADMINBLDG- HQC 153,814 1987 Ben Franklin Place ADMINBLDG- HQC 187,743 1987 Dovercourt Recreation Complex Recreation Complex 25,364 1987 Fire Station 22 - Lincoln Heig Fire Station 13,858 1987 Fire Station 31 - Greenboro Fire Station 19,447 1987 Fire Station 51 - Carson Grove Fire Station 16,666 1987 Ogilvie Complex/Trillium Park Indoor Pool 26,359 1987 Ottawa Rowing Club Complex Marina 5,280 1987
44 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Fallingbrook CC Community Centre 2,234 1986 Fire Station 21 - Centrepointe Fire Station 14,017 1986 Fire Station 34 - Hog's Back Fire Station 14,571 1986 Fire Station 57 - Beechwood Fire Station 14,056 1986 Fire Station 66 - Dunrobin Fire Station 2,118 1986 Fire Stn 84/Corkery CC Community Building 1,288 1986 Fire Stn 84/Corkery CC Fire Station 2,896 1986 Galetta Community Hall Community Centre 2,430 1986 Library: Richmond Public Library 2,804 1986 Moloughney Park Community Building 2,741 1986 South Fallingbrook Park And CC Community Centre 6,314 1986 Andrew Haydon Park Performing Arts Facility 800 1985 Beaverbrook Community Centre Community Centre 4,275 1985 Fire Station 56 - Overbrook Fire Station 13,084 1985 Library: Emerald Plaza Public Library 5,638 1985 Library: Metcalfe Public Library 1,468 1985 Robert Pickard Environmental C ADMINBLDG- OPS 21,246 1985 Robert Pickard Environmental C ADMINBLDG- OPS 23,180 1985 Dunrobin Community Hall Community Building 1,635 1984 Fire Station 11 - Preston Fire Station 12,383 1984 Fire Station 13 - Sandy Hill Fire Station 15,806 1984 Fire Station 63 Constance Bay Fire Station 4,579 1984 Fire Stn # 23 & Admin Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 5,503 1984 Fire Stn # 23 & Admin Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 6,325 1984 Fire Stn # 23 & Admin Cmplx Athletic Facility 9,500 1984 Fire Stn # 23 & Admin Cmplx Fire Station 21,030 1984 Vernon Recreation Centre Community Centre 6,590 1984 Bridlewood Community Centre Community Centre 6,000 1983 Cyrville CC Community Centre 9,421 1983 Deborah Anne Kirwan Pool Indoor Pool 10,726 1983 Erskine Johnson Arena & CC Arena 33,813 1983 Fire Station 61 - Kinburn Fire Station 4,191 1983 McCarthy Park Community Centre 14,630 1983 2670 Queensview Drive, Ottawa Commercial Building 50,782 1982 Beaverbrook Park Clubhouse Facility 733 1982 Bellevue Community Centre Community Centre 4,260 1982 Bellevue Park Cmplx. Community Centre 8,391 1982 Fire Station 33 - Hunt Club Fire Station 13,609 1982 Foster Farm CC & Day Care Day Care Centre 10,491 1982 Library: Manotick Public Library 4,629 1982 Navan Memorial Centre Arena 35,078 1982 Nepean Creative Arts Centre Cultural Facility 9,624 1982 Cavanagh CC Community Building 807 1981 Corkstown Park Clubhouse Facility 422 1981 Fire Station 41 - Eagleson Fire Station 7,645 1981 Library: Hazeldean Public Library 9,713 1981 St. Laurent /Don Gamble Comple Recreation Complex 79,115 1981 161 Elgin Street Police Station 12,000 1980 Alfred Taylor REC Ctr. Community Centre 10,835 1980 Bob MacQuarrie Rec C - Orléans Recreation Complex 140,935 1980 Craig Henry Park Community Building 1,859 1980 Elmridge Park Clubhouse Facility 500 1980
45 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Fringewood Park Community Building 1,235 1980 Lions Park Ottawa Athletic Facility 30,000 1980 Metcalfe CC. & Arena Arena 27,179 1980 NCC - Rideau Canoe Club Marina 5,659 1980 Osgoode CCentre/Arena/Library Arena 29,950 1980 Police: Headquarters (Elgin) Police Station 294,000 1980 Walter Baker Sports Centre Recreation Complex 227,477 1980 Carlington Park(Dulude Arena) Arena 32,418 1979 Fire Station 44 - Barrhaven Fire Station 20,724 1979 Tom Thompson Park Fire Station 7,208 1979 Grandeur Park Arena 16,533 1978 Harry Craig Cntr.(Carsonby) Community Building 1,162 1978 Kinburn CC Community Centre 13,026 1978 Merivale Dental Clinic Dental Clinic 4,014 1978 NCC - Pineview Golf Course Golf Course Facility 20,174 1978 North Vineyard Park & Fire Stn Fire Station 7,724 1978 Police: West District (Greenba Police Station 53,525 1978 Steve Maclean Park Clubhouse Facility 395 1978 Campbell Bicentennial Park Community Centre 12,533 1977 Kars Community Centre Community Centre 2,455 1977 Library: Munster Hamlet Public Library 1,000 1977 Tom Brown Arena Arena 37,408 1977 Behlen Bldg./Greely Library Public Library 946 1976 Dogwood Park Community Building 1,893 1976 Fire Station 36 - Elmvale Acre Fire Station 24,189 1976 Library: Alta Vista Public Library 15,198 1976 Wilfred Murray Park Arena 37,150 1976 Blackburn Park Arena 25,100 1975 Centennial Park Arena 27,799 1975 J.B. Potvin Arena & Park Cmplx Arena 25,690 1975 Jardiniere Tournesol Day Care Day Care Centre 3,648 1975 Leonard Works Depot Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 6,258 1975 Leonard Works Depot Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 3,276 1975 North Gower Bowling Alleys Bowling Alley 3,695 1975 Osgoode Youth Centre Youth Centre 4,298 1975 Queenswood Heights Centennial Community Centre 10,028 1975 Routhier School Community Cent Community Centre 33,684 1975 Sawmill Creek Park Indoor Pool 14,399 1975 Signals And Communications Off ADMINBLDG- OPS 43,600 1975 Signals And Communications Off ADMINBLDG- OPS 48,319 1975 Bearbrook Park and Pool Clubhouse Facility 649 1974 Carlington Park(Dulude Arena) Day Care Centre 5,111 1974 Fire Station 62 - Fitzroy Harb Fire Station 1,721 1974 Goulb Twp Office/Huntley Works ADMINBLDG- DSC 10,948 1974 Goulb Twp Office/Huntley Works ADMINBLDG- DSC 12,390 1974 Jack Charron Arena & Ball Diam Arena 33,091 1974 Jack Purcell Park Recreation Complex 24,639 1974 Lansdowne Park/Fire Station 12 Fire Station 11,673 1974 Larkin Park Community Building 3,066 1974 Lowertown Cmplx Recreation Complex 54,415 1974 Sandy Hill Arena Arena 33,061 1974 Trend-Arlington Park Community Building 3,160 1974
46 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Alda Burt Park Community Centre 14,151 1973 Borden Farm Day Care Cntr. Day Care Centre 4,853 1973 Champlain Park Community Building 3,312 1973 Glebe CC Clubhouse Facility 1,240 1973 Michele Park Community Centre 6,292 1973 Ottawa Public Library - Main B Public Library 90,418 1973 Richmond Arena And CC Arena 31,778 1973 Roy G. Hobbs CC Community Centre 5,456 1973 Beaverbrook Park Recreation Complex 60,815 1972 Canterbury Cmplx Indoor Pool 24,222 1972 Carling Family Shelter Shelter 31,881 1972 Dr. E.Couture Day Care Centre Day Care Centre 3,593 1972 Elsie Stapleford D Care Centre Day Care Centre 5,572 1972 Leitrim Complex Community Centre 7,227 1972 Leitrim Prk Cmplx/Police Stn Police Station 23,345 1972 North Gower Library, Museum Public Library 2,364 1972 Police East Headquarters Police Station 33,000 1972 Charmin Craven Daycare Centre Day Care Centre 4,387 1971 Lynwood Park Community Building 1,861 1971 NCC - Mooney's Bay Recreation Complex 4,783 1971 Nepean Sportsplex -NCC Recreation Complex 345,491 1971 Ogilvie Complex/Trillium Park Arena 48,409 1971 Beacon Hill CC Community Centre 2,913 1970 Beacon Hill Learning Centre Nursery School 3,208 1970 Beaconhill North Shopping Mall ADMINBLDG- OPS 34,857 1970 Maki Park Community Building 4,085 1970 March Central CC/Fire Station Fire Station 3,727 1970 Torbolton Forest/C. Bay CC Community Centre 10,383 1970 Torbolton Municipal Campus Community Building 1,280 1970 Bayview Cmplx. ADMINBLDG- OPS 9,532 1969 Bayview Cmplx. ADMINBLDG- OPS 10,388 1969 Centre D'Accueil Champlain Long Term Care Facility 125,000 1969 Fire Station 71/EMS - Navan Fire Station 6,211 1969 Glen Cairn CC Clubhouse Facility 600 1969 Glen Cairn CC Community Centre 27,115 1969 Alexander Grove Park Arena 26,148 1968 Bayshore Park Community Building 1,452 1968 Bayshore Police Centre Police Station 3,300 1968 Bayshore Public School Age Day Day Care Centre 2,842 1968 Britannia Park Cmplx Clubhouse Facility 6,187 1968 Britannia Park Cmplx Meeting/Convention Centre 15,356 1968 Huntley Community Hall Community Building 2,636 1968 W Carleton Library/Huntly Comm Community Centre 4,009 1968 Brewer Park Cmplx Indoor Pool 38,467 1967 Coo House Health Program Health Care Facility 12,000 1967 General Burns Park Community Building 1,640 1967 Inverness Park Community Building 1,840 1967 Lansdowne Park Cmplx Meeting/Convention Centre 255,400 1967 Lansdowne Park Cmplx Meeting/Convention Centre 43,902 1967 Lansdowne Park Cmplx Meeting/Convention Centre 40,946 1967 Lansdowne Park Cmplx Meeting/Convention Centre 19,367 1967 Leitrim Prk Cmplx/Police Stn Arena 65,523 1967
47 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Library: Centennial Public Library 9,744 1967 McNabb Recreation Cmplx Clubhouse Facility 1,584 1967 McNabb Recreation Cmplx Community Centre 29,211 1967 Roger Stevens Ctr Fire Stn 83 Community Building 1,462 1967 Yves Chenier Park Community Building 2,509 1967 370 Catherine St ADMINBLDG- OPS 14,635 1966 370 Catherine St ADMINBLDG- OPS 59,653 1966 Alexander Park & CC Community Centre 8,914 1966 Canterbury Cmplx Arena 33,164 1966 Canterbury Cmplx Community Centre 12,450 1966 Crestview Park Clubhouse Facility 854 1966 McNabb Recreation Cmplx Arena 26,400 1966 Merivale Park and Arena Arena 26,909 1966 OC Transpo St. Laurent Garage ADMINBLDG- OPS 18,659 1966 OC Transpo St. Laurent Garage ADMINBLDG- OPS 20,266 1966 OCRP Youth Centre Youth Centre 11,000 1966 Overbrook Park Community Centre 12,503 1966 Pinecrest Recreation Complex Recreation Complex 51,200 1966 Bell Arena And Ball Park Cmplx Arena 26,780 1965 Bernard-Grandmaitre Arena Arena 27,800 1965 Brewer Park Cmplx ADMINBLDG- OPS 11,650 1965 Carleton Heights Park Community Centre 7,852 1965 Heron Road Multi-Service Cntr. Community Centre 43,000 1965 Manor Park Community Centre 3,037 1965 Sandy Hill Park & Community Ce Community Centre 13,968 1965 Brewer Park Cmplx Arena 24,149 1964 March Central CC/Fire Station Community Centre 5,213 1964 March House Restaurant Commercial Building 2,961 1964 Reid Park Clubhouse Facility 3,700 1964 Notre Dame Des Champs CC Community Building 10,195 1963 Champagne Bath Indoor Pool 7,602 1961 760-768 Belfast Road ADMINBLDG- OPS 11,500 1960 Pretty St. Community Centre Community Centre 1,994 1960 OC Transpo St. Laurent Garage ADMINBLDG- OPS 64,691 1959 OC Transpo St. Laurent Garage ADMINBLDG- OPS 72,712 1959 Lindenlea Park Community Centre 2,648 1956 Leslie Armstrong Park Community Centre 4,610 1955 Forward Ave Family Shelter Shelter 15,787 1951 Laroche Park Community Centre 2,121 1951 Library: Sunnyside Public Library 12,014 1951 Richelieu Park Public Library 7,000 1950 Roger Stevens Ctr Fire Stn 83 Fire Station 7,822 1947 St . Lukes Park Community Centre 2,112 1947 Richelieu Park Community Centre 28,900 1937 Library: Rideau Branch Public Library 7,277 1934 Kenmore Community Hall/Centre Community Building 2,464 1930 Wellington Street Seniors Cent Community Centre 6,000 1928 Lansdowne Park Cmplx Stadium 25,900 1926 Ottawa School Of Art Cultural Facility 21,600 1924 Carp Memorial Hall Community Building 2,629 1921 Library: Rosemount Public Library 6,089 1918 Glebe CC Community Centre 26,898 1914
48 Making the Shift: Passive-House Standards in Canada Milan Nevajda · Daniel Schwirtz · David Singh
Osgoode Municipal Office - Met ADMINBLDG- DSC 9,904 1910 Osgoode Municipal Office - Met ADMINBLDG- DSC 11,287 1910 O'Connor Shelter Shelter 10,472 1907 Dalhousie CC Community Centre 22,530 1906 McKenna Park Community Building 2,293 1906 Ottawa South CC Community Centre 4,390 1905 700 March Road ADMINBLDG- OPS 1,530 1901 ByWard Market Cmplx Commercial Building 18,000 1901 Churchill Seniors Rec. Center Community Centre 11,345 1901 Former Ottawa City Hall ADMINBLDG- OPS 7,279 1901 Jill Brown Park Community Centre 3,335 1901 Marlborough CC Community Building 2,282 1901 Montgomery Memorial Park Community Centre 2,790 1901 Morrow House CC Commercial Building 2,764 1901 Old March Town Hall Community Building 1,881 1901 Arts Court Performing Arts Facility 87,503 1900 Cumberland Heritage Village An Community Building 1,021 1900 Goldridge Park Community Building 1,488 1900 Millers Oven Tea Room Commercial Building 2,862 1900 Ottawa Rowing Club Complex Marina 4,400 1900 Vernon Park and Library Public Library 1,366 1900 NCC - Top Generation Club Community Building 1,266 1894 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS 328
Energy and GHG Conversion Factors ft2/m2 10.76391 GJ/kWh 0.0036 GJ/MMBtu 1.05506 kg/US Short Ton 907.18474 Natural Gas L/GJ * 38.2599 L/m3 1000 Propane GJ/m3 ** 25.53 Heating Oil GJ/m3 ** 28.62 * Source: British Columbia Ministry of Finance. 2010. Conversion Factors for Fuel. Retrieved from http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/shared_documents/Conversion_Factors.pdf **Source: National Energy Board of Canada. 2012. Energy Conversion Tables. Retrieved from http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntbl-eng.html
49