Moving the building industry through an energy code

1
Moving the building industry through an energy
code

• Francois Dubrous
• Natural Resources Canada
• 5 March 2007

2
Outline

• The goodwill
• The disaster
• The surprise
• The new light
• The path forward

3

• The goodwill
• The disaster
• The surprise
• The new light
• The path forward

4
Early 90s

• No regulatory energy measures at provincial level
  except QC and a few others
• Utilities programs, Power Smart, in place
• Code seen as a mechanism that offers the biggest
  bang for the buck
• Provides a consensus-based platform that is easy
  to reference provincially

5
Energy Code 1997

• Published in 1997 after 5 years of work
• Used ASHRAE 90.1 1989
• Energy budget, emphasis on core building
  components
• Generation of reference case
• A Model Code
• Needed to be adopted by provincial/territorial
  jurisdictions to be enforced

6
C-2000 program

• Program for high performance commercial buildings
• Demonstration initiative
• 1993 - 2004
• 14 buildings
• Energy 50, water 40
• Integrated design, sustainability targets set by
  the design team

7
Winnipeg retail store
8
Federal stays the course

• Programs to assist adoption of energy code by
  industry
• Commercial Buildings Incentive Program (CBIP) gt
  25 better than code
• Three times yearly energy cost savings.

9

• The goodwill
• The disaster
• The surprise
• The new light
• The path forward

10
Political landscape shifts

• Code adoption by code ministries, not energy ones
• Respond to political orders as energy beyond
  health safety
• Industry added its voice to those of code
  officials lobbied against new code
• Political winds changed in leading provinces.

11
Marginal impacts

• C-2000 draws national attention and launches
  international SB conferences
• But fails to develop from a research into a well
  funded marketed federal program.
• CBIP struggles after its birth
• Little industry expertise to draw from, no
  established compliance tools, no strong appeal to
  the bulk of the marketplace.

12

• The goodwill
• The disaster
• The surprise
• The new light
• The path forward

13
Energy co-benefits

• Sustainability hugely successful marketing of
  the LEED campaign
• Financial huge profits from export of hydro
  electricity, control of domestic demand growth
• Supply electrical grid at near capacity,
  challenging supply side management
• Health urban smog

14
Industry expertise

• Incentive dollars attract industry attention and
  help energy specialists strengthen their
  positioning.

37
35
33
31
29
98-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
15
Whole market movement

• LEED-US gt LEED-Canada
• Canada is a small gene pool
• CBIP industry capacity serves all
• adopts CBIP as alternate compliance to mandatory
  requirements
• Public organizations jump on the band wagon
• Budget tightening of public ministries (op vs.
  cap).

16
Peak Energy Demand

• New dams, energy conservation Quebec frees up
  capacity for export of additional 1.25 MW to
  Ontario.

Source ON Ministry of Natural Resources, April
2006
17
Energy generation emissions
Source ON Ministry of Natural Resources, April
2006
18
Benchmarks for policy

• US states moving forward despite the federal
  position
• Canada 36 above code is good practice with
  minimum brainpower
• About 25 above ASHRAE 90.1-99

2001
1999
lt 1999
new
19

• The goodwill
• The disaster
• The surprise
• The new light
• The path forward

20
Market interests

• Political appetite for energy code
• Provincial leadership
• National alliance for implementation
• Real estate investment community
• Adopting green

21
A coordinated code vision

• Regional envelope requirements based on LCC
  approach
• Live calculation from material energy costs
  database
• On-line submission, verification reporting, and
  archiving
• Out-sourcing of compliance checking while
  retaining control of the process
• Shared usage by several programs.

22
Moving the industry
Canadian Code 97
ASHRAE 90.1 1989
ASHRAE 90.1 1999
CBIP
Energy Consumption
Approximate level of current good practice
C-2000
Increasing level of effort
23
Generation vs. peak demand
Source ON Ministry of Natural Resources, April
2004
24
Thank You