Final Report for Priority Green Clarington – Water and Energy Demonstration Project (February 16, 2016) Disclaimer: The Priority Green Clarington – Water and Energy Demonstration Project report is intended provide general information and to encourage discussion. The information and results presented in this report are based on the data collected from the six “better than code” demonstration homes (relative to the 2012 Ontario Building Code) over a one year monitoring period. Water and energy savings, greenhouse gas reductions, and the financial evaluation are estimates based on the data collected and are relative to the minimum requirements of the 2012 Ontario Building Code. Different factors, including construction methods, equipment installed, and household demographics and behaviour, may yield different results.
64
Embed
Final Report for Priority Green Clarington Water and ......Mar 14, 2016 · Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project February 16, 2016 c o l o
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Final Report for Priority Green Clarington – Water and Energy Demonstration Project (February 16, 2016)
Disclaimer:
The Priority Green Clarington – Water and Energy Demonstration Project report is intended provide general information and to encourage discussion. The information and results presented in this report are based on the data collected from the six “better than code” demonstration homes (relative to the 2012 Ontario Building Code) over a one year monitoring period. Water and energy savings, greenhouse gas reductions, and the financial evaluation are estimates based on the data collected and are relative to the minimum requirements of the 2012 Ontario Building Code. Different factors, including construction methods, equipment installed, and household demographics and behaviour, may yield different results.
Sustainable E D G E
124 MERTON STREET, SUITE 507 TORONTO ONTARIO M4S 2Z2 (416) 477-2625 [email protected] WWW.S-EDGE.COM
c o l o g i c a l
e s i g n r e e n
n e r g y
Final Report
For
Priority Green Clarington -
Water and Energy
Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
Accessibility Statement:
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact:
Amy Burke, Priority Green Clarington Coordinator
Planning Services Department
905-623-3379.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
Acknowledgements
Priority Green Clarington has received funding support from the Government of Ontario
through the Showcasing Water Innovation Program, Ontario’s Independent Electricity
System Operator (IESO), and from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the
Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Such support does not indicate endorsement by the Government of Ontario, IESO, the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or the Government of Canada of the contents of
this material.
The Municipality of Clarington is grateful for this funding support, as well as the support
and input that has been received from many throughout this project, including the six
participating families.
Demonstration Project Partners:
Region of Durham
Brookfield Residential
Halminen Homes
Jeffery Homes
Staff Working Group Members:
Municipality of Clarington
Leslie Benson, Manager, Development Engineering & Traffic, Engineering Services
Amy Burke, Priority Green Clarington Coordinator, Planning Services
David Crome, Director, Planning Services
Carlo Pellarin, Manager, Development Review, Planning Services
Rick Pigeon, Chief Building Official, Engineering Services
Carlos Salazar, Manager, Community Planning & Design, Planning Services
Cindy Strike, Principal Planner, Planning Services
Region of Durham
Mike Hubble, Development Approvals, Works Department
Glen Pleasance, Water Efficiency, Works Department
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
Technical Advisory Committee Members:
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Building Industry & Land Development Association (Durham Chapter)
Durham Region Home Builders Association
Veridian Connections
Enbridge
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Durham College
Seneca College
The Municipality of Clarington and our partner builders wish to acknowledge the
valuable support by the following trades, product suppliers/manufacturers, and industry
organizations:
Brimar Contracting Ltd.
Gerald D. Brown Plumbing and Gasfitting Service
JAK Electrical
J&S Electric
New Way Plumbing & Heating
Nova Plumbing
BP Canada
Canplas / Recover® Greywater Systems
Ecobee
Maple Contracting
Martino Contractors Ltd.
Panasonic
Power Pipe Drain Water Heat Recovery Systems
Silver Carpentry
Velcan Forest Products
Water Matrix
Sustainable Housing Foundation
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
Table 2 - Summary of Financial Analysis .............................................................................................. 3
Table 3 - Summary of Energy and GHG Reductions by Category ........................................................ 4
Table 4 – GDP Home Overview ............................................................................................................ 8
Table 5 – Sub-meters by GDP Homes .................................................................................................. 9
Table 6 – Monitored Electrical Consumption by End-Use ................................................................... 13
Table 7 – Monitored Water Consumption by End-Use (L) .................................................................. 14 Table 8 - Annual Natural Gas Consumption by Home ........................................................................ 14
Table 9 – Annual Modelled Energy Consumption ............................................................................... 16
Table 10 – Annual Modelled Water Consumption ............................................................................... 16
Table 11 – Energy Use Intensity .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 12 - Water Use Intensity ............................................................................................................ 19
Table 13 – Greywater Recycling System Efficiency ............................................................................ 20
Table 14 - Effects of Purge Frequency on Greywater System Efficiency ........................................... 21 Table 15 – Historical Annual Electricity Rate Escalation ..................................................................... 24
Table 25 - GDP Household GHG Emissions by Fuel Type ................................................................. 42
Table 26 - Municipal GHG Emissions Via Water Infrastructure .......................................................... 44
Table 27 – GHG Reductions from House Energy and Water Reductions .......................................... 45 Table 28 - 15 Year Extrapolation of Savings ....................................................................................... 49
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Glossary of Terms
Appendix B – Data Source Matrix
Appendix C – Meter Specification Sheets
Appendix D – Analysis Methodology for Energy and Water Consumption Modelling
Appendix E – Green Practices Matrix
Appendix F – OBC 2012 Supplementary Standard SB-12 – GDP Compliance Package
Excerpt
Appendix G – HOT2000 Modelling Results
Appendix H – Greywater Recycling system Water Quality Testing
Appendix I – *This Appendix Intentionally Left Blank*
Appendix J – Financial Analysis of Energy and Water Conservation Features
Appendix K – Green Practices Validation and HERS Energy Rating
Appendix L – Water Consumption Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Appendix M – Sub-metered Monthly Data Bins – Energy, Raw Data
Appendix N – Sub-metered Monthly Data Bins – Water, Raw Data
Appendix O – Energy and Water Modelling – Annual Consumption Comparison
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
1 | P a g e
1.0 Executive Summary
The Municipality of Clarington partnered with the Region of Durham and three local
builders for the Priority Green Clarington Green Demonstration Project. Six
demonstration homes, incorporating practices that aim to reduce their environmental
impact for water and energy beyond that of a home built to meet Ontario’s 2012 Building
Code, were constructed. Each of the demonstration homes were sold to interested
home buyers and monitored for a twelve month period.
This report represents an assessment of the Green Demonstration Project savings of
water and energy, utility costs and greenhouse gas emissions at the home and
municipal scales. Further it reports the cost-effectiveness of the measures that were
implemented and provides a high level demonstration of potential implications of
reduced water consumption on infrastructure development. Notably, the responsibility
for the provision of water and sewer services in Clarington falls to the Region.
A glossary of terms, acronyms, and water and energy efficiency measures discussed in
this report can be found in Appendix A.
A twelve month performance monitoring program under actual operating conditions was
completed. Performance monitoring included tracking of total water, electricity, and
natural gas usage, and water and electricity sub-metering of specific appliances and
water fixtures within the demonstration homes. Prior to the start of the monitoring period
the homes were tested for airtightness and a home energy rating performed using the
Home Energy Rating System Index.
The table below summarizes projected annual energy, water, and cost savings as
determined by modelling the project homes and comparing them to equivalent homes
designed to the minimum Ontario Building Code (2012) standards. Unless otherwise
noted, water use and savings referenced throughout this report refers to indoor
consumption.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
Annual GHG Emissions Avoided from Energy & Water Savings
kg CO2e
775 558 1,051 1,095 706 1,542 955
The total annual cost savings on average were $386, ranging from $182 to $745 per
year. The actual performance of each GDP home was compared to an equivalent
model of the home designed based on the minimum requirements in the 2012 Ontario
Building Code. A range of comparative measures were examined, including energy use
and energy use intensity, water use and water use intensity, and greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. The GDP homes were found to be on average 11% more energy
efficient and 14% more water efficient than the equivalent code-compliant house.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
3 | P a g e
Further, in all cases the GDP homes demonstrated more favourable energy use and
water use intensity, and had a smaller greenhouse gas footprint than the equivalent
code-compliant house.
Three of the GDP homes were outfitted with a greywater recycling system that treated
and recycled shower water for toilet flushing. On average, the greywater recycling
systems saved 17,423 L of municipal drinking water annually – the range was from
13,510 L to 22,170 L and amounts to average annual savings of $64. The average
efficiency of the greywater recycling systems was 59%, but ranged from 42% to 77%. In
other terms, this reduction of water use amounts to, on average, 13 L per person per
day1 – a significant figure. The presence of a greywater recycling system within a home
had such significant impact on the home’s water savings that parts of the water analysis
in this report will be split into two categories – homes with greywater recycling systems
installed and homes without. The financial analysis found all water conservation
measures, except for greywater recycling, to be financially viable with positive net
present values.
A financial analysis, using both simple payback and net present value, was performed
on the green practices implemented in the green demonstration project, the results are
summarized here:
Table 2 - Summary of Financial Analysis
Green Practice Simple Payback Net Present Value
Years $ (2015)
Envelope and HVAC Energy Conservation Measured (Bundled)
13.5 $ 3,065.00
Domestic Hot Water Heater 6.3 $ 1,130.00
En-suite Shower Faucet 2.1 $ 740.00
Kitchen Faucet 4.2 $ 1,170.00
Greywater Recycling System 60 $ (1,740.00)
Ultra-Low Flow Toilets 2.1 $ 980.00
Whole Home 22.8 $ 2,270.00
A comparison of the HERS ratings with EnerGuide ratings was performed to showcase
two energy rating systems which are approved by the OBC; the HERS ratings were
further augmented in order to facilitate a comparison with more closely matching usage
assumptions. Under both the pre-occupancy and post-occupancy scenarios that were
1 Daily water savings of 13L per person equates to 10% of a person’s daily indoor residential water use
based on GDP consumption data collected.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
4 | P a g e
examined and irrespective of the rating system used, the difference in scoring reflects
the increased efficiency gained by the GDP homes through the implementations of
green practices that exceed the minimum OBC requirements. The scenarios serve to
demonstrate how energy modelling is better served by incorporating real world data as
available.
The impact of determined water savings in the GDP was quantified for Clarington’s
future forecasted development on centralized water supply and wastewater treatment
infrastructure, and provides a high level demonstration. In a scenario where no
greywater recycling systems are installed in the forecasted1,000 homes (on average)
constructed annually in the future, but all other water saving features are implemented,
the Region will avoid the pumping of 16.6 mega-liters of water and realize savings of
$35,300 annually2. In a scenario where these homes are outfitted with a greywater
recycling system alongside the other water saving features, the Region would
potentially avoid pumping 34 ML of water and realize savings of $72,3002 annually. The
savings figures in this forecast are first year savings only; the savings from homes built
in sequential years would compound on top of the annual savings realized due to the
previously constructed homes.
Further, analysing the energy and water related energy savings of a better than OBC
home yields energy savings and GHG emissions reductions over 15 years as shown
below; this summary is based energy and water related OBC improvements every 10
years as per forecast scenario B from Section 11 – Municipal Level Water Consumption
Reduction/Avoidance.
Table 3 - Summary of Energy and GHG Reductions by Category
Source Energy Savings GHG Reduction
MWh Tonnes CO2e
Energy 657,460 173,055
Water 1,274 463
Total 658,734 173,518
While the findings of the GDP are largely positive, and effectively demonstrate the proof
of concept with relation to water and energy saving features and design characteristics,
it is important to note that the six GDP homes do not represent a statistically significant
sample size.
2 Average savings figures in this section reflect first year realized savings based on 2015 utility costs and are expressed in 2015 CDN dollars with no expression of rate escalation.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
5 | P a g e
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Priority Green Clarington
Priority Green Clarington is an initiative of the Municipality of Clarington (Municipality). It
was established in 2012 as a response to forecasted population growth over the next
twenty years. Between 1991 and 2011, Clarington’s population grew by 70%, from
approximately 51,400 to 87,700 residents; by 2031, Clarington’s population is
forecasted to grow by another 60%. Focused on the principle of local planning for global
stewardship, Priority Green Clarington is intended to contribute to enhancing the
integration of sustainability into the residential land development process.
The vision of Priority Green Clarington is to set a new standard for residential
development that prioritizes sustainability, promotes innovation and continues to
improve the community’s quality of life. To achieve this vision, the Municipality, in
collaboration with the Region of Durham (Region), the private sector and the community
set out to:
Identify goals, targets and guidelines for green homes and neighbourhoods within
both new neighbourhoods and existing areas in Clarington;
Review current land development application and permit processes, policies, and
guidelines to identify new opportunities for supporting green homes and
neighbourhoods;
Collaborate with government and agencies involved in the development review
process, green design and building specialists, and the land development and
building community to define specific criteria for what qualifies as a “green
development application”;
Consider a variety of potential incentive mechanisms to encourage the voluntary
adoption of these criteria;
Contribute to the growing collection of knowledge about the opportunities and
challenges associated with green home practices through the execution of the
Green Demonstration Project (GDP).
The resulting green development framework is intended to send the message that
green development is a priority for building liveable neighbourhoods in Clarington. The
“Priority Green Clarington Green Development Framework and Implementation Plan”
(Municipality of Clarington, December 2015) was approved by Council on December 14,
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
6 | P a g e
2015.3 Evaluation and learning through demonstration forms an important element of
the green development framework. This report presents the detailed results of the GDP
component of Priority Green Clarington.
2.2 Regulatory Framework
Starting in 2006, the Ontario Building Code (OBC) provided energy and water efficiency
requirements in tandem with the province’s policy of energy and water conservation.
These requirements aim to reduce the need for additional electrical generating capacity,
and to delay or eliminate expansion of municipal water and/or sewage infrastructure, all
of which have large capital costs. In this sense, the scope of the OBC has broadened to
include energy and water efficiency requirements.
For instance, newly constructed homes in 2007 would have been roughly 21% more
energy efficient than those built in the previous 1997 OBC standard. The stride in
residential energy efficiency was not as drastic in the 2012 OBC, with only modest
additional energy efficiency requirements being implemented and no changes applied to
the compliance packages. Look to the 2017 OBC for the next significant upgrades to
energy efficiency within ‘Part 9 of the Building Code: Housing and Small Buildings’.
On the water side, beginning in 2012, newly constructed or renovated homes are
required to be roughly 20% more water efficient than in the previous 2006 OBC. For
instance, the 2012 OBC requires high efficiency toilets (maximum 4.8 litres per flush
(LPF) as compared to a maximum 6.0 LPF introduced by the OBC effective October 1,
1996) be installed in new residential construction, as well as lower flow shower heads
(reduced from maximum 9.5 L/minute to 7.6 L/minute).
Effective January 1, 2017, the OBC will require all new low-rise homes under Part 9 of
the Building Code: Housing and Small Buildings to be constructed to be 15% more
energy efficient than those built in 2012. It is unknown at this time whether
strengthened residential water efficiency measures will also be required. Energy and
water efficiency requirements are expected to continue to increase as technology and
industry standards improve.
Another aspect of the evolving regulatory framework are provisions intended to promote
the use of particular green technologies. These technologies include, amongst others,
wastewater heat recovery and greywater reuse for flushing of toilets, urinals, or priming
of traps. As a result of changes made in the 2012 OBC, more opportunities for
Taking these historical escalation rates into account, Sustainable EDGE concludes that
the average annual escalation rate of electricity prices over the next 20 years is 6%.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
25 | P a g e
This escalation rate will form the basis of the electricity cost escalation for the GDP
financial assessment.
7.2.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a commodity whose price is notoriously volatile and therefore hard to
forecast beyond the near term. As such, price projections beyond a three year time
span represent approximations of the expected price. Based on the New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), the price of natural gas is forecast to increase at an
average rate of 3% annually until 2019. In Ontario, the natural gas prices are set by the
Ontario Energy Board. Past prices of natural gas, going back to 2011, indicate an
escalation rate approaching 2%. Since the price of natural gas is so volatile, and prices
are currently at a low, an escalation rate of 3% was applied to natural gas.
7.2.3 Water
The Regional Municipality of Durham 2016 Water and Sanitary Sewer User Rates
Detailed Report (Report #2015-J-59, December 3, 2015) (Committee, 2015) estimates
that the combined water and sewer user rate increase will be approximately 5% to 7%
per year over the forecast period 2017 to 2025, depending on future customer growth,
water demand and financial planning decisions. Accordingly, for the purposes of
financial analysis of water conservation features within the GDP homes, Sustainable
EDGE used an annual water escalation rate of 6%.
7.3 Financial Assessment Results
The financial analysis is based on a few factors which vary amongst the green
practices, such as, commodity cost, capital cost, installation cost, maintenance costs,
realized savings, lifespan of the feature, and lifespan of the financial study; these are
summarized here for clarity. In all cases, the average costs which would be incurred by
the builders or homeowners was used. The savings are based on the average of the
GDP homes. A discount rate of 2% was applied for all NPV analyses.
Commodity Prices
The following commodity prices are used within the financial analysis.
Commodity Price Escalation Rate
Water $ 3.65 m3 6%
Natural Gas $ 0.40 m3 3%
Electricity $ 0.20 kWh 6%
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
26 | P a g e
Ensuite Shower Faucet:
Capital cost: $50, this is the incremental cost of a low-flow shower faucet based on
local retail prices available to the consumer.
Estimated life of faucet: 10 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual water savings: 6.4 m3; based on average calculated water avoidance amongst
the six GDP homes due to using a low-flow (6.6 L/min) shower head relative to the
maximum flowrate allowed by OBC (7.6 L/min)
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $0
Kitchen Faucet
Capital cost: $170, this is the incremental cost of a low-flow kitchen faucet of the
variety used in this study; it is based on local retail prices available to the consumer.
Estimated life of faucet: 15 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual water savings: 11.3 m3; based on average calculated water avoidance
amongst the six GDP homes due to using a low-flow (5.7 L/min) kitchen faucet relative
to maximum flowrate allowed by OBC (8.35 L/min)
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $0
Greywater Recycling System
Capital cost: The capital cost of this green practice is broken into unit cost and
installation cost. Installation is factored in because the unit is not a standard feature
which the builders usually include and therefore the extra labour and material cost must
be factored in.
Unit Cost: $2,500 + HST = $2,825
Installation Cost: $1,000 (details in appendix J).
Estimated life of unit: 20 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual water savings: 17.5 m3; based on average measured water avoidance
amongst the six GDP homes due to harvesting of greywater for toilet flushing purposes.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
27 | P a g e
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $20 ($17 for chlorine and unit maintenance, $3
for pump electricity).
Low-Flow Toilets
Capital cost: The incremental cost of an ultra low-flow toilet is estimated at $65. Pricing
varies by manufacturer and model, therefore an average of costs was taken amongst
popular models. It is based on local retail prices available to the consumer.
Estimated life of unit: 20 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual water savings: 8 m3; based on average calculated water avoidance amongst
the six GDP homes due to utilization of ultra low-flow toilets. This value is based on an
average of 14 toilet uses per household per day (Dziegielewski, 2014), with a 50%
penetration of dual-flush toilets (1.9/3.8 LPF) and the rest of the toilets being regular
ultra low-flush (3.8 LPF) as compared to maximum code allowed of 4.8 LPF. For the
dual flush toilets, 5 full flushes and 9 half flushes were assumed.
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $0
Upgraded DHW Heater
Capital cost: The incremental cost of the upgraded DHW heats is estimated at $400
based on pricing available to consumers. In reality, these units are actually rented by
the home owner so they do not experience the full incremental cost up front. This
analysis is done for illustrative purposes and is not indicative of the cost savings actually
experienced by the GDP participants.
Estimated life of unit: 20 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual natural gas cost savings: $64; based on average savings as modelled using
HOT2000 energy modelling software and is based on actual sub-metered data of total
hot water consumption for the homes within the GDP.
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $0
Envelope & HVAC
Capital cost: $3,000; this is the average incremental cost incurred by the builder to
include the non-standard green practices such as: attic insulation and basement
insulation upgrade, advancing framing, insulated sheathing, better air sealing, etc.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
28 | P a g e
These green practices vary by builder and this analysis is done as an average cost
incurred by the builders.
Estimated life of unit: 20 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual electricity cost savings: $165; taken as the average savings as modelled
using HOT2000 energy modelling.
Annual natural gas savings: $57; taken as the average savings as modelled using
HOT2000 energy modelling.
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $0; No incremental maintenance or operational
cost is attributed to the building envelope because it is assumed the same operational
cost would apply to both the Code-built and As-built cases.
Whole Home
Capital cost: $7,150; this is the average incremental cost incurred by the builder to
include all non-standard green practices (water & energy) as outlined in Appendix E.
Estimated life of unit: 20 years
Span of financial analysis: 20 years
Annual electricity cost savings: $165; taken as the average savings as modelled
using HOT2000 energy modelling.
Annual natural gas cost savings: $57; taken as the average savings as modelled
using HOT2000 energy modelling.
Annual water cost savings: $92; taken as the average savings as modelled by
Sustainable EDGE.
Assumed annual maintenance cost: $0; No incremental maintenance or operational
cost is attributed to the building because it is assumed the same operational cost would
apply to both the Code-built and As-built cases.
The table below outlines the simple payback and the NPV of each of the green
practices applied within the GDP; detailed financial analysis is provided in Appendix J.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
29 | P a g e
Table 16 - Financial Analysis Summary
Green Practice Simple
Payback Net Present
Value
Years $ (2015)
Envelope and HVAC Energy Conservation Measured (Bundled)
13.5 $ 3,065.00
DHW Heater 6.3 $ 990.00
En-suite Shower Faucet 2.1 $ 586.00
Kitchen Faucet 4.2 $ 896.00
Greywater Recycling System 60 $ (2,200.00)
Ultra-Low Flow Toilets 2.1 $ 785.00
Whole Home 22.8 $ 1,660.00
The financial analysis performed on the water saving features of the GDP yielded very
positive results for a number of green practices, such as low flow faucets and ultra-low
flow toilets which achieved a positive net present value in our analysis. This indicates it
is a good investment to make when purchasing a home. The greywater recycling
system technology failed to achieve a positive NPV over the span of a 20 year analysis.
As this emerging technology matures, it is expected to achieve greater market
penetration, which may have a positive effect on future NPV evaluations as economies
of scale take effect and drive system prices down. On the energy side of green
practices, all the upgraded features assessed achieved a positive NPV and are deemed
investment worthy for the homeowner.
Secondary Financial Analysis of Greywater Recycling System
A secondary financial analysis of the greywater recycling system was undertaken
wherein the higher efficiency of the ten day purge cycle is applied to the whole year to
evaluate if the cost savings make the unit more financially viable. While the increased
annual efficiency saves the homeowner more money per year, the NPV remains
negative. The findings are:
As tested in GDP; simple payback: 60 years, NPV: -$2,200;
Secondary analysis with annual efficiency of 80%; simple payback: 43.2 years,
NPV: -$1,500.
Extending the purge cycle to ten days, and thus allowing the greywater recycling system
to operate at higher efficiencies, increased the NPV of the system by roughly $700;
unfortunately, this did not tip the NPV into positive territory which would indicate an
investment worthy feature. As this technology matures it is expected to achieve greater
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
30 | P a g e
market penetration leading to economies of scale lowering the unit cost. In the future,
this system might be economically viable for the homeowner, but based on this
assessment this system currently does not pay itself off within its lifespan.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
31 | P a g e
8.0 Comparison of HERS Rating to EnerGuide Rating
The Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Index and NRCan’s EnerGuide Rating
System are both evaluation systems which provide an analysis of a home’s energy
efficiency and provide a numerical rating which allows for comparison between other
rated homes. Both systems are approved for use in the OBC. Each rating system takes
into account the physical characteristics of the home in order to assess how the home
itself uses energy, while trying to minimize the variable behavioural factors of its
occupants. Physical characteristics include the wall and window assembly R-values, air
tightness, and heating, cooling, and ventilation systems. The behavioural factors include
occupancy schedules, temperature set-points, amount of hot water used, and plug
loads and their duration of use.
The GDP completed a home energy rating on each demonstration home prior to
occupancy using the HERS Index. For the purposes of examining both rating systems
permitted by the OBC, the more commonly used EnerGuide rating was calculated using
as-operated data after a full year of monitoring. This description provides an overview of
both rating systems and demonstrates the application of rating systems prior to home
owner occupancy and based on actual living conditions.
Similar rating systems that provide an analysis of a home’s water efficiency are not
available.
8.1 Home Energy Rating System Index
The HERS Index measures the energy efficiency of a home using a comprehensive test
conducted by a certified CRESNET Home Energy Rater. This Index is the nationally
recognised system for inspecting and calculating a home’s energy performance in the
United States and it is also approved for such use in the province of Ontario. A series of
diagnostic tests, including blower-door testing and duct leakage are used as inputs to a
computerized simulation analysis using RESNET Accredited Rating Software; this
results in a rating score on the HERS Index.
The HERS Index places a score of 100 as a standard new construction building and is
based on the International Energy Conservation Code 2006; lower scores indicate
increased energy efficiency. Each percentage point above or below the standard new
construction score of 100 represents one percent of increased or decreased energy use
in the evaluated home, respectively. For instance, a score of 0 would indicate a net-zero
energy building. An average home built to OBC 2012 standards, following SB-12
Compliance Package J, would score 60 on the HERS Index.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
32 | P a g e
8.2 EnerGuide Rating System
EnerGuide is the official system for energy performance rating and consumer product
labelling in Canada. It presents a measure of a home’s energy performance based on
standard operation assumptions which enable comparison of one house against
another. An energy advisor analyses the house plans and uses HOT2000 energy
simulation software to determine the estimated annual energy usage and EnerGuide
rating; after construction the building is reviewed to verify the rating including a blower
door test.
EnerGuide ratings fall on a logarithmic scale between 0 and 100, with a higher score
indicating a more energy efficient home – for instance, a score of 100 indicates a net-
zero energy home. It is important to note that the EnerGuide scoring system differs from
HERS in that the points do not directly translate to a percentage improvement in energy
efficiency. In fact, due to the logarithmic nature of the rating scale the EnerGuide ratings
can fail to effectively communicate the comparative energy efficiencies of new homes.
This point is illustrated in the following two examples (Buchan, 2007):
1. On the lower end of the rating scale, the 13 point difference between a score of
67 and 80 actually represents a 50% reduction in relative energy for the higher
ranked home.
2. On the upper ends of the rating scale, the 6 point difference between a score of
80 and 86 still represents the same 50% reduction in relative energy use by the
more efficient home.
The table below shows a typical EnerGuide scoring structure with respect to energy
efficiency. An average home built to OBC 2012 standards, following SB-12 Compliance
Package J, would score an EnerGuide rating of approximately 75.
Table 17 – EnerGuide: Typical Energy Efficiency Ratings
Type of House Rating
New house built to provincial building code standards
65-69
Typical new house with some energy-efficiency improvements
70–74
Significantly upgraded energy-efficient new house
75–79
Highly energy-efficient new house 80–90
House requiring little or no purchased energy 91–100
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
33 | P a g e
To address this issue, the EnerGuide Version 15, which is currently under development,
will forego the logarithmic 0-100 scale in favour of a consumption scale ranging from 0
GJ/year to infinity (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, 2015).
8.3 HERS and EnerGuide in the GDP
At the start of the GDP, all six demonstration homes were analysed using HERS,
comparing the rating of the As-built homes to equivalent Code-built homes using OBC
2012 SB-12 Compliance Package J as the reference building inputs. Each home was
given a Code-built HERS rating as well as an As-built HERS rating. A summary of the
results are presented in the table below. The detailed methodology and evaluation are
provided in the “Priority Green Clarington – Green Demonstration Project Green
Practices Validation and Energy Modelling Final Report” (Clearsphere, January 2015)
found in Appendix K.
Table 18 – HERS Index Scores (Pre-Occupancy)
Home ID Code-Built HERS Index Score As-Built HERS Index Score
A 60 49
B 65 47
C 66 48
D 60 41
E 61 48
F 60 43
The HOT2000 modelling used in this report, which took into account the actual
performance of the GDP homes during the 12 month monitoring period (i.e. post-
occupancy), provided an EnerGuide rating for each house. Similar to the pre-occupancy
HERS evaluation, two ratings were tabulated per home to include the Code-built and
As-built cases. These EnerGuide numbers were not verified through on-site testing and
are presented for comparison only. The results of the post-occupancy EnerGuide rating
are shown in the table below.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
34 | P a g e
Table 19 – EnerGuide Ratings (Post-Occupancy)
Home ID Code-Built EnerGuide Rating As-Built EnerGuide Rating
A 75 76
B 78 79
C 76 77
D 76 78
E 74 76
F 74 76
Under both the pre-occupancy and post-occupancy scenarios and irrespective of the
rating system used, the difference in Code-built versus As-built scoring reflects the
increased efficiency gained by the GDP homes through the implementations of green
practices that exceed the minimum OBC requirements.
The methodology of the HOT2000 modelling included an assumption that the
appliances, which were chosen by the home owners, would be the same regardless of
the specifications of the house and therefore would be the same in both cases;
however, the same assumption was not applied in the HERS modelling. In order to
attempt a comparison between these two independent energy rating systems, it was
necessary to adjust the HERS ratings to a scenario in which the ‘Lighting and
Appliances’ loads are identical between the Code-built and As-built homes. Therefore,
the HERS As-built ‘Lighting and Appliances’ energy consumption value was applied to
the Code-built model in order to generate new “adjusted” HERS Index score.
The table below presents the adjusted HERS Index comparison of the Code-built and
As-built energy savings, as well as the post-occupancy comparison based on the
EnerGuide rating system.
Table 20 – Comparison of Rating System Savings Modelled HERS and HOT2000 Energy Consumption
Home
ID
HERS Index Score (Adjusted) EnerGuide Rating
Code-Built As-Built % Better
Than Code Code-Built As-Built
% Better
Than Code
A 54 49 10% 75 76 10%
B 57 47 17% 78 79 9%
C 59 48 19% 76 77 11%
D 55 41 25% 76 78 12%
E 56 48 14% 74 76 9%
F 54 43 21% 74 76 12%
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
35 | P a g e
It is important to note that the HOT2000 energy modelling used real world sub-metered
energy and water consumption data from the homes as inputs and therefore provides a
summary of actual energy consumption. It is therefore not surprising that the actual
energy usage of the home deviates from the HERS model.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
36 | P a g e
9.0 Benchmarking of GDP Homes
Below, comparisons are provided between the energy and water consumption of the
GDP homes and typical homes in the neighbourhood and province.
9.1 Provincial Energy Benchmarking
In Table 21, the Code-built and As-built energy intensity results are compared to the
2012 Ontario average for new construction reported by NRCan (OEE, NRCan,
2012).The NRCan average should be reasonably representative as the large majority of
Ontario new house construction occurs in the Greater Toronto Area. While the value for
2012 was lower than the Code-built house average in the GDP, there is variation in the
NRCan data, and not necessarily a consistent trend of reduced energy use over time.
2010 demonstrated an average energy intensity value of 195 kWhe/m2/yr; for 2011 it
was 206 kWhe/m2/yr. Perhaps one could argue that the 2012 NRCan energy intensity
value of 188 kWhe/m2/yr means that builders are building, particularly in 2012, above
code on average and that the As-built homes are better than the average.
Table 21 - Ontario Benchmarking
Home ID
Code-Built Energy Intensity
As-Built Energy Intensity
Average Ontario New Construction Energy
Intensity (2012)
kWhe/m2/yr kWhe/m2/yr kWhe/m2/yr
A 207 187
188
B 225 204
C 233 208
D 165 146
E 195 177
F 173 153
Average 200 179 188
9.2 North American Water Consumption Benchmarking
The Water Research Foundation commissioned a report on residential water end use
titled: Residential End Uses of Water Study – 2014 (REUWS)5, which forms the basis of
this analysis. Various municipalities and water authorities across North America,
including the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, and the Region of Peel, Ontario set out to
study the end uses of residential water consumption and compile this data into a
5 The full report is not yet available; however, presentations on the topic have been released and are cited in this report.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
37 | P a g e
database for benchmarking and other analytical purposes. The following analysis
compares two metrics:
1. Household total water consumption per day
2. Household hot water consumption per day
Table 22, below, outlines the key performance indicators from that study and how they
compare to the GDP homes (Dziegielewski, 2014).
Table 22 - Indoor Water Use Benchmarking
Home ID
Indoor Water Use
Total Water Hot Water
LHD LCD LHD LCD
A* 494 165 252 84
B 565 188 319 106
C 372 186 267 134
D* 316 79 165 41
E 281 70 109 27
F* 401 100 258 65
GDP Avg. 405 131 228 76
REUWS Avg. 6
409 157 172 66
* Homes with Greywater Recycling Systems
Although the results of this comparison indicate that the GDP homes consume equal or
greater amounts of water per household relative to the REUWS average, this is not to
be construed as a shortcoming of the GDP homes and their water conservation
measures. The comparison being made here spans too broad a region, covering
municipalities from Florida to Ontario, and as far west as California and south to Texas.
Water consumption can vary drastically by region, and no mention of minimum building
code water efficiency targets, nor water prices, are outlined in the study information that
is currently available – both of which affect water consumption behaviour. It is therefore
impossible to tell whether other jurisdictions consume less water due to different
consumption patterns, efficient fixtures, or market forces.
That said, according to UN-Water, a United Nations inter-agency coordination
mechanism for all freshwater related issues, Canada consumes more water per capita
for municipal purposes than the United States. Therefore, it is expected that a Canadian
6 There was an average of 2.6 people per household in the REUWS study.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
38 | P a g e
Municipality would rank at average or higher levels of water consumption relative to its
U.S. counterparts. This fact highlights the urgent need for improved water conservation
measures to be encouraged by municipalities. With regard to the GDP, the most
important benchmark reference is the OBC to which the current housing stock has to
adhere to. It is vital to demonstrate technologies and efficiency targets which are suited
to both the local regional climate and local economic market. Overall, the GDP homes
performed well on a whole-home water consumption level.
9.3 Neighbourhood Water Consumption Benchmarking
A more accurate benchmarking comparison of the GDP homes can be achieved by
comparing the homes directly to their neighbours. This type of analysis allows for
variables such as the market pricing or water, climate, and building code minimum
requirements to be set equal amongst the neighbourhood homes and GDP homes. This
leaves water use efficiency as a leading factor of water consumption and allows the
GDP homes to showcase their water conserving features. The Region provided
Sustainable EDGE with local household water consumption data for the period
coinciding with the GDP reporting period; the same two neighbourhoods where the GDP
homes are located were used for the comparison – the total sample size was 113
homes. In both cases, the homes included in the comparison were filtered to ensure
they were built to the same OBC 2012 requirements.
The neighbourhood data provided for the comparison included outdoor use. To facilitate
a fair evaluation, a comparison was done between summer-time and winter-time water
use, the difference of which was taken to approximate outdoor water use. The rationale
being that indoor water use remains rather steady over the course of the year and any
additional consumption in the summer would represent outdoor water use. It was found
that outdoor water use represented 14% of total account use for the neighbourhood
sample. The GDP indoor water consumption values were increased by 14% to
approximate whole home consumption7.
The table below represents the culmination of this neighbourhood benchmarking
analysis for water consumption.
7 Actual metered whole home consumption for the GDP homes was not used in order to minimize the effect of data outliers which were present within the measured outdoor water consumption.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
39 | P a g e
Table 23 - Neighbourhood Water Consumption Benchmarking
Neighbourhood
Annual Water Consumption
LHD LCD
Bowmanville 482 175
Courtice 487 177
GDP Overall† 462 140 † Includes added 14% to account for outdoor water use.
The results from the benchmarking analysis indicate that the GDP homes performed
considerably better than their neighbouring counterparts when measured on a per
capita basis – a 20% reduction on a per capita basis represents a very successful
conservation effort. The LCD measurement is the most accurate method of comparison
because it accounts for the number of occupants within the home, a factor which greatly
influences household water consumption.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
40 | P a g e
10.0 Heating, Electricity, Water-Related Energy and GHG Emissions
The preponderance of modern scientific study and evidence points to climate change as
being, at least partially, induced by human activity. Chief amongst the causes of climate
change is the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere through the
burning of fossil fuels and generation of energy in the form of electricity. These GHGs
trap the sun’s energy within the Earth’s atmosphere and cause increases in global
temperatures through the greenhouse gas effect.
While energy conservation measures can help a consumer’s bottom line by providing
cost savings, it is important to also note that these same conservation measures also
reduce GHG emissions – an important step in mitigating climate change. Furthermore,
water conservation is inherently tied to energy conservation, as energy is required for
moving, treating, and heating water. This interconnectedness is knows as the
water/energy nexus. Thus, every drop of water saved, saves energy, also contributing
to reduced GHG emissions.
GHG emissions vary by source, with various forms of fossil fuels emitting varying levels
of the pollutant. Electricity generation methods which involve the burning of fossil fuels
can have higher GHG emission intensities per unit of energy generated due to
inefficiencies in the generation and transmission processes. Measuring a home’s
energy end-use by the amount of each fuel source consumed allows us to quantify the
GHG emissions of the home. When energy conservation measures are implemented,
the subsequent energy savings carry with them a reduction in harmful GHG emissions
released into the atmosphere.
10.1 Greenhouse Gas Reduction from GDP Homes
The GHG reduction analysis was broken out by utility end-use. The analysis
encompassed reductions in GHG emissions at the house level due to avoidance of
energy and water consumption arising from GDP home upgrades. The analysis was
presented for energy and water utilities.
10.1.1 Grid Delivered Electricity and Natural Gas
Carbon dioxide equivalent8 (CO2e) is an internally recognized measure of greenhouse
gas emissions. Conventional building energy sources invariably have CO2e emission
8 CO2e describes carbon dioxide equivalency in reference to a mixture of greenhouse gases. It is the
amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP), when measured over a
specified timescale – generally 100 years. Global warming potential describes a pollutant’s efficacy in
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
41 | P a g e
factors associated with their generation, use, and delivery. According to Table ‘1.2.2.1
CO2e Emission Factors’ within the Supplementary Standard SB-10 - Energy Efficiency
Supplement of the Ontario Building Code 2012, the CO2e emission factors for the
relevant building energy sources are as follows:
Table 24 - OBC 2012: CO2e Emissions Factors
CO2e Emission Factors
Building Energy Sources CO2e (kg/kWhe)
Grid Delivered Electricity (marginal based on natural gas)
0.400
Natural Gas 0.191
The homes in the GDP all have a mix of Grid Delivered Electricity and Natural Gas as
their fuel sources. Since one fuel source, electricity, has a higher GHG emission factor
than the other, tracking the breakdown of GHG emissions by fuel type will inform which
conservation measures will yield the most GHG reductions. The following table outlines
the GHG emissions per house by fuel type for the 1-year GDP monitoring period.
accelerating the greenhouse gas effect within the atmosphere – a property which varies amongst the
different gases. CO2, as the standard, has a GWP of 1, while natural gas has a GWP of 25.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
42 | P a g e
Table 25 - GDP Household GHG Emissions by Fuel Type
Home ID
Total Annual Modelled Electricity
Consumption
Total Annual Modelled Natural
Gas Consumption
Emissions from Grid Delivered Electricity
Consumption
Emissions from Natural
Gas Consumption
Total Emissions
from Building Energy
Consumption
kWh m3 kWhe kg, CO2e kg, CO2e kg, CO2e
Cod
e-B
uilt
A 11,109 2,678 28,387 4,444 5,422 9,865
B 9,862 2,079 22,037 3,945 4,209 8,154
C 9,795 2,265 24,009 3,918 4,586 8,504
D 15,379 2,481 26,299 6,152 5,023 11,175
E 15,543 2,012 21,327 6,217 4,073 10,291
F 21,781 2,454 26,012 8,712 4,968 13,681
Total 83,469 13,969 148,071 33,388 28,282 61,669
Average 13,912 2,328 24,679 5,565 4,714 10,278
As-B
uilt
A 11,012 2,323 24,624 4,405 4,703 9,108
B 9,846 1,810 19,186 3,938 3,665 7,603
C 8,142 2,076 22,006 3,257 4,203 7,460
D 14,636 2,092 22,175 5,854 4,235 10,090
E 15,330 1,707 18,094 6,132 3,456 9,588
F 19,662 2,117 22,440 7,865 4,286 12,151
Total 78,628 12,125 128,525 31,451 24,548 55,999
Average 13,105 2,021 21,421 5,242 4,091 9,333
Percent Difference of Averages 6% 13% 9%
Table 25 illustrates that GHG emission levels from electricity and natural gas
consumption were similar irrespective of house type (i.e. Code-built or As-built), with
reductions coming predominantly from the reduction in natural gas consumption.
Comparing the As-built homes to the Code-built homes shows that on average the GDP
homes reduced electricity consumption based GHG emissions by 6% and natural gas
consumption based GHG emissions by 13%. From an environmental stewardship
perspective, these results are very promising, particularly in the context of significant
growth forecasted for Clarington and Durham Region overall. In the case of the GDP
homes, space heating is provided solely through natural gas, while the plug loads are
solely electrical.
Further opportunity for GHG emissions reduction may be addressed in two ways. On
the natural gas side, with 95% efficient furnaces, there are minimal additional reductions
to be achieved by way of appliance efficiency. Instead, GHG emissions reductions can
be realized by reducing the overall amount of energy required to heat the home. This
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
43 | P a g e
can be achieved through envelope upgrades which would provide greater insulation and
air tightness to the home, passive solar design, and harnessing geothermal energy,
thereby reducing the home’s energy consumption and consequent GHG emissions. On
the electricity side, appliance efficiencies are constantly improving, so choosing efficient
ones can go a long way in reducing the carbon footprint of the home. As well, installing
renewable sources of electricity generation on a home will also reduce its carbon
footprint. Furthermore, behaviour plays a large part in plug loads. Turning off lights and
appliances which are not in use will go a long way in reducing electrical energy
consumption and its associated cost and GHG emissions.
10.1.2 Water Consumption Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The GHG reduction analysis for water conservation was more involved due to a larger
number of contributing variables. Namely, homes in different neighbourhoods may be
supplied water from different water supply plants and the same applies for water
pollution control plants which receive water sewage from the homes. Furthermore, there
are energy intensities of supplying water and of treating sewage, and these values
further vary by facility based on the type and quantity of energy used – usually a mix of
electricity, natural gas, and diesel fuel for back-up generator operation. The energy
used to pump and treat municipal water has a carbon footprint, and this is what is
calculated within this analysis. Real data for purchased energy by the Region, the local
water and sewage utility provider, was used in order to ensure an accurate localized
approach to GHG emissions accounting. The data used was from 2014, the last year for
which full accounting was available.
The analysis method involved taking a breakdown of all fuel types purchased by each
water supply and water pollution control plant, as well as the total amount of water
pumped by each facility. The appropriate GHG emission factor was then attributed to
each fuel type to derive the amount of GHG emissions each facility produced. From this
data, the energy intensity (kWhe/ML) and GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ML) values
were derived. These intensities were then applied to the annual modelled water
consumption of the GDP homes in order to calculate how much GHG emissions were
avoided by the water distribution and treatment plants due to water conservation
features installed within the GDP homes. Table 26 displays the water related GHG
emissions of the GDP homes.
A detailed presentation of data is presented in Appendix L.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
44 | P a g e
Table 26 - Municipal GHG Emissions Via Water Infrastructure
Home ID
Total Modelled Annual Water Consumption
Municipal Energy Expenditure from Municipal
Water Distribution
Total GHG Emissions from Municipal Water
Consumption
L kWhe kg, CO2e
Cod
e-B
uilt
A 224,601 222 84
B 226,029 237 82
C 154,276 162 56
D 142,460 149 52
E 111,005 110 42
F 180,105 189 66
Total 1,038,476 1,069 382
Average 173,079 178 64
As-B
uilt
A 180,279 178 68
B 206,323 216 75
C 135,657 142 49
D 115,516 121 42
E 102,402 101 38
F 146,465 154 53
Total 886,642 913 326
Average 147,774 152 54
The above table illustrates the energy expended, and GHG emissions released, by the
Region as a result of providing water services to the GDP homes. Overall, the average
GDP home reduced the Region’s annual energy consumption by 26 kWhe which
corresponds to annual savings of 10 kg of CO2e per home. While these savings are not
drastic in themselves, they are a positive effect of the water conservation trend as a
whole, particularly in the context of significant growth forecasted for Clarington and
Durham Region overall.
10.1.3 GHG Reductions from House Energy and Water Reductions
Based on the comparison of Code-built and As-built emissions for the GDP homes, as
shown above in Tables 25 and 26, the total energy and water related GHG emissions
reductions and the total combined GHG emissions reductions for each house are shown
in Table 27 below.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
45 | P a g e
Table 27 – GHG Reductions from House Energy and Water Reductions
Home ID
Annual GHG Emissions Reduction -
Energy
Annual GHG Emissions Reduction -
Water
Total Annual GHG Emissions Reduction
kg, CO2e kg, CO2e kg, CO2e
A 758 17 774
B 551 7 558
C 1,044 7 1,051
D 1,085 10 1,095
E 703 3 706
F 1,530 12 1,542
Total 5,670 56 5,726
Average 945 9 954
Table 27 illustrates that on aggregate, GHG emission reductions attributed to water
conservation features in the GDP homes only accounts for 1% of total annual GHG
emissions reductions, with the remaining being attributable to energy related GHG
emissions reductions. When the focus is GHG emission reductions, the biggest benefit
is gained from energy conservation measures within the home and energy demand
reduction.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
46 | P a g e
11.0 Municipal-Level Water Consumption Reduction/Avoidance
The results of the GDP can also provide valuable insight to the Municipality and the
Region as they plan for significant growth and neighbourhood development in the area
over the next 15 years. Placing the data in the context of Clarington’s projected
population growth provides a high level demonstration of the potential implications of
water consumption patterns on municipal infrastructure development. It is important to
note that the six GDP homes do not represent a statistically significant sample size from
which to draw any conclusive results; the analysis performed in this section is for
preliminary demonstration purposes and may inform future usage projections and water
infrastructure needs assessments.
In comparison to the modelled equivalent homes built to the minimum efficiency
standards required by the OBC 2012, the average GDP home reduced its annual water
consumption by 25,3069 L. While the cost savings for the individual households were
significant, amounting to $92 in average annual savings, the savings realized by the
Region are also significant. Since the Region oversees the water pumping and sewage
treatment operations, they incur the cost of these energy and chemically intense
operations.
The analysis in this section assumes that Clarington will meet growth forecasts as
outlined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in its 2006 Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe area. Under this plan, Clarington is forecasted to reach a
population of 140,400 by 2031. In 2015, Clarington’s population is estimated at 95,220.
Clarington may require an estimated 19,400 new housing units be built between 2015
and 2031 to accommodate forecasted growth. This translates to an average annual
construction rate of 1,212 new dwellings per year. Of these new dwellings, 83% are
forecasted to be low or medium density builds, consisting of detached, semi-detached,
or townhouse homes. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis of water consumption
reduction, it is assumed that 1,000 new dwelling units are constructed annually over the
next 15 years.
9 This value, 25,306 L, is an average which accounts for a 50% penetration rate of the greywater recycling system as a water conservation feature.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
47 | P a g e
From the results of the GDP, the average annual water avoidance breakdown is:
Greywater recycling units: 17,423 L
All other water efficiency features: 16,594 L
Total: 34,01710 L
The Region has separate costs for water supply and wastewater treatment due to the
services requiring different treatment processes; those costs are outlined as follows:
Water Supply: Total costs for the treatment and distribution transmission of drinking water per mega litre treated - $1,086.57
Wastewater: Total cost of wastewater collection/conveyance and treatment/disposal per mega litre treated - $1,039.54
The following two scenarios were considered in estimating the potential impact of
enhanced water conservation in the context of projected future growth and residential
development:
Scenario 1: Water Conservation Features, Excluding Greywater System
Under this scenario, the average home avoids 16,594 L of water consumption annually.
With 1,000 new homes coming online in the first year, the Region of Durham will avoid
supplying and treating 16.6 ML of water and realize savings of $35,300. This reduction in
water pumping and treatment will also save 16,900 kWhe of energy and avoid 6.14 metric
tons of CO2e emissions annually. These savings will compound in consecutive years.
Scenario 2: Water Conservation Features, Including Greywater Sytem
Under this scenario, the average home avoids 34,017 L of water consumption annually.
With 1,000 new homes coming online in the first year, the Region of Durham will avoid
supplying and treating 34 ML of water and realize savings of $72,300. This reduction in
water pumping and treatment will also save 34,650 kWhe of energy and avoid 12.6 metric
tons of CO2e emissions annually. These savings will compound in consecutive years.
The savings figures in this forecast are first year savings only; the savings from homes
built in sequential years would compound on top of the annual savings realized due to
the previously constructed homes.
10 This value, 34,017 L, is the sum of the average avoidance from the greywater recycling systems installed within three GDP homes (17,423 L/yr) and the average annual water avoidance due to all other water conservation features across all six GDP homes (16,594 L/yr).
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
48 | P a g e
11.1 15-Year Extrapolation of Reductions
For calculating 15 year energy, water, and GHG emission reduction potential of the
GDP, three scenarios were considered:
Scenario A – Average water and energy savings observed for the GDP homes over the
projection period; this includes a 50% penetration rate for greywater recycling systems.
Scenario B – For 2016, the average energy and water savings shown by the GDP
homes are applied. For 2017 and beyond, the higher of expected energy savings due to
stricter OBC mandated efficiency measures (i.e. 15% more energy efficient than OBC
2012), or the observed GDP home average is applied. The OBC is expected to further
implement improvements in energy related efficiencies every ten years in order to allow
the industry to keep pace with new best practices; this means that in 2027 the OBC is
projected to implement an additional 15% increase in energy efficiency relative to OBC
2017. Water efficiencies are not expected to increase beyond OBC 2017; no water
efficiency improvements beyond the GDP findings are assumed. This scenario reduced
greywater recycling system penetration to a more realistic 25% of projected low and
medium density new homes.
Scenario C – For 2016, the average energy and water savings shown by the GDP
homes are applied. For 2017 and beyond use 20% above OBC 2012 for water and 25%
for energy. This savings scenario outlines the ‘aspirational’ performance target that has
been included in the green development criteria recommended to the Municipality in the
Green Development Framework and Implementation Plan (Municipality of Clarington,
December 2015). This scenario reduced greywater recycling system penetration to a
more realistic 25% of projected low and medium density new homes.
The extrapolation results are outlined in Table 28. Under the scenarios, total GHG
emissions reductions range from approximately 113,000 tonnes CO2e (Scenario A) to
299,000 tonnes CO2e (Scenario C). This serves to demonstrate the potential influence
which strengthened residential water conservation mandates may have on the GHG
mitigation planning in the context of strong forecasted residential development.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
49 | P a g e
Table 28 - 15 Year Extrapolation of Savings
En
erg
y
Water Savings Energy Savings GHG Reduction
ML MWhe Tonnes CO2e
Scenario A N/A 485,849 112,956
Scenario B N/A 657,460 173,055
Scenario C N/A 1,109,598 298,812
Water Savings Energy Savings GHG Reduction
Wa
ter
ML MWhe Tonnes CO2e
Scenario A 2,549 1,298 472
Scenario B 2,501 1,274 463
Scenario C 3,615 1,842 669
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
50 | P a g e
12.0 Overall Findings, Recommendations, and Lessons Learned
A list of key findings from the GDP are summarized as follows:
1. The project is unique in that a significant measurement effort for energy and water
under actual operating conditions was undertaken for a full year for six homes.
2. Based on the measurements, the As-built homes exhibited a modelled energy
(electricity + natural gas) of use that was on average 11% less than the equivalent
modelled Code-built house. The cost savings were on average $260, ranging from
$98 to $624 per year.
3. In regards to water consumption, the As-built homes were modelled using on
average 14% or about 25,300 L less water than the Code-built average house
consumption of approximately 173,100 L per year. The average annual water
savings realized by three of the GDP homes that were equipped with a greywater
recycling system was 19,325L greater than the average of the three remaining
three GDP homes and resulted in a cost savings difference of $71 per year. The
As-built water cost savings ranged from $31 to $162 with an overall average of $92
for all six of the GDP homes.
4. On average, the energy and water use intensity for the As-built homes showed an
11% and 15% reduction, respectively, compared to the Cod-built homes. The GDP
homes equipped with greywater recycling systems were, on average, 18% less
water intensive than the comparable Code-built houses, while those GDP homes
absent of a greywater recycling system were on average 10% less water intensive
than the comparable Code-built houses. It is inferred that these results are a direct
reflection of energy and water efficiency upgrades implemented in the GDP
homes.
5. As a direct result of the greywater recycling systems, the consumption of 1311 litres
of water per person per day was avoided (on average) over the course of the
demonstration period. Modification of the greywater recycling system purge
frequency from every 48 hours to every 10 days was demonstrated to have a
substantial effect on overall efficiency (i.e. domestic water avoidance).
6. Financial assessment performed for various energy and water green practices
implemented in the homes yielded positive results. With the exception of the
11 This value is based on the whole reporting period and encompasses both the 2-day and 10-day purge cycle frequencies. Modelling all the greywater recycling systems as being 80% efficient, the average efficiency of the 10-day purge cycle setting, yields 18 litres of water avoidance per person per day.
Final Report Priority Green Clarington Water and Energy Demonstration Project
February 16, 2016
c o l o g i c a l e s i g n
r e e n n e r g y
51 | P a g e
greywater recycling system, a positive NPV and simple payback of less than 10
years was indicated for all of the water efficiency features analyzed, including low