Submitted To: Professor Geza Joos c/o Robin Devine ISEAD, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering McConnell Engineering Building 6th Floor Submitted By: Mike Angrove, Stina Hanson, and Kaela Schramm Master of Urban Planning School of Urban Planning Academic Supervisor: Dr. Ray Tomalty Submitted for consideration for the Fondation 3E Awards Submitted on: April 16, 2012 Faculty of Engineering Engineerin A Framework for Sustainable Neighbourhoods A Detailed Block-Level Pilot Project & Buildings Water Jobs Waste Land-Use Community Energy Eco-Districts Ottawa: A Sustainable Neighborhood Strategy
Transcript
Submitted To: Professor Geza Joosc/o Robin DevineISEAD, Department of Electricaland Computer EngineeringMcConnell Engineering Building6th Floor
Submitted By:Mike Angrove, Stina Hanson, and Kaela SchrammMaster of Urban Planning School of Urban Planning
Academic Supervisor:Dr. Ray Tomalty
Submitted for consideration for the Fondation 3E Awards
Submitted on: April 16, 2012
Announcing the launch of the newly created
FONDATION 3E AWARDSFaculty of EngineeringEngineering
1
Thanks to a generous gift from Fondation 3E (www.f3e.ca), the School of Urban Planning, in partnership with the School of Architecture, the Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, the Faculty of Engineering and the Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design, is glad to announce the creation of the Fondation 3E Awards.
The mission of Fondation 3E is to increase energy literacy in Canada and, by means of a better understanding of how energy is used, to help reduce the amount of energy consumed in our built environment and ensure a rapid transition to renewable forms of energy. Fondation 3E Awards will recognise excellence in student work that explores ways of reducing energy use, in particular from non‐renewable sources, in housing, community planning, transportation and other aspects of the built environment.
This year, the Fondation 3E Awards will be awarded on the basis of a competition whose rules are as follows:
Submissions
Eligibility: the competition is open to all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in a full‐time program in Architecture, Civil Engineering or Urban Planning, working in teams of up to four students; the work must have been performed in calendar year 2011‐12
Types of submissions: research papers or projects pertaining to ways of reducing energy use and fostering the use of clean energy in urban/built environments, at the scale of the building, site, neighbourhood, city or region
Length and format of submission:
no document may be over 40 pages in length (excluding appendices); students who have already written a longer piece of work should produce a shorter version of their report to meet this requirement
all hard copies are to be printed on 8.5” x 11” paper and should be bound
all reports must contain a conceptual introduction, a proposal, an analysis of impacts, and a conclusion on implementation and feasibility
the cover of the document must bear the name of the competition (Fondation 3E Awards), the names of the author(s), their respective degree programs and departmental affiliations, and the names of their academic supervisor(s)
Announcing the launch of the newly created
FONDATION 3E AWARDSFaculty of EngineeringEngineering
1
Thanks to a generous gift from Fondation 3E (www.f3e.ca), the School of Urban Planning, in partnership with the School of Architecture, the Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, the Faculty of Engineering and the Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design, is glad to announce the creation of the Fondation 3E Awards.
The mission of Fondation 3E is to increase energy literacy in Canada and, by means of a better understanding of how energy is used, to help reduce the amount of energy consumed in our built environment and ensure a rapid transition to renewable forms of energy. Fondation 3E Awards will recognise excellence in student work that explores ways of reducing energy use, in particular from non‐renewable sources, in housing, community planning, transportation and other aspects of the built environment.
This year, the Fondation 3E Awards will be awarded on the basis of a competition whose rules are as follows:
Submissions
Eligibility: the competition is open to all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in a full‐time program in Architecture, Civil Engineering or Urban Planning, working in teams of up to four students; the work must have been performed in calendar year 2011‐12
Types of submissions: research papers or projects pertaining to ways of reducing energy use and fostering the use of clean energy in urban/built environments, at the scale of the building, site, neighbourhood, city or region
Length and format of submission:
no document may be over 40 pages in length (excluding appendices); students who have already written a longer piece of work should produce a shorter version of their report to meet this requirement
all hard copies are to be printed on 8.5” x 11” paper and should be bound
all reports must contain a conceptual introduction, a proposal, an analysis of impacts, and a conclusion on implementation and feasibility
the cover of the document must bear the name of the competition (Fondation 3E Awards), the names of the author(s), their respective degree programs and departmental affiliations, and the names of their academic supervisor(s)
Submitted To: Professor Geza Joosc/o Robin DevineISEAD, Department of Electricaland Computer EngineeringMcConnell Engineering Building6th Floor
Members of the Jury:David Covo School of ArchitectureRaphaël Fischler School of Urban PlanningRonald Gehr Department of Civil Engineering and Applied MechanicsGeza Joos Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design
Submitted By:Mike Angrove, Stina Hanson, and Kaela SchrammSchool of Urban PlanningMacDonald-Harrington Building4th Floor
Submitted for consideration for the Fondation 3E Awards
Submitted on: April 16, 2012
Acknowledgements: We would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Ray Tomalty for all of the guidance and insight that he provided in the preparation of this final submission.
Also, we would like to thank the following organizations for their assistance:
Natural Resources Canada (Office of Energy Efficiency Building’s Division and Integrated Community Energy Sustainability Division, Canmet Transportation and Canmet Buildings)David Miller (City of Ottawa)Andrea Flowers (City of Ottawa)Daniel Dicaire (Ottawa Community Housing)Llewleyn Wells (Living City Block)
About the Team:
Mike Angrove spent the first 24 years of his life living in Victoria, BC and is currently residing in Montreal. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Victoria and is now a first-year Master of Urban Planning Student within McGill University’s School of Urban Planning. Coming from a Bachelor of Arts in human geography, Michael’s main interests are in how people experience cities, how power and politics shape the landscape, and how to reurbanize underutilized areas of the city.
Stina Hanson grew up in Vancouver, BC and has lived in Los Angeles, California and Halifax, Nova Scotia. She has both a Bachelor and Masters in Fine Arts (from Simon Fraser University and the California Institute of the Arts respectively) and is currently in her first year of McGill’s Urban Planning Program. Her planning interests include participatory design, green building certification systems and water management.
Kaela Schramm was born in Germany and grew up in the United States (Minnesota). She holds an Bachelor of Arts in geography and history from Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota (2007) and she earned a Master of Education from Saint Lawrence University in Canton, New York (2010). She is in her second year of the Urban Planning Master’s program at McGill University. Kaela has a range of interests when it comes to planning including transportation, affordable housing and community engagement.
Build
ings
/In
frast
ruct
ure Water
Waste
Jobs
Land-UseCom
munity
Energy
Photo sources for cover:
Bike Lane in Toronto Photo courtesy of: Yvonne Bambrick
Portland Stormwater curb extension Photo courtesy of: City of Portland
Eco-Districts Ottawa
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . 1
Type of Project . . . 2
Location . . . 3
Urban Energy Context . . . 5
Project Precedents . . . 7
Eco-District Program . . . 8
Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: An Implementation Strategy . . . 14
Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: A Detailed Pilot Project . . . 20
Political Analysis . . . 39
Transferability and Scalability . . . 41
Challenges and Risks . . . 42
Conclusion . . . 45Sources . . . 46Appendix:1. City of Ottawa Combined Sewer Overflow Events Map2. Pilot Project Quantified Charts: Energy GHGs Financials3. Funding Chart4. Promotional Brochure
Note: All citations are numbered chronologically in text and ap-pear as endnotes at the end of this report.
List of FiguresFigure 1: The City of Ottawa within the Canadian Context p.3Figure 2: Monthly Average Temperatures in Ottawa p.3Figure 3: Monthly Rain and Snowfall Averages in Ottawa p.4Figure 4: Energy Use by Sector in Canada p.5Figure 5: Electricity by Source in Ontario p.6Figure 6: Portland EcoDistricts p.7Figure 7: Image of the downtown Denver, CO LCB project with projected goals in 2016 p.8Figure 8: Chart of Return on Investment Highlights of Smart Growth Economic Ben-efits p.15Figure 9: Chart of Savings on Expenditures Highlights of Smart Growth Economic Benefits p.16Figure 10: Chart of Improved Quality of Life Highlights of Smart Growth Economic Benefits p.16Figure 11: Toronto School Energy Consumption Sensitivity Graph p.17Figure 12: Toronto Low-Rise Multi-Unit Residential Building Energy Consumption Sensitivity Graph p.17Figure 13: Toronto Big Box Retail Energy Consumption Sensitivity Graph p.17Figure 14: Toronto Small Office Energy Consumption Sensitivity Graph p.18Figure 15: Pilot Project Location p.20Figure 16: Building Profiles p.21Figure 17: Components of Embodied Energy in Water End Uses p.22Figure 18: Technology by Building Type p.24Figure 19: Current/Baseline Building Energy Use of the Eco-District Pilot Project par-ticipants p.26Figure 20: Current Eco-District Energy Use Profile p.27Figure 21: Current household potable water use of the Eco-District Pilot Project par-ticipants p.28Figure 22: Proposed Retrofit Building Energy Use of the Eco-District Pilot Project participants p.28Figure 23: Proposed Retrofit Building Energy Use of the Eco-District Pilot Project participants p.29Figure 24: Proposed Stormwater Interventions p.30Figure 25: Proposed Potable Water Interventions and residential water use amounts including increase in permeable area, intervention details and runoff volume re-duced. p.30Figure 26: Total Building Energy Savings from Proposed Retrofits for Eco-District Pilot Project Partners the Pilot Area p.31Figure 27: Total Stormwater runoff reductions for the Eco-District Pilot Project Area. p.31Figure 28: Total Potable water savings and reductions for residential participants in the Eco- District Pilot Project Area p.31Figure 29: Total energy savings for the Eco-District Pilot Project. p.31Figure 30: Energy Savings Sensitivity Analysis p.32Figure 31: GHG Calculations p.32Figure 32: Total one-time costs for building energy and potable water retrofits. p.34Figure 33: Total one-time costs for municipal energy savings. p.35Figure 34: Building Energy Cost Savings by Building Type p.36Figure 35: Potable Water Savings for residential users and the municipality p.37Figure 36: Future Energy Savings p.37Figure 37: Estimated Payback Period for Individual Building Owners p.38
Page: 1Eco-Districts Ottawa
Executive SummaryThe overall objective of this project is to establish green/sustainable communities in Canada. This project operates on two scales: a program to be implemented in Ottawa, which is replicable and transferable, and a detailed pilot project quantifying the results of energy retrofits in buildings and water systems. This project takes a systems-based, retrofit approach to creating more sustainable communities. The goal is to be comprehensive and innovative, while remaining realistic in the Canadian context.
The Eco-District program calls for a reduction in building energy use, more efficient water and waste systems, maximization of land efficiency, creation of healthy communities, and creation of green jobs. There are three main undertakings for this program: planning, pilot projects, and policy changes. There are three accruing benefits from these undertakings: energy (i.e. reduction in use and cost), environmental (i.e. reduced GHGs and mitigated micro-climate), and social (i.e. increased greenery and educational awareness). The implementation of an Eco-District can be broken down into four distinct phases, including district organization, research and analysis, project development and monitoring.
To detail the benefits of an Eco-District, we created a pilot project in the West Centretown neighbourhood of Ottawa that focuses on decreasing building energy use and improving water systems. There are three key pilot project elements: A partnership approach in an effort to tap into joint community capital, implementing a unique financing scenario, and providing measurable results. After initial results, the pilot project was expensive, but the overall benefits greatly outweighed the cost. The final savings were just under 48,000 GJ of energy in the buildings and just over 6000 m3 of stormwater. Overall, we highly recommend the implementation of this pilot project, and the expansion to a full Eco-District after the pilot project’s success.
Page: 2Eco-Districts Ottawa
Type of ProjectThe overall objective of this project is to establish green/sustainable communities in Canada. This project is manifested as a strategy and proposal for a new Eco-District sustainable neighborhood program, for the City of Ottawa, that implements the next generation of innovation in renewable energy strategies, green technologies, and green civic infrastructure in an integrated and localized way. This program will include specific goals, key program undertakings/implementation strategy, as well as expected outcomes (not quantified). This program is designed to be both scalable and transferable.
Also included in this proposal is a detailed energy retrofit pilot project, which is one of the key Eco-District program undertakings, that focuses on measuring energy reductions expected from specific interventions. The quantified energy analysis component of this submission will be based on this pilot project. As the subject of deeper analysis, the pilot project analysis will provide an understanding of the specific study area, including individual building profiles and detailed interventions adapted to this particular context. The proposed pilot project will also include an implementation strategy, work plan, measurement of project outcomes, and a financial and political analysis of the project.
This analysis will conclude with a discussion of the scalability of the pilot project and transferability of the program within the country of Canada, and the challenges and risks of both the program and the pilot that are inherent in such a complex proposal.
Eco-District Ottawa Program IntroductionThis project is modeled after both the Eco-District approach, which was devised by the Portland Sustainability Institute,1 as well as the Living City Block approach, initially developed by the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado.2 This project calls for an adaption of these strategies to the context of the City of Ottawa in order to reduce neighbourhood energy use and environmental footprints. The objective of this program is to transform an existing neighborhood into one with the lowest environmental impact and highest economic, social, and physical infrastructure resiliency in Canada. Neighbourhood energy reduction and retrofit strategies have iterations all over North America, including, but not limited to, Brooklyn, Washington D.C., El Paso, and in Missouri. We are confident that these strategies can make a successful transition into the Canadian context.
Eco-District Ottawa Pilot Project IntroductionThe Eco-District pilot project is scaled down to a three block radius just southwest of Ottawa’s downtown (to be discussed further in the Project Details section). The goals of this project will include reducing building energy use and creating more efficient water systems (stormwater and potable water specifically). This project seeks to create a test case of reducing local energy use using building and home
What is an Eco-District?
“Eco-DISTRICTS” is a strategy developed by the Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute (P+OSI) to build ‘triple bottom line’ neighborhood with the lowest possible environmental impact and highest long-term economic and community returns” (P+OSI, 2009).
Living City BlockMission: “To create and im-plement a replicable, export-able, scalable and economi-cally viable framework for the resource efficient regen-eration of existing cities, one block at a time” (LCB, 2012).
Build
ings
/In
frast
ruct
ure Water
Waste
Jobs
Land-UseCom
munity
Energy
Page: 3Eco-Districts Ottawa
retrofits, as well as stormwater low-impact development, with the long-term possibility of introducing renewable energy supply to the area. By proposing interventions with measurable, positive results, this pilot project can be scaled up to the neighborhood level, and has the potential to spread further within Ottawa and to different Canadian cities.
Project JustificationThe City of Ottawa currently does not have a community-based green retrofit /energy reduction program. While Ottawa does have sustainability mandate in their Official Plan4, and they recently completed a regional plan with an energy reduction component,5 there is no systems approach at the community or neighbourhood scale. This project will therefore be innovative in its introduction of a new, integrated system of dealing with community resource use, including, but not exclusively, energy, transportation, water and waste systems, and buildings. Since many older Canadian cities like Ottawa are facing challenges with aging buildings and infrastructure, a retrofit strategy seems to be the main way of improving the energy efficiency of these existing neighborhoods.
Also, growing awareness of the impacts of climate change and GHG emissions is forcing municipalities to address their energy consumption patterns. However, integrated solutions are still fairly novel, especially when considering retrofit scenarios. To address this, Eco-Districts provide a flexible framework that can be configured to address the specific energy scenario, built environment and land use patterns of each potential neighbourhood.
The City of Ottawa is located in the Capital Region in the province of Ontario. As the nation’s capital, Ottawa has a unique opportunity to lead-by-example for other Canadian cities. Home to a number of innovative energy-reducing ventures such as the successful community solar energy program called Sustainable Ottawa, established to help communities take advantage of the Provincial micro Feed In Tariff (microFIT) program, Ottawa is has the right context for an expanded community energy and resource strategy.
ClimateThe City of Ottawa has an average Canadian climate, experiencing four distinct seasons.7 The winters are fairly cold, with an average temperature in January of -10.8°C. In summer, the temperature
rounds out at an average of 20.9°C.8 Figure 1 displays the variety of temperatures Ottawa experiences.
In terms of precipitation, Ottawa again ranks amongst the average Canadian cities. During the winter and early spring, Ottawa gains a fairly large amount of snow, with January receiving the most at 552mm.9 In late
Low Impact Development . . .
Is a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes con-servation and the use of on-site natural features, like green roofs, rain gardens and bio-swales, to increase permeable surfaces and stormwater infiltra-tion and to delay stormwater run-off into municipal sewer systems.3
Location
Why Ottawa?
Canada’s Capital CityTypical Canadian Climate
Sustainability Mandate
Figure 2: Monthly Average Temperatures in OttawaSource: Environment Canada
Figure 1: The City of Ottawa within the Canadian ContextSource: WorldGuides
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
MicroFITThe Ontario Micro-FIT program partners with building and homeowners, providing long-term purchase agreements for renewable systems that generate up to 10 kilowatts of electricity. Micro-FIT contracts include fixed prices for all electricity generated, often at prices much higher than market rates.6
Page: 4Eco-Districts Ottawa
spring to early fall, the snow is replaced by rain, with July receiving the most rain at 90.6mm. Large amounts of precipitation, specifically incidences of heavy rainfall, lead to combined sewer overflow (CSO) events. This is an additional stressor on aging infrastructure and the environment plaguing older cities in Canada. The Booth Street Sewer, responsible for carrying the stormwater from the pilot project area was responsible for 13 CSO events in 2010 (please refer to the appendix for a map of all of the CSO events and volumes in Ottawa in 2010).10
Policy Background
The Eco-District program supports, and can be situated within, ongoing provincial, regional and local plans and initiatives. At the provincial level the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009) is a long-term energy strategy committed to reducing dependence on energy, ending the use of coal generated electricity in Ontario and encouraging a new green economy.11
The act introduced the FIT and Micro FIT programs and provides support for energy reduction strategies and training in green technologies.
Regionally the recent Choosing Our Future (2012) regional initiative is a joint project of the City of Ottawa, the City of Gatineau and the National Capital Commission. The initiative is a framework for regional sustainability and includes goals related to energy, water, transportation and waste management. Released in March 2012, the initiative contains little information regarding implementation, however, it provides strong political and ideological support for the Eco-District framework.12
Locally, the City of Ottawa has a strong sustainability mandate confirmed by the Ottawa 20/20 Growth Management Strategy (2003) that includes various secondary components like the Ottawa 20/20 Official Plan (2003, updated 2009), that sets the guiding principal of “A Green, Environmentally Sensitive City,” and includes broad support for policies on energy reduction. Another component of the Growth Management Strategy, the Environmental Strategy (2003) for the City of Ottawa, stresses similar goals in reducing energy use, and focuses on improving access to diverse, affordable and sustainable energy sources worldwide.13
The City has also prioritized waste management with a new Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP), implemented in 2004, that introduced several new strategies (including bi-weekly garbage collection and a single-family home organics program) aimed at reducing waste and the energy consumed by the waste management process.14 Additionally the Infrastructure Master Plan (2009) identifies the need to define an integrated, cost-effective approach to stormwater management to reduce combined sewer overflow and inefficiencies in aging infrastructure.15 The issue of combined sewer overflows is also addressed in the Ottawa River Action Plan (2010), which tackles these and other larger watershed issues through 17 major projects, including two specific neighborhood stormwater retrofit plans.16
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 3: Monthly Rain and Snowfall Averages in OttawaSource: Environment Canada
Choosing Our Future
A regional initiative of the City of Ottawa, the City of Gatineau and the National Capital Commission, Choosing Our Future features three core themes: Sustainability, Resiliency and Liveability. These themes include goals related to climate change, energy, water, waste, transportation and land use. The plan stresses the need for an integrated systems approach to tackling challenges related to energy use and the environment. (City of Ottawa, 2012)
Page: 5Eco-Districts Ottawa
Through a variety of different plans and initiatives, the City of Ottawa clearly recognizes the problems of current energy consumption. The Eco-District framework can provide an important connection between large City of Ottawa policy objectives and smaller programs, such as Building Greener Futures Together, run by the Social Planning Council of Ottawa, which trains young adults in green industries and retrofitting techniques.17 Additionally Community Design Plans/Secondary Plans, that focus on a range of issues like transportation, redevelopment and intensification projects at a more detailed or community scale, set goals and a direction for a localized area, which are amenable to Eco-District goals and strategies, and provide an official platform for adopting a sustainable neighborhood strategy.
Urban centres with their dense populations, aging infrastructure and continued reliance on the automobile place unique requirements on different types and sources of energy. Urban areas in Canada are responsible for approximately 60% of the county’s energy use with transportation, manufacturing and the heating and cooling of buildings accounting for a significant percentage of this.20 One of the difficulties in addressing urban energy use is the availability of solid data and the tendency of reporting agencies and municipalities to consider systems in isolation. Since many of the proposed urban energy reduction strategies focus on system integration, it can be difficult to assess where they fit within the current context that makes it difficult to make a reasonable assessment about the state of the entire system.
Transportation energy use is the fastest growing sector and is predicted to surpass the industrial sector as the largest energy-using sector in Canada.21 The continued organization of land use patterns that favour the automobile has contributed to the transportation sector’s chronically high levels of both fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Since urban transport patterns are highly influenced by land use and development, giving strategies including Transit Oriented Development an important urban energy use component.22
Buildings are the third most energy intensive sector in Canada. This is exacerbated by Canada’s often-extreme climate, which requires increased building heating and cooling loads through hot summers and cold winters. This energy can be provided by a variety of sources, depending on the building’s location within Canada. The requirements of heating and cooling make them the most energy intensive use for Canadian buildings, making up between 53-65% of their total energy use. In addition to climate factors, building envelope design is an important component of energy use and it is estimated that poor quality building envelopes (poor solar gain, insufficient caulking and insulation and inefficient glazing systems) contribute to significant energy loss.23 In Ontario residential heating is mainly provided by natural gas, followed by electricity.24 Though natural gas burns more efficiently than other non-renewables, it is still a hydrocarbon that releases certain impurities like carbon dioxide upon combustion. Natural gas is also a versatile fuel, adaptable to a range of heating systems, including small furnaces, forced air and hydronic heating, ventilation and cooling systems (HVAC), radiant floor systems and as a component in geothermal systems. Despite this versatility many existing natural gas systems operate on older technology leading to high levels of
Secondary Plans, officially part of the Official Plan, provide a more detailed area - based policy direction for a number of land use areas within a given area.18
Community Design Plans (CDP) translate the principles and policies of the Official Plan to the community scale. The Official Plan identifies the priority areas for community design plans; all community design plans must conform to the Official Plan.19
Urban Energy Context
Figure 4: Energy Use by Sector in Canada (measured in petajoules of energy)Source: StatsCan 2007
Page: 6Eco-Districts Ottawa
inefficiency, wasted energy and increased GHG emissions. In an urban context, this energy loss through natural gas combustion is even more problematic since heating requires low quality energy. This can often be sourced from the waste heat generated by applications that require high quality energy, including the electricity needed for large amounts of data processing, or oil required for manufacturing. Additional urban sources of waste heat include sewers, large commercial and office complexes and intuitional buildings like schools. The varied uses (both in terms of energy needs and timing) found within the urban context create even more opportunities for energy cascading and heat recovery.25
The electrical component of building energy use in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources; the most problematic being the continued use of coal fired electrical generation plants (see figure 5).26 The province made several commitments to close its coal plants, but continued demand for electricity has made this impossible.27 The introduction of the FIT and MICRO-FIT programs were a key part of this strategy, but despite the high popularity of both programs, energy from these sources still accounts for less than one percent of total electricity used in the province.28 In addition to the problems and inefficiencies associated with electrical generation, considerable amounts of electricity are lost during transport.29 The FIT programs also attempted to address this issue through the introduction of smart grid technology,30 but these improvements have been on too small a scale to increase the overall efficiency of the electrical grid.
In addition to heating systems, another energy intensive component of buildings are the lighting systems, which are powered using electricity and operate at varying levels of efficiency.31 Lighting systems require high quality energy and therefore cannot use any kind of energy waste product. Recent technological improvements have made high efficiency lighting systems available for residential, commercial, industrial and municipal uses.
The Municipal Corporation is an additional component of urban energy systems as the infrastructure to manage street lighting, water, and waste requires significant energy inputs.32 Municipal water systems use electricity to transport and treat potable, and wastewater. In cities (like Ottawa) that have a combined sewer system additional energy is required to manage stormwater. As these systems age, they become increasing inefficient and it is estimated that Ottawa loses 25% of water (and thus 25% of energy) during transport.33 Water pipes and sewers are difficult and expensive replace, making solutions focused on optimal water use or stormwater diversion the most practical ways to increase water system efficiency.34 Energy used in waste management is typically measured as the energy needed to transport and sort waste, organics and recyclables.
Figure 5: Electricity by Source in Ontario (electricity used annually)Source: Ontario Electricity Generation by Energy Source, 2008
Page: 7Eco-Districts Ottawa
In preparation for this project, a variety of different innovative strategies and community-based initiatives were surveyed. For the purposes of this project, this was narrowed down to two systems-based, integrated approaches: EcoDISTRICTS (P+OSI) and Living City Block (Living City Block), which were used as project precedents.
Eco-DISTRICTS (P+OSI)
“An EcoDistrict is a neighborhood or district with a broad commitment to accelerate neighborhood-scale sustainability. EcoDistricts commit to achieving ambitious sustainability performance goals, guiding district investments and community action, and tracking the results over time” (P+OSI, 2012). As mentioned earlier, the EcoDISTRICTS approach was created by the Portland Oregon Sustainability Institute in 2008-2009 to foster green and sustainable neighborhoods, but also to test and measure the impacts of the next generation of best practices in sustainable community development. So far, Portland has five EcoDISTRICTS: Gateway, Foster Green, Lloyd District, South Waterfront and South of Market, piloted in 2011.35 South Waterfront is Oregon’s first green neighborhood and the largest green development in the country.36 So far Portland EcoDISTRICTS are implementing district energy systems, bike and care sharing systems, stormwater management systems, as well as solar site analysis (assessing potential for solar energy within a neighborhood). More importantly, these neighborhoods have participated in engagement activities, set up governance structures including: signing an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Portland, creating an advisory committee, undertaking a feasibility analysis, and set up funding or finance structures to ensure longevity.37
P+OSI has also created a prolific amount of literature (Toolkits) to help neighborhoods achieve similar results, including: an Action Guide, Organization Guide, Financing Strategies, Policy Support, and Assessment Strategies. These guides helped provide a base for some of the elements proposed in this Eco-Districts Ottawa neighborhood strategy.38
In terms of applicability to Ottawa, Portland actually has a more moderate climate, and is in another country with different funding and governing mechanisms. However, as the primary innovator in integrative neighborhood sustainability strategies, P+OSI has created mechanisms (mentioned above) to help this initiative spread to different contexts, including the neighbouring Canadian context.
Living City Block
Since the EcoDISTRICTS tackle such a large framework, Living City Block (LCB) was also used as a precedent as they work at a small scale, with the hope of scaling and expanding over time. Living City Block works across three interrelated components: proving the business case, economic development, and making cities more desirable and livable environments.39 The goal is to
Project Precedents
Figure 6: Portland EcoDistrictsSource: P+OSI
Page: 8Eco-Districts Ottawa
take a small area, a few blocks in radius, and implement cutting edge retrofit technologies that serves the environment, community and the individua building owners. Living City Block was developed by a team from Rocky Mountain Institute, which established the Living City Block group.
Currently, LCB has two projects underway, the initial project in Denver, Colorado - see figure 6 (10-12 year payback), and one in Brooklyn Gowanus, New York (8-10 year payback). A project in Washington D.C. never got off the ground, and they are also now expanding into El Paso, Texas.40
In a conversation with Living City Block creator, Llewelyn Wells, the tenuous nature of a project like this became clear. LCB is able to make the business case for building retrofits, but it is a complicated process that is contingent on several key factors. The experience of LCB with their initial projects reveals the need for aspirational targets and goals to align with community goals, along with an acceptable payback period (the key here is energy prices that create deep savings). Aggregating people around Living City Block (as a new association) is also a huge challenge. Without an established community partner LCB was not able to get a project off the ground in Washington, D.C., therefore, it is essential for LCB to partner with an established community organizer, or organization. Also, a successful finance model, which does not create a burden on those investing in energy retrofits is key, and a partnership with the local municipality will strengthen the success of a community retrofit program.41
In this conversation, it also became clear that there is an interest at LCB to expand into Canada. Llewelyn Wells also confirmed that many of the features of the City of Ottawa, such as a strong network of community associations and business improvement associations, and a city committed to sustainable growth and development, strengthens the likelihood of an LCB project to succeed. These same strengths play into the strategy proposed by the Eco-Districts Ottawa approach.
GoalsThe Eco-Districts Ottawa program is organized around a set of six goals in order to ensure that this program is comprehensive enough to meet the broad range of need of the community (i.e. more than just energy use, also including other resources, the living and built environment and so on). These goals allow a degree of flexibility to match local needs and goals.
Figure 7: Image of the downtown Denver, CO LCB project with projected goals in 2016Source: Living City Block, 2012
Eco-District Program
Build
ings
/In
frast
ruct
ure Water
Waste
Jobs
Land-UseCom
munity
Energy
An example of a potential Eco-Districts Ottawa sym-bol, represents all of the pieces that contribute to a comprehensive project
Page: 9Eco-Districts Ottawa
The Eco-District Ottawa program includes the following goals, adapted from Portland Oregon Sustainability Institute:42
Reduce Building Energy Use Achieved through building retrofit strategies and technolo-gies, occupant behavior best practices, renewable district energy generation.
More Efficient Water SystemsIncluding on-site water efficiency and re-use, on-site greywater management and re-use, and on-site stormwa-ter management. These interventions will reduce lifecycle costs and environmental impacts of pumping and treat-ing water (especially in older cities that still primarily use a combined sewer system)
More Efficient Waste SystemsSimilar to, and overlapping with, water systems this in-cludes advanced technologies and systems for waste and wastewater reduction, reuse, and recycling in the ongoing operations and management of buildings. Environmentally friendly construction waste management techniques are also an element of this goal.
Maximize Land Efficiency This may be achieved through smart-growth strategies of brownfield remediation, infill projects, and transit-oriented intensification.
Create Healthy Communities This includes the water systems discussed above, but also prioritizing walking, cycling or transit as a primary mode of transportation, and promoting a mixture of uses (e.g. housing, schools, commercial within walking distance of each other) through design and/or retrofits, reduce vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT).
Green Job Creation Creating green neighborhoods will require a skill base that needs specialized training in construction techniques, but also building management, and energy audits, for example. A goal of this program will be to foster green training and job creation, business and residential investments into green technologies, which will not only save them money in the long run, but also create opportunities for corporate entities looking to deploy new technologies, and also at-tract outside investments.
Portland Stormwater curb extension Photo courtesy of: City of Portland
Bike Lane in Toronto Photo courtesy of: Yvonne Bambrick
Page: 10Eco-Districts Ottawa
Creating an Eco-District Program in Ottawa
This section discusses key activities that must be implemented in order to enable the creation of individual Eco-Districts, including a formal approval process that will create a framework for communities interested in establish-ing an Eco-District to follow and a financing system. Included in this section is a broad discussion of expected program outcomes, quantified outcomes will be provided in the following section on the detailed pilot project.
Key Program Undertakings (Implementation)
In order to establish an Eco-District program in Ottawa there are three action-items that need to take place:
PlanningIn Portland, Eco-Districts are a public-private partnership between P+OSI and the City of Portland, Portland Development Commission, Metro, Oregon Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies Center (BEST), and real estate, design, and construction industries. As mentioned earlier, areas in Portland looking to become an Eco-District sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the City to solidify this partnership.43 Living City Block creates a loose partnership with the City, looking for bureaucrats who are willing to champion their cause, but LCB chooses to avoid depending on municipalities to implement their ideas.44
The proposed program in Ottawa will operate outside of city government structures, meaning there will be no department within the City running an Eco-Districts program. However, using the City as an important partner and resource will strengthen the success of a program like this. In this proposed scenario, the role of the municipality would work in a similar fashion to the current role between Business Improvement Areas (BIA) and the City. In fact, we propose that an Eco-District could share space and resources in areas with established BIAs.
In Ottawa, Business Improvement Areas are established from the ground up. Once interest in a BIA has been established, a detailed proposal is submitted to the City of Ottawa. This proposal identifies the need, sets out physical boundaries and proposes a by-law to be passed to establish the BIA (as set out by the Local Government Act). The City then send notifies all property owners within the proposed zone of the intention to create the BIA, and if sufficient objection is not received, then the City will pass a by-law designating the area as a BIA.
A similar process would be proposed for designating an Eco-District, as a special zone, with a local improvement tax that would fund a community energy officer and local engagement, governance and educational activities. The steps for establishing an Eco-District would include (Based on BIA steps):46
1. Establish local interest (20% of residents and business/ building owners would need to sign a petition) 2. Establish a steering committee 3. Set out broad-range community goals (could be taken from a recent CDP or Secondary Plan if applicable) 4. Determine Boundaries (if different from neighborhood designations) 5. Establish a budget for year 1 activities, including a community
Ottawa’s Business Improvement Areas
Once the BIA has been formally established, a Board of Management is elected from within the membership. As well, one member of the City Council is required to sit as a Board member.Some of the important steps in establishing a BIA are outlined below:Step 1 - Establish the need Step 2 - Establish a steering committee Step 3 - Set out goals and objectives Step 4 - Prepare a preliminary budget proposal Step 5 - Determine proposed boundaries Step 6 - Communicate with interested parties Step 7 - Formalize request to the City of Ottawa Step 8 - Provide required notice to property/business owners Step 9 - Pass required by-law
(excerpted from the City of Ottawa Website, 2012)
Page: 11Eco-Districts Ottawa
chosen consultant (discussed further in the following section: Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: A Pilot Project) 6. Establish an initial partnership protocol or agency agreement among a few key interested local partners 7. Turn in a proposal with the City of Ottawa
The City of Ottawa will officially designate an Eco-District if all of the following pieces are in order. Once this designation is made, Ottawa assumes a secondary monitoring role and will also provide financial support through a local improvement tax they will levy on the designated area.
In order for this to happen, the City of Ottawa needs to adopt Eco-Districts as a program and put certain mechanisms in place in order to receive and manag proposal, and monitor current Eco-Districts. Establishing a program like this could take several years and will require commitment from City Bureaucrats and interested citizens. The department most suited to supporting a program like this would be the Neighborhood Sustainability Branch under the Planning and Growth Management Department.47
Pilot ProjectsPilot projects could include implementing specific interventions and technologies in a coordinated small-scale area, or one small technology over a broad area. The goal would be to reduce risks by providing greater certainty in the process and outcome before expanding to an integrated district/neighborhood level. The initial pilot project to launch Eco-Districts as a program in Ottawa and inspire new projects in the city will be discussed in-depth in the next section: Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: a Pilot Project). All of the quantified outcomes will be at the pilot project level.
Policy ChangesThe City of Ottawa is impacted by policy programs at the provincial, regional and municipal level, with each level providing important policy support for the Eco-District program. Suggested policy changes include:48
Building Energy Use• Develop and adopt a “Green Building Strategy” which establishes criteria for housing components like windows, heating, HRV, hot water tanks, light fixtures, toilets, and energy use display meters. Precedent: Vancouver.
• Develop a “Sustainable Construction and Design” policy that ensures retrofit projects incorporate a high-energy efficiency standard.
Efficient Water Systems• Adopt “Stormwater Best Practices” guide based on existing best models of best management practices that includes a plan to offer water bill rebates to homes that adopt these best management practices. Precedent: Chicago and Minneapolis.
• Adopt a “Green Roof By-Law” that mandates all new developments over a certain size must green between 20 and 60% of their roof. Precedent: Toronto.
• Adopt a “Low Flow Fixtures By-Law” that mandates the inclusion of water sensitive fixtures in all new construction and renovation project.
Page: 12Eco-Districts Ottawa
• Amend the subdivision and develop by-laws to include provisions mandating low impact development strategies for all roads affected by development and for all roads that are being rehabilitated or are impacted by other infrastructure repairs. Precedent: Lantzville.
Efficient Waste Systems• Develop pilot project to test best practices around multi-unit residential organic waste collection and composting. This should be done in anticipation of the by-law requirements around multi-family waste that will come into effect in November 2012
• Develop waste diversion targets and affected materials to be incorporated into a “Solid Waste Management Regulation By-Law”. Precedent: Nanaimo.
Healthy Communities• Adopt a by-law that mandates the inclusion and improvement of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure with street rehabilitation or infrastructure upgrades. Example: Wellington West Redevelopment, City of Ottawa.
Expected Project Outcomes
The benefits produced by an Eco-District accrue at a variety of scales, as certain interventions benefit the greater community as well as individual building owners and residents. Benefits break down into three large categories: energy, environmental and social.
Energy Benefits• Overall reduction in total energy use in the area – for a range of sectors including buildings, transportation, and municipal services• A shift in the energy profile/signature of the area, leading to a reduced dependence on certain types of non-renewable fuels and an increased use of renewables• Increased system efficiency (heating, lighting, water, waste etc) leading to less wasted energy and the introduction of technologies that can recover what would potentially be wasted energy• More efficient use of energy types (the ability to use low quality energy for heating and high quality energy to run electronic devices)• Local energy generation minimizes energy loss during transport
(Quantified energy benefits from the pilot project will be discussed in the further in the following section: Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: A Pilot Project)
Environmental Benefits• A reduction in the “heat island effect” that is associated with high levels of impervious pavement leading to a cooler microclimate in the hot Ottawa summers• Reduced GHG emissions and improved air quality from a decrease in vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT): increasing active transportation and mass transit options and connections; improving sidewalks and streetscape to encourage walking; and encouraging infill in the area• More efficient water systems: greywater management and re-use and heat capture from water systems (greywater and blackwater)
Page: 13Eco-Districts Ottawa
• Expanded community and city ecosystems, estuaries, watersheds as well as local ecosystem benefits (such as reduced sewage overflow impacts on the Ottawa River)• Bioremediation and/or brownfield redevelopment• Waste reduction, reuse, and recycling (e.g. a composting program for multi-unit apartment buildings, which currently does not exist in Ottawa but is encouraged)
Social Benefits• Increased greenery and improved public space from stormwater reduction strategies will contribute aesthetically to the area, especially along streetscapes, which will encourage pedestrian activity and healthy communities• Green roofs and new green spaces offer increased opportunities for urban agriculture and improved food security• Create environmental awareness and occupant behavior, which will be affected through consumer-friendly technologies such as smart meters, through an education/awareness campaign, and community involvement in the pubic engagement elements of this program• Increase green construction and management training and skill use (perhaps in collaboration with the Algonquin College program)• Attract outside direct investment into the retrofit projects that will also increase green job creation and demand in the area• Increase green construction and management training and skill use • Increase community interaction and partnerships towards a common goal• An increase in active transportation will lead to a reduction of harmful emissions and encourage active lifestyles within the community• Bioremediation and/or brownfield redevelopment and prioritized infill will lead to a greater mix of services and housing in the area
The majority of these benefits will affect the local community (residents and business owners) most directly, but have the potential to affect the greater Ottawa area, as well as those drawn to the area for its innovation.
Note: all ancillary benefits are based on discussions/experiences of precedent programs (e.g. Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute and Living City Block), as well as discussions with experts like Alex Aylett, David Miller (City of Ottawa), Devin Caulfield (FCM), Danny Pearl (L’Oeuf) and Alex Hill (Benny Farm).
Page: 14Eco-Districts Ottawa
Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: An Implementation Strategy
Part of the process in establishing an Eco-District program is to provide a pilot project with detailed results and successes in order to reduce risk and build support through demonstrated outcomes. This will include an implementation plan as well as quantified project results and a financial analysis.
Implementation Strategy
The implementation of an Eco-District can be broken down into four distinct phases, including district organization, research and analysis, project development and monitoring.
Phase I: District Organization
The first step in creating an Eco-District is gathering local support, whether this be through individual efforts or a community organization or business improvement area initiative, at least 20% of the proposed Eco-District designation needs to sign on in order to receive official designation and financial support. Ideally this initial group would be made up of a mix of business-owners, home-owners and institutions like schools or libraries. A steering committee will need to be established to help create a proposal, this does not necessarily need to be the final governing structure of the Eco-District, although likely members of this initial committee will be involved in following governance.
Key project partners fulfill all necessary obligations and approach the City of Ottawa with a proposal for an Eco-District designation, which the City reviews in accordance with the protocol mentioned above. Once the Eco-District designation is received, key project partners will begin the process of hiring a team of consultants that will guide the Eco-District through its second phase of Research and Analysis.
Additionally, a governance structure will be established, most likely with the help of the consulting team. This team/committee/group will be made up of investing partners, a municipal representative and community members which are democratically voted on every four years. This structure will make recommendations regarding higher-level Eco-District program decisions, such as stormwater interventions, public space, and transit issues, which will ultimately be decided upon by the City. The public will be consulted regarding a vision, goals and objectives.
Phase II: Research and Analysis
Baselining The second phase of creating an Eco-District involves a program of Research and Analysis. This section of the project will be lead by a team of expert consultants that have experience in dealing with the various systems addressed in the program goals. Since many of these goals are targeted at reducing resource use, one of the first activities that must be completed during this phase is
Eco-Districts Ottawa Implementation Guide
What does implementation of an Eco-District look like?
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION Engagement Organization/Governance Structure Designation of Eco-District by City
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Baselines/Audits/Targets/Strategies Partnerships/Funding/Financing
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Construction Education Program
MONITORING Savings/Monitoring Results/Reporting
Page: 15Eco-Districts Ottawa
determining baseline levels for the systems that will be part of a retrofit or improvement strategy. The process of creating baseline levels may include building energy audits, research into neighbourhood water use, transportation studies and community surveys and consultation. Since data for many of these systems is often difficult to find and maintain, this process should also focus on creating reliable reporting and data management procedures that can be used by the Eco-District to determine future energy gains and savings. Each proposed goal contains a variety of metrics that can be tracked and used to determine potential interventions. The following provides suggestions for elements the can monitored to determine effective and practical interventions, a full chart outlining elements and metrics for each goal can be found in the appendix.
Metrics should consider:• Energy Consumption - by fuel type and by sector• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) - tonnes produced by sector• Water use - potable water litres per person/household• Environmental quality - soil condition, quality and amount of greenspace• Waste generation - by sector (e.g. residential, industrial, commercial)
Chuck Kooshian and Steve Winkleman of the Center for Clean Air Policy have studied and quantified some of the impacts of smart growth principles currently implemented in cities, proving that planning with these principles (largely incorporated into our broad program goals) can help communities, businesses and individuals make a return on their investment, save money, and improve quality of life.49 This can provide a guide to communities looking to adopt Eco-District goals with some of the community-wide initiatives that cities are taking, and the kinds of results they are seeing. For example, investments in transit has spurred growth in commercial and private sector investments in several cities. Investment in low-impact development and stormwater management practices has saved money on traditional infrastructure costs for several cities. Quality of life also improved in many cities where active transportation is prioritized, leading to an increase in time spent walking, which has positively affected commercial arteries as well as human health.50
The following are tables of the results the Center for Clean Air Policy has collected, they can be found in Growing Wealther: Smart Growth, Climate Change and Prosperity:51
Dallas: Retail grew 33% in 1st year a\er light rail began
Portland: $100 million public investment in streetcar a^racted $3.5 billion in adjacent private investment
Denver: households within ½ mile of light rail line rose in value by 18% 2006-‐8; other Denver homes lost 7.5%
US: Investments in transit create 2X jobs as in highways
Figure 8: Chart of Return on Investment Highlights of Smart Growth Economic BenefitsSource: Center for Clean Air Policy
What is Smart Growth?52
1. Housing Choice2. Vibrant, Walkable Complete Communities3. Smart Building Design4. Renew Existing Communities5. Green Infrastructure6. Green Space, Farmland and Ecologically Sensitive Areas7. Broad-Scale, Integrated Planning8. Transportation Options9. Community Involvement10. Focus on Implementation
Page: 16Eco-Districts Ottawa
US: Lower rates of pedestrian fataliEes in compact urban areas, higher rates in car-‐oriented suburban areas
Seaele: Increase in neighborhood walkability was associated with more Eme spent walking and lower body-‐mass-‐index
Placemaking efforts in Ohio, Kentucky, Washington DC, others help a^ract new businesses and visitors to formerly depressed areas.
Figure 10: Chart of Improved Quality of Life Highlights of Smart Growth Economic BenefitsSource: Center for Clean Air Policy
Additionally specific tools exist that can help an Eco-District team decide on possible interventions once baseline levels have been determined for neighbourhood and building components related to Goal 1 and 2.
For strategies around reducing energy use, Natural Resources Canada has developed a series of tools that assess building systems to determine what kind of retrofit strategies will produce the greatest energy savings. These tools when combined with the results of initial energy audits can create and optimal building retrofit strategy for each Eco-District partner. For example, these tools have determined that in a commercial building replacing the windows leads to the highest amount of energy reductions, while the addition of a heat recovery unit provides the highest impact in an institutional one. The charts on the following page illustrate the energy impacts of various building retrofits.
Sacramento: Infrastructure savings: $18,000 per household
Bay Area: $140 million in health savings by 2035
Sarasota, FL: Downtown development cost city 50% less than similar suburban development and generated 8 Emes the tax revenues
Garland, TX: Tree canopy diffuses 19 million cubic feet of runoff per storm, displacing the need for $38 million in retenEon infrastructure
Figure 9: Chart of Savings on Expenditures Highlights of Smart Growth Economic BenefitsSource: Center for Clean Air Policy
Page: 17Eco-Districts Ottawa
Toronto School ECM Sensitivity - VAV Toronto VAV School All Measures
Figure 11: Toronto School Energy Consumption Sensitivity GraphSource: NRCan CanMet Buildings
Figure 12: Toronto Low-Rise Multi-Unit Residential Building Energy Consumption Sensitivity GraphSource: NRCan CanMet Buildings
Figure 13: Toronto Big Box Retail Energy Consumption Sensitivity GraphSource: NRCan CanMet Buildings
Page: 18Eco-Districts Ottawa
Similar online tools exist for measuring the effectiveness of stormwater interventions, the most of which are available at the US Environmental Protection Agency website under the green infrastructure subsection of the water section: www.water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_modelingtools.cfm. The Green Values Stormwater Calculator was used to approximate some of the pilot project results and will be discussed in depth in the following sections.
FinancingFor private Eco-District partners, two different financing schemes will apply (specifically to cover the cost of retrofits introduced as part of Goal 1): the first is targeted at large building owners. This program is promoted by the Energy Services Association of Canada, which has coordinated five such performance-based energy retrofit financing partnerships in Ottawa alone (with over 30 case studies in Canada altogether).53 In this scenario a private Energy Service Company (ESCO) takes control of the funding of a retrofit or upgrade project and the utility costs of the project partners. The payback scheme is based on the success of the project in reducing energy consumption and connected savings. This allows the transfer of risk associated with the project from the building owner onto the ESCO.54 In Ottawa, the Ottawa Hospital, Algonquin College, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have successfully used this program.55
Traditionally this has been done in Ottawa and throughout Canada with large ESCOs (e.g. Honeywell, Ameresco, Direct Energy and Siemens have financed projects in Ottawa specifically), however the potential to create a localized or community based utility exists.56 Living City Block has done this successfully across the US. This financing scheme would depend on third party or outside funders for initial start up costs, but would operate in the same manner as the large ESCOs, where the Eco-District administrative/governance structure would find the financing and manage the debt/payback through energy savings.57
The second financing scenario is targeted at owners of single-family homes and uses the Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits (P.A.P.E.R.) funding model.58 PAPER offers homeowners longer financing terms and larger amounts
Figure 14: Toronto Small Office Energy Consumption Sensitivity GraphSource: NRCan CanMet Buildings
Page: 19Eco-Districts Ottawa
than traditional bank loans. It allows neighbourhood programs access to bulk purchasing power and rates. The financing is associated with the property and does not affect homeowner’s personal credit as the any charges or debts remain with the property. Charges are then repaid through a temporary fee on the property tax bill. Depending on incentives and funding available, the total cost to each homeowner could also be lowered and the PAPER program used to extend repayment through an increase in annual property taxes.
For municipal services associated with the Eco-District, funding will be pursued through a local improvement tax (similar and/or in addition to the BIA funding system, expanding to include residents as well as businesses). This funding will also be used to contribute to the costs of an energy officer and the initial consulting fees. Other incentives from the City of Ottawa could come through policy changes (e.g., adopting a Stormwater Best Practices Guide and incentives) or other municipal improvement programs.
Also in this phase, it will be necessary to build additional partnerships and funding commitments, using the proposal to the City of Ottawa and additional baselining and financing information gathered.
Phase III: Project Development
Construction will be phased according to interventions developed by the Eco-District team. Large projects will require more extensive phasing as they require more financial and human resources and in-puts.
Part of energy reduction strategies in particular require a change in occupant behavior. This will require educational and incentive programs to be run by the Eco-District energy officer and team. Making sure that all residents and stakeholders are involved in this process will limit the amount of push-back the project deals with when people are unfamiliar with a project and its intended outcomes. Educational program needs will vary with each project and project initiatives.
Phase IV: Monitoring
ReportingReporting on positive results will be an important element of this phase in order to promote Eco-Districts in Ottawa and Canada-wide. Reporting can include traditional progress reports, but also websites and other promotional material can be produced and distributed as results become available. Awareness campaigns similar to the “Green Dot” movement, which denotes environmentally friendly products and businesses, can publicize and bring notoriety to the area.59 In this case, a marketing campaing spreading the Eco-District logo could serve similar purposes.
MonitoringFor project partners a comprehensive monitoring program will be possible (since the first phase of all Eco-Districts with establish comprehensive baseline levels), enabling them to determine the success of various interventions. This will allow each Eco-District partner to realistically track their energy savings and monitor the performance of new technologies over time. Monitoring technologies can include smart meters to track electricity use, and programmable thermostats to monitor residents heating use and the use of current municipal water meters and billing structures to highlight energy savings from potable water reduction.
The Green Dot
The Green Dot is an internationally recognized symbol that shows a company’s commitment to environmental protection. The Green Dot trademark is now protected in more than 170 countries around the world. (Green Dot North America, 2012)
Page: 20Eco-Districts Ottawa
At the municipal level there are energy-modeling options to estimate effects of infrastructure investments (e.g., USEPA mentioned above) and the energy used in managing storm water.60 The results of these tools could be made available to the public through the suggested education programs and reportin efforts. Additionally, since the municipality currently monitors energy used in providing transit and waste management services, this data could also be used to promote the success of the program within the Eco-District and throughout the city. Another huge piece of this phase will be just tracking the system to make sure that it is continuing to function as planned.
In terms of tracking the overall block-level energy effects, the energy officer in partnership with the sustainable neighborhoods branch of the planning department would be an appropriate partner to coordinate all elements of energy reduction, and keep data in a consolidated format. Not only will this fulfill certain elements of the City of Ottawa’s overarching vision for the city, and regional energy planning, but also it can become an important selling point to demonstrate the City is willing to act on goals of sustainability with measured results available to demonstrate this commitment.
Creating Individual Eco-Districts in Ottawa: A Detailed Pilot Project
This pilot project is set in the West Centretown neighborhood of the City of Ottawa focusing on the goals of decreasing building energy use (program goal 1) and creating more efficient water systems (Program Goal 2) through stormwater reduction techniques and potable water interventions, with the long-term possibility of introducing renewable energy supply to the area.
The pilot project site was chosen due to its proximity to transit services, diverse uses and building types (particularly ones that could benefit from energy retrofits) and strong potential project partners. The site includes a major commercial corridor and has also been targeted by the City of Ottawa as a potential location of increased density from transit oriented development.
There are three key pilot project elements:
A partnership approach in an effort to tap into joint community capital
Implementing a unique financing scenario Providing measurable results3
O-Train Line Preston StreetSomerset S
treet
Downtown
Eco-District Ottawa Pilot Project
Ottawa River
0 0.5 10.25Kilometers
Ottawa, Ontario
Source: TRAM, City of Ottawa, 2011Figure 15: Pilot Project LocationSource: Tram and the City of Ottawa
Why This Block? Mixture of Uses
Range of Building TypesStrong Community Association
Business Improvement Area
Page: 21Eco-Districts Ottawa
ImplementionThe proposed pilot project serves as an opportunity to reduce the risks of a large-scale project by providing greater certainty in the process and outcome. A project like this will take one year to establish phase one of the implementation plan with the help of a consulting team of three energy experts. In phase two this team will conduct background research and analysis including initial benchmarking studies. Additionally, they will determine appropriate technologies, establish funding and financing opportunities, and engage in community organizing (e.g., visioning exercises, charrettes, and establishing a working group from the community). This phase should last at least one year. In phase three, there will be at least 3 years of construction, implementing these technologies, and one year of monitoring and tracking savings (phase four). Once energy savings have been established, in 1-2 years, this project will be ready to expand in scale, and/or be replicated elsewhere.
PartnersOttawa Community Housing (OCH) is the largest social housing provider in Ottawa, managing approximately 15,000 homes for around 32,000 citizens that range form seniors to families with children and persons with special needs. OCH manages a range of buildings that are scattered throughout the City that includes a mix of high and mid rise apartments, townhouses and detached homes. OCH has begun to look into building energy retrofit strategies to reduce operating costs and increase the performance of existing buildings that in some cases are over forty years old and still running their original energy systems.61
The Ottawa-Carleton School District (OCSD) is the largest school board in Ottawa, offering a wide range of programs across 147 schools. The school board has made previous investments in renewable energy, through the purchase and installation of solar panels on school and auditorium roofs.62
A third potential project partner was identified, but contact was never accomplished. This partner is the owner of the large commercial complex on Preston Street and would be contacted during the initial Eco-District designation phase if this pilot was to move forward.
The City of Ottawa will also act as a partner in Eco-District initiatives by contributing to infrastructure, transportation, and other municipal-level investments.
Built Environment AffectedThe following chart is list of buildings located within the Pilot Project area that have been targeted for an initial program of building retrofits aimed at reducing energy use.
Pilot Project Partners:
Ottawa Community Housing (OCH)Ottawa Carleton School District (OCSD)City of OttawaCommercial Building Owner(s)Single Family Homeowner(s)
Building Owner Building Type Year Built Number of Units Square Footage Building SytemsElectric Baseboard HeatingSingle-Glazed WindowsFlurorescent LightingNatural Gas Boilers for Domestic Hot WaterRadient Floor Natural Gas Powered HeatingSingle-Glazed WindowsFlurorescent LightingNatural Gas Boilers for Domestic Hot WaterNatural Gas Radiant HeatingSingle-Glazed WindowsFlurorescent LightingNatural Gas Boilers for Domestic Hot WaterNatural Gas Forced Air HVACSingle-Glazed WindowsFlurorescent LightingNatural Gas Boilers for Domestic Hot WaterNatural Gas Forced Air HVACDouble Glazed WindowsFlurorescent LightingNatural Gas Boilers for Domestic Hot WaterElectric Baseboard HeatingSingle-Glazed WindowsFlurorescent LightingNatural Gas Boilers for Domestic Hot Water
194,103.00
102,906.00
124,800.00
148,003.00
35,800.00
2,200.00
241
124
160
N/A
N/A
N/ASingle Family Home
1972
1976
1966
1967
2000
1960s
OCH
OCSD
Private
Private
Commercial Complex
Adult High School
Townhouses
6 storey Mid-Rise
20 storey High-Rise
Figure 16: Building ProfilesSource: OCH, OCSD and site visits
“Eco-‐Block” Pilot Project • 20-‐storey Residen8al
• Mainly Elderly Tenants
• Built in 1970 • 300 Units • Electric hea8ng • Natural gas for domes8c hot water
“Eco-‐Block” Pilot Project
• Two storey townhouses
• Family Tenants • Built in 1960 • 60 Units • HVAC system (Natural Gas)
• Natural gas for hot water “Eco-‐Block” Pilot Project
• Preston Street Commercial Corridor • Mix of Hardware stores, restaurants and coffee shops
• Adult High School • Auditorium • Weekend classes
“Eco-‐Block” Pilot Project
• Preston Street Commercial Corridor • Mix of Hardware stores, restaurants and coffee shops
• Adult High School • Auditorium • Weekend classes
Top to Bottom: 20-Storey high-rise, townhouses, commercial building, adult high schoolPhoto Credit: Stina Hanson
Page: 22Eco-Districts Ottawa
Potable water:Components of a potable water system include: residential potable water use includes waters needed for showers and baths, toilets and flushing, laundry, cleaning, kitchen and drinking. The City of Ottawa uses a water metering system to bill for potable water for all uses (including residential, commercial and industrial users). Metering rates are current set at $1.34 per cubic meter.63 Water use data is currently only available for per capita use at the city level, which indicates an average use of 235 litres per day.64
Institutional and commercial potable uses in this pilot project area consist mainly of the water needed for bathroom facilities. They are also on the metering system and are also charged $1.34 per cubic meter.65
The municipality provides potable water and pumping and treatment systems are powered by electricity. The current water system in Ottawa loses approximately 25% of energy and water during transport and treatment.66
Stormwater:Urban water use is made up of the following energy intensive components: source extraction, water treatment, distribution, wastewater treatment, collection and end-use. In a city like Ottawa that is still on a combined sewer system, stormwater is added to the distribution and treatment parts of the water system. Water and wastewater (including stormwater in Ottawa) energy used to distribute and collect is highly influenced by distribution length, pipe material and age, topography, pumped water volumes and system pressure.67
TechnologyThe specific technologies we are proposing have been proven successful in the field, although the retrofit context may cause the initial installation to be more complex than in conventional new construction. These technologies were chosen based on the specific buildings in the area, the current system used within the building, and available retrofit technologies. Since Ottawa experienced a large building boom in the 1960s and ‘70s, these interventions should be applicable to other Ottawa neighborhoods once the program is ready to expand, but it is important to note that newer buildings, or different building types may require different interventions, which will largely vary on a case-by-case situation.
The primary innovation within our project is the systems approach: one unit working together with minimal redundancies. The major constraints of this project may come from the municipal government, as engineering departments tend to be conservative when faced with new infrastructure projects.68 Risk is often hard for a municipality, which can be saddled with blame that is then augmented in a political environment.69
Figure 17: Components of EmbodiedEnergy in Water End UsesSource: Marsalek, J. and Schreier H. (2009)
Page: 23Eco-Districts Ottawa
The following are the technologies that have been used and measured in the proposed pilot project (please see appendix for amounts/coverage or efficiencies and associated costs):
Building Energy:• Heating, Ventilation, Air Condition system (HVAC) and Heat Recovery Ventilation (HRV) systems• Radiant floor heating• Building envelope o Improved window glazing o Caulking and weather-stripping• LED lights o In apartment buildings - common areas: T12 fluorescent and incandescent lamps Residence: fluorescent lamps (60-100 Watts)• Hot water o High efficiency natural gas boilers o High-Efficiency electrical hot water heaters
Stormwater:70 • Green roofs• Rain gardens• Rain cisterns• Vegetated swales and bioswales• Trees and vegetation• Permeable pavement• Permeable asphalt
Example of greenroofs in Vancouver, BCPhoto Credit: Greenroofs.com
Page: 24Eco-Districts Ottawa
Technology by Building Type: The following table lists technology upgrades by building type; specific performance levels of this technology can be accessed in the appendix.
Impact Analysis
For this pilot project energy benefits were both quantified and analyzed. Additionally, a discussion of ancillary benefits (environmental and social) will be discussed as these are not easily quantifiable, but still provide an impact on quality of life.
Methods and Assumptions
BuildingsThe energy savings for buildings this project were calculated using the “Building Screening Tool” published by Natural Resources Canada.71 This tool calculates building energy use from a set of inputs that include: building use, total square
footage, heating system (including system efficiency), hot water system (including system efficiency), window U-values (USI), shading coefficient, window to wall area ratio, gross wall area, wall resistance values (RSI values), roof area, roof resistance values (RSI values) and lighting density (calculated in watts per metre square). The tool can be used to calculate baseline levels for various building types and then, through the addition or change of various elements (suggesting a new heating system) can suggest energy savings or a modified energy profile. The tool breaks down building energy use by categories that include: heating, cooling, lighting, auxiliary, equipment and domestic hot water.
In the process of completing our analysis we determine baseline energy levels using building information supplied by sources including project partners (OCH) and staff from Natural Resources Canada.72 Suggested interventions are based on the performance characteristics and capabilities of the proposed systems (including standard shading coefficient values for windows.73 Energy savings are determined by comparing baseline levels with the suggested retrofit scenarios. This project incorporates high efficiency (90-95% efficiency rate) natural gas boilers into heating and domestic hot water systems, but is unable to test whether or not these systems will be able to perform at this rate of efficiency once they are coupled with existing mechanical systems.
Additionally the energy benchmarks and potential retrofit energy gains presented here are based current energy prices, measured over the period of one year.
Potable WaterPotable water analysis was based on water use per capita data from the City of Ottawa combined with information from the POLIS project on how potable water is used throughout the home.74 The total amount of water use for the pilot project area was calculated and then broken down into categories based on the POLIS information (i.e. water used for shower, kitchen, toilets etc.). Suggested interventions and their water use reduction potential were then applied to the baseline categories to determine an amount of water savings. The amount of water saved was then multiplied by the cost of this water to determine monetary savings. Energy savings were also determined by using data from the City of Ottawa regarding energy use for water pumping and transport.75 The various water use and costs amounts are measured over a single year.
StormwaterStormwater analysis was completed using the “Green Values Calculator” created by the Centre for Neighbourhood Technology.76 This tool enables the user to calculate potential savings from the implementation of stormwater infrastructure. The site area was calculated from orthophotos provided by Google. Then the square foot areas of specific interventions (green roofs, rain gardens, bio-swales, rain cisterns, trees and vegetation) were inputted to determine their potential for stormwater reduction. The stormwater values presented in the following analysis and the appendix are all the result of this tool and are presented over the time period of one year.
Page: 26Eco-Districts Ottawa
Energy Sources
As mentioned in the introduction, this pilot project focuses on two main areas for interventions: building energy use and water. The two specific types of energy sources for these main areas of intervention include natural gas and electricity. note: scaling up to the neighbourhood level would include other interventions such as transportation, which would expand energy sources to include oil for fuel.
The first energy source is natural gas, which is used in heating and domestic hot water systems of pilot project buildings. The second is electricity, which is used in the building’s lighting, mechanical and technological systems, and municipal infrastructure (primarily the pumping of potable water and stormwater). The electricity used in Ottawa comes from five main sources. Of these main sources, the majority of electricity is produced by nuclear power (55%) followed by hydropower (20.4%).77 Natural gas in Ottawa is primarily imported from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, with a small percentage produced locally in Ontario.78 Currently, most natural gas is produced using conventional drilling techniques. As conventional supplies become depleted new sources (like shale gas, located in Alberta and Ontario) with higher environmental risks will need to be extracted and refined.
Current Energy Consumption
The buildings involved in the Eco-District pilot project consume roughly 106,749 GJ over the course of a year.79 (please refer to table 18 for a breakdown of energy use by building type).
*Note: The total GJ of energy includes plug loads, heating, and mechanical.
As for stormwater management, the entire block receives approximately 83,377 cubic meters of precipitation per year.80 It requires 464,941 kWh of electricity to pump and treat this stormwater at a total cost to the city of $39,985. The energy use and cost figures were calculated using data provided by the City of Ottawa that states the city pays $0.48 per 1,000 litres for the energy required to pump and treat stormwater.81 In 2009, the City of Ottawa ranked itself in the red (based on an Green (good), Yellow (needs to be improved), Red (below average) System comparing Ottawa in the cooperative Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) among 15 Ontario municipalities). This designation means they are using 20% or more energy than the (continued on page28)
Building Type Energy Use by KwH Energy Use by GJ Total Energy Use (GJ)
Figure 19: Current/Baseline Building Energy Use of the Eco-District Pilot Project participants
Page: 27Eco-Districts Ottawa
Type: High-Rise
Ow
ner: Ottaw
a Comm
unity Housing
Year Built: 1972System
s: Electric baseboards, single-glazed w
indows, brick exte-
boilersTotal Energy U
se: 11,947 GJ
Total Energy Cost: $347,654Type: M
id-RiseO
wner: O
ttawa Com
munity H
ousingYear Built: 1977System
s:single-glazed w
indows, brick exte-
boilersTotal Energy U
se: 6,818 GJ
Total Energy Cost: $202,418
Type: Retail Complex
Ow
ner: Privately Ow
nedYear Built: 2000System
s: Natural gas H
VAC, electri-cal ventilation, double-glazed w
indows, stucco/brick exterior,
boilersTotal Energy U
se: 9,142 GJ
Total Energy Cost: $114,900
Type: Single Family H
ousesO
wner: Privately O
wned
Year Built: 1960sSystem
s: Electric baseboards, single-glazed w
indows, no w
eather
natural gas boilersTotal Energy U
se: 3,800 GJ
Total Energy Cost: $84,120
Type: Adult High School
Ow
ner: Ottaw
a-Carleton District
School BoardYear Built: 1967System
s: Natural gas H
VAC, electri-cal ventilation, double-glazed w
indows, stucco/brick exterior,
boilersTotal Energy U
se: 43,681 GJ
Total Energy Cost: $568,755
Type: Town H
ousesO
wner: O
ttawa Com
munity H
ousingYear Built: 1966System
s: Natural gas radiant heating,
single-glazed window
s, no weather -
cal hot water heaters
Total Energy Use: 31,350 G
JTotal Energy Cost: $401,760
Legend0-1950 G
J1951-6818 G
J6819-11,947 G
J11,948-18,202 G
J18,203-43,019 G
J
Total Energy Use: 106,749 G
JTotal G
HG
s: 4,333.70 tonnes/CO2
Current Energy Pro�le
Total Energy Use: 106,749 G
J
Total GH
Gs: 4,333.70 tonnes/CO
2
Figure 20: Current Eco-District Energy Use Profile
Page: 28Eco-Districts Ottawa
median for cities with a combined sewer system on wastewater collection/conveyance (meaning their system is inefficient and costly compared to these other Ontario cities).82
As for potable water use, total residential use for Ottawa is on average 235 litres per capita per day, from which we can estimate that the residential potable water use by Eco-District pilot project partner is 117,654 meters cubed per year83 (Note: intuitional water use is difficult to calculate and so the school and commercial complex have not been included in these interventions). The energy associated with pumping and treating this water is approximately 658,651 kWh.84 The chart below includes assumptions related to calculations of water use per household.
Proposed Energy Consumption
The proposed energy retrofit strategy for the Eco-District Pilot project participants includes a range of interventions focused on shifting the energy profile of the partner buildings and increasing overall building efficiency. The strategy includes the addition of high efficiency natural gas boilers to heating and domestic hot water systems, the replacement of electric baseboard heating with a centralized hydronic (steam) HVAC system, the installation of green roofs, general building envelope upgrades (including additional caulking and weather stripping), new double glazed windows systems, and new high efficiency lighting systems. (see table for all proposed building interventions). Upon completion of this retrofit strategy the energy used by the pilot project buildings will be approximately: 58,993 GJ of energy, which includes a combination of natural gas (still used in heating and hot water systems) and electricity (for plug loads, and heating, mechanical and lighting systems). (See table below for a breakdown of energy use by building type for the retrofit scenario).
Use Assumptions Units Total Water Use 470 litres per 2 person household/day 366 (2 person units) 172,020 litres per household per day
822 litres per 3 person household/day 160 (3 person units) 131,520 litres per household per day
940 litres per 4 person household/day 20 (4 person units -‐ single family homes) 18,800 litres per household per day
Total litres Per Day: 322,340.00 Total m3 per day: 322.34 Total m3 per year: 117,654.10
Figure 21: Current household potable water use of the Eco-District Pilot Project participants *Note: Assumptions based on a per capita yearly water use amount of 235 litres
Figure 22: Proposed Retrofit Building Energy Use of the Eco-District Pilot Project participants
*Note: The total GJ of energy includes plug loads, heating, and mechanical systems and converts kWh into GJ to enable simplified comparisons.
Building Type Energy Use by KwH Energy Use by GJ Total Energy Use (GJ)
Figure 23: Proposed Retrofit Building Energy Use of the Eco-District Pilot Project participants
Type: High-Rise
Ow
ner: Ottaw
a Comm
unity Housing
Systems: H
VAC, HRV, cooling, exte-
rior glazing, caulking, green roof, LED
lighting, natural gas boiler, faucet
Total Energy Savings: 3,002 GJ
Total Financial Savings: $185,730Payback Period: 11 years
Type: Mid-Rise
Ow
ner: Ottaw
a Comm
unity Housing
Systems:
cooling, exterior glazing, caulking, green roofs, LED
lighting, natural gas
toiletsTotal Energy Savings: 1,196 G
JTotal Financial Savings: $104,594Payback Period: 11 years
Type: Retail Complex
Ow
ner: Privately Ow
nedSystem
s: HVAC, H
RV, green roof, LED
lightingTotal Energy Savings: 3,449 G
JTotal Financial Savings: $35,816Payback Period: 12 years
Type: Single Family H
ousesO
wner: Privately O
wned
Systems: Electric heat pum
p, cool-ing, exterior glazing, insulation, LED
lighting, natural gas boiler, faucet
Total Energy Savings: 1,850 GJ
Total Financial Savings: $43,740Payback Period: 6 years
Type: Adult High School
Ow
ner: Ottaw
a-Carleton District
School BoardSystem
s: HVAC, H
RV, green roof, LED
lighting, rain cisternTotal Energy Savings: 25,482 G
JTotal Financial Savings: $264,956Payback Period: 7 years
Type: Town H
ousesO
wner: O
ttawa Com
munity H
ousingSystem
s:exterior glazing, insulation, natural gas boiler, electrical hot w
ater heater,
Total Energy Savings: 17,776 GJ
Total Financial Savings: $156,480Payback Period: 11 years
Legend0-1950 G
J1951-6818 G
J6819-11,947 G
J11,948-18,202 G
J18,203-43,019 G
J
Total Energy Use: 58,993 G
JTotal G
HG
s: 2,050.30 tonnes/CO2
Proposed Energy Pro�le
Total Energy Use: 58,993 G
J
Total GH
Gs: 2,050.30 tonnes/CO
2
Total Energy Saved: 47,756 G
J (44.7%
)
Page: 30Eco-Districts Ottawa
StormwaterWith the proposed program of stormwater retrofits, the total stormwater (for the project area) entering the combined sewer system will be reduced to 77,168.5 cubic meters (by a total of 6,209 cubic meters). This amount of stormwater will use 429,941 kWh of electricity to pump and treat. (See figure below with complete stormwater water interventions).
Potable Water
Residential potable water interventions include the addition of low flow fau-cets, showerheads and toilets and will lead to an annual use of 75,623 cubic meters per year, which equals 232,173 kWh in proposed energy use.
Total Energy Saved
BuildingsThe net energy savings of these retrofits will equal 47,756 GJ of energy (a 55% reduction in energy). (See table on the next page for a breakdown of savings by building type)
Interventions System Details Increase in Permeable Area
Runoff Volume Reduced
Green Roofs 6 inch Substrate. 45% absorption Rate 16,198.7 m2 41,568.3 m3
Rain Gardens (Created through landscaping, disconnected downspouts)
Xeriscaping and natural plants, 12'' soil depth 55% void ratio
3,318.5 m2 2,908.1 m3
Rain Cisterns (Rainwater Collection at High School)
1,000 Gallons, attached to downspout at High School 4.6 m2 9.5 m3
Vegetated Swales (Around high school field, along Highway)
Swales hold rainwater, soil at base is 12", 45% void ratio
3,483.8 m2 1,415.8 m3
Bioswales (reconfigured pubic green spaces, areas along roads, behind parking lots)
Swales hold rainwater, soil at base is 12", 45% void ratio
2,392.25 m2 90.2 m3
Trees and Vegitation200 Trees and Tree boxes
11.6 m2(av. Canopy/ 297.3 sq
ft tree boxes94.8 m3
Permeable Pavers (Sidewalks, school couryard, retail store sidewalks)
6" Concrete paving stones with 8" of aggregate below 1,231.4 m2 174.4 m3
Permeable Asphalt Void Ratio of 35%, 8'' of aggregate below asphalt 4,487.7 m2 525.3 m3
Total 31 414.5 m2 6 209.0 m3
Potable Water Eco-‐District Potable Water Use
Showers (m3/year) 22,648.25Toilets (m3/year) 14,118.00Laundry (m3/year) 23,530.82Kitching/Drinking (m3/year) 10,027Cleaning (m3/year) 5,851.00Total (m3/year) 76,175.07Energy Use (in kWh/year) 656,673
Figure 24: Proposed Stormwater Interventions including increase in permeable area, intervention details and runoff volume reduced. Calculation provided by the Green Values National Stormwater Management Calculator, Accessed at http://greenvalues.cnt.org/national/calculator?s=785.
Figure 25: Proposed Potable Water Interventions and residential water use amounts including increase in permeable area, intervention details and runoff volume reduced. Assumptions based on a per capital water use of 235 liters per day and calculations detailed in current potable water use section above.
Page: 31Eco-Districts Ottawa
Figure 26: Total Building Energy Savings from Proposed Retrofits for Eco-District Pilot Project Partners the Pilot Area
StormwaterAs mentioned earlier, the entire block receives approximately 2,944,451 cubic feet of precipitation. With the Low-Impact Development stormwater reduction retrofits, 219,269 cubic feet will be absorbed and treated naturally on site (a 7.6% total reduction in stormwater dumped into the combined sewer system), leading to an energy savings of 260 kWh in pumping and treating energy .
Potable WaterIn terms of potable water use, interventions on residential units reduce the consumption of potable water by 41,169 cubic meters, which will lead to net energy savings of 232,173 kWh.
All of these interventions lead to a total energy reduction (of the pilot projects participants and the entire site for stormwater) of 48,712 GJ. (See chart below for sector breakdown)
Figure 27: Total Stormwater runoff reductions for the Eco-District Pilot Project Area.
Figure 28: Total Potable water savings and reductions for residential participants in the Eco-District Pilot Project Area
Figure 29: Total energy savings for the Eco-District Pilot Project.
Page: 32Eco-Districts Ottawa
Sensitivity AnalysisThe following demonstrates the ability of the retrofit technologies to reduce energy use and provide energy savings. Even with a 20% loss in energy effi-ciency, the proposed technologies will still allow total project energy savings of 70,720 GJ.
GHG ReductionsThe current energy systems used in our pilot project area combine to produce approximately 4,333.70 tonnes of CO2 per year (917.7 tonnes from electric-ity and 3416 tonnes from natural gas). It should be noted that the majority of electricity in Ontario comes from nuclear and hydro, which have very minimal emissions (not including construction and decommission). Therefore, we calcu-lated the percentage of coal used in electrical generation, and then used that ratio to determine the amount of emissions in our pilot project as a result. The production of these emissions costs approximately $1,079,862.00 at a price of $300/tonne of CO2 for natural gas and $60/tonne of CO2 for electricity.85 Upon completion of the final retrofit, the energy used over the course of a year will be reduced by roughly 55%. This translates to approximately 2050.30 tonnes of CO2 per year,86 which can be monetized as costing $472,674.00 annually87 - see table below for a breakdown by building type of proposed energy use.
This equals to 2283.40 tonnes of CO2 savings per year,88 which can be mon-etized as $607,188 savings annually - see table 4 below for a breakdown of savings by building type.
Due to the project involving building systems that are constantly in use, there is no reason to believe that these GHG reductions will not occur on a yearly basis for at least fifteen years after the completion of construction and instal-lation. Therefore, over the first fifteen years after construction, this project will have saved 34,251 tonnes of CO2 and $9,107,820.89
Note: due to the scope of the proposed interventions and their varying life cycles (from light bulbs that may last up to 50,000 hours to hot water boilers that can be in use for thirty years) it is difficult to determine the life cycle GHG reductions of the entire project.90 The interventions all include technology that initially operates at high levels of efficiency, though obviously this performance may decrease over time, potentially leading to a decrease in GHG emission savings. However, we be-lieve our calculations to be accurate given the available data.
Ancillary Benefits
The ancillary benefits produced from the pilot project will accrue to the users of the area, along with some larger community benefits. These benefits can be broken down into two main categories: environmental and social.
Baseline Energy Use Optimal Retrofit Scenario 5% Efficiency Loss 10% Efficiency Loss 15% Efficiency Loss 20% Efficiency LossTotal 106,749 GJ 58,993 61,880 64,826 67,773 70,720
Figure 30: Energy Savings Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 31: GHG Calculations
Page: 33Eco-Districts Ottawa
Environmental• Reduction and/or elimination of PCBs in both the retail complex and adult school where fluorescent lighting is currently being used and would be replaced by high efficiency lighting• Improved building air quality through HVAC and HRV systems, which can impact individual health for the building users• Improved biodiversity through the addition of green roofs, native plants, trees, and bioswales as part of the stormwater. Over time, a greater variety of birds, mammals, and even amphibians will populate these newly green areas.• Possibility of urban agriculture on a number of the larger green roofs• Reduction in the “heat island effect” that is associated with high levels of impervious pavement leading to a cooler microclimate in the hot Ottawa summers• Improved urban watershed and estuary health• Reduction in stormwater, especially at times of heavy rainfall, which is added to the combined sewer system that will save not only money and energy, but also reduce stress on a system that overflows into the nearby Ottawa River• Diversion of stormwater to cisterns that be re-used in local gardens and lawns, reducing potable water use for activities that do not require that level of water purification• Decrease in impermeable area by 36.4% through low-impact development strategies to reduce stormwater run-off• Improved outdoor air quality through a reduction in GHGs
Social• Increased greenery and improved public space from stormwater reduc-tion strategies that will contribute aesthetically to the area, especially along streetscapes, which will encourage pedestrian activity and healthy commu-nities• Utilization of green roofs for urban agriculture and improved food security• Creation of environmental awareness and occupant behavior, which will be affected through consumer-friendly technologies such as smart meters, through an education/awareness campaign, and community involvement in the pubic engagement elements of this program• Increased green construction and management training and skill use (per-haps in collaboration with the Algonquin College program)• Attraction of outside direct investment into the retrofit projects and local businesses• Increased community interaction and partnerships towards a common goal
The majority of these benefits will affect the local community (residents and business owners) most directly, but have the potential to affect the greater Ottawa area, as well as those drawn to the area for its innovation.
Financial Analysis
Methods and Assumptions
As mentioned above the energy calculations were completed using the NRCAN Building Screening tool, which determines total building energy costs for heating and cooling, lighting and domestic hot water using a variety of inputs
Page: 34Eco-Districts Ottawa
that also include current energy costs.91 We have used the costs provided by this tool as the baseline operating costs and also to determine the retrofit cost savings.
Costs for the proposed interventions have been provided by a variety of sources, primarily within the construction industry and are based on available building data and current material prices.92 All attempts were made to ensure appropriate technologies were costed; however the interventions listed are based on general system attributes, system performance, and building conditions and not on detailed engineering studies of each specific building. Costs for potable water and stormwater treatment are based on current City of Ottawa pricing information. The Green Values Stormwater Calculator provided the construction costs for the stormwater interventions.93 The future energy pricing scenario assumed by the sensitivity analysis uses pricing scenarios provided by Canada’s National Energy Board.
Within the analysis the financial costs and savings will accrue to different project partners depending on the systems addressed: for building energy savings the benefits will accrue to the building owners, while the City of Ottawa will benefit from stormwater savings.
One Time Costs
The total one time construction costs associated with all building energy and potable water retrofits are $5,900,641.00, the costs for stormwater retrofits are $3,976,843. This results in a total project cost of $9,922,888 (see tables below for total building, and stormwater one time costs and the appendix for a fur-ther detailed cost breakdown).
Figure 32: Total one time costs for building energy and potable water retrofits.
Building Costs Ottawa Community Housing
Adult High School Retail Complex Single Family Home (Unit Cost) Pilot Project Total
Energy RetrofitsHVAC system -‐ High Rise 3,120,000.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 3,120,000.00$ Radiant Floor Heating -‐ Mid Rise 6,855.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 6,855.00$ Residential Heating Systems -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 1,200.00$ 24,000.00$ HRV Unit -‐$ 26,250.00$ 26,250.00$ -‐$ 52,500.00$
Residential Glazing 623,700.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 1,650.00$ 656,700.00$ Office and School Glazing -‐$ 12,000.00$ 8,000.00$ -‐$ 20,000.00$
Domestic Hot Water 20 storey 15,470.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 15,470.00$ Domestic Hot Water 6 storey 15,470.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 15,470.00$ Domestic Hot Water Townhouses
Figure 33: Total one time costs for municipal energy savings.
Other one-time costs include: $200,000 for 3-4 experienced staff from a con-sulting team who would work during the first year to set up the project, in-cluding initial research and analysis (including energy base lining), finding opportunities for funding, partnerships and energy reduction technologies, and community organizing. Beyond the money to the consulting team for community consultation costs, an additional $5,000 will be dedicated for materials, space rental, and other costs associated with consulting activities. Additionally around $15,000 - $20,000 will be needed for materials related to reporting and program promotion costs ($5,000), labour to be provided by the community energy officer, and $10,000 to starting an education program (part-time employee).
Total one-time costs: $10,147,888
On-going Costs
On-going costs will include maintenance, inspections, and monitoring. Also, the community energy officer established as part of the BIA structure, will be an on-going cost, but also a local asset to the neighborhood, especially if and/or when this project expands.
1. Community Energy Officer (community support and monitoring progress): $60,000/year 2. Secretary of BIA (.25 FTE, sharing with BIA): $7,500/year3. Inspections will be incorporated into the larger City of Ottawa budgets for building inspections.4. Maintenance: This is difficult to price out; some elements of this pilot project will require more maintenance, such as the stormwater improvements, which require 9% increase in maintenance costs, however overall savings should counter this. Specialized knowledge will be required to maintain HRV systems and the green roofs, which would require around a $10,000 bump in salary for two maintenance worker for school and commercial building, and one addi-tional maintenance person for OCH ($40,000). Equipment replacement costs should not exceed regular maintenance costs before retrofit.
StormwaterGreen Roof 2,414,484.64$ Landscaping for Rain Gardens 255,850.00$ Rain Cisterns 2,725.00$ Vegetated Swales 72,500.00$ Bioswales 57,500.00$ Trees and Vegetation 760,000.00$ Permeable Pavers 248,048.00$ Permeable Asphalt 171,515.00$
Total Costs: 3,982,622.64$
Page: 36Eco-Districts Ottawa
Total Cost Scenario
Year 1: Program establishment• $200,000 for 3-4 experienced staff (consultants) • $60,000 for Community Energy Officer• $7,500 BIA administration• $5,000 community consultation costs
Total Year 1: $272,500
Year 2-3: Construction• $9,922,888 construction costs• $60,000 Community Energy Officer• $7,500 BIA administration
Total Year 2: $6,517,377 (based on an estimate of 65% of the construction completed in the first year)Total Year 3: $3,540,510 (based on an estimate of 35% of the construction completed in the first year)
Year 4+: Maintenance and Monitoring• $60,000 (new worker, plus bump in maintenance salary x2)• $60,000 Community Energy Officer• $7,500 BIA administration• $15,000-$20,000 Reporting, materials related to promotion of program, and starting an education campaign
Total Year 4: $147,000Total Year 5+: $127,000
Annual Savings
Building retrofitsBased on the proposed interventions, current energy rates, pilot project build-ing types, and participants the total annual savings are $781,316 in building energy costs. (See the table below for a detailed breakdown of building energy cost savings broken down by building types). These cost savings will accrue to building owners including OCH, the OCSB and owners of the private commer-cial building and the single-family homes.
Figure 34: Building Energy Cost Savings by Building Type
Potable waterAnnual potable water savings will average out to $54,343.00 and accrue to resi-dential customers (OCH and single-family home owners). Since these reduc-tions are based on yearly potable water consumption, they will remain con-stant, or increase with changes in water prices. For the municipality the energy (and costs) saved from the pumping of potable water will total $20,907.00 per year. Since these savings are also measured on a per year basis, they will remain constant, or even increase with rising energy prices.
FIgure 35: Potable Water Savings for residential users and the municipality
StormwaterThe cost of the stormwater low-impact development upgrades is significant ($3,976,843) and with minimal annual savings for the municipality ($3,010), it is difficult to make a case for how these interventions pay back to the municipality (payback period of 1,293 years on this investment with current annual savings), even with the one-time erosion control savings ($84,000). However, as mentioned above, the savings from implementing stormwater management best practices could be up to $3 million compared to traditional underground stormwater management strategies used by other Canadian cities. Additionally, the great number of ancillary benefits (see Environmental and Social Benefits sections above) are hard to assign a monetary value to, which will also contribute greatly, including limiting/reducing the number of overflow events into the Ottawa River, which has been a key municipal and provincial focus in terms of policy and funding.
Sensitivity AnalysisAs has proven to be true with companies working on localized retrofit initiatives in the United States, the higher the costs of energy, the deeper the overall savings will be. This sensitivity analysis considers the performance of our proposed interventions against future energy pricing scenarios. The energy costs are represented as a total cost, which combines electricity and natural gas and assumes static consumption amounts over the period of one year. See the detailed analysis in Appendix.
Chart 1: Future Energy Savings (Increased Pricing Scenarios) For detailed sensitivity analysis see attached Eco-‐District Energy and Cost Data spreadsheet i Stormwater infrastructure costs estimated by Green Values Stormwater Calculator Accessed at http://greenvalues.cnt.org/ (retrieved March, 2012) ii Energy use, and costs are also based off of municipal numbers provided for cost per $1,000 litres pumped for the city in 2010, found at http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/sewer_septic/treatment/treatment/index.html, retrieved on March 29, 2012. iii These numbers are based off of calculations collected and prepared in Tomalty, R and Komorowski, B. (2010). The Monetary Value of the Soft Benefits of Green Roofs. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. iv These numbers are based off of calculations collected and prepared in Tomalty, R and Komorowski, B. (2010). The Monetary Value of the Soft Benefits of Green Roofs. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Note: $6.6 million is the estimated cost for storing the equal amount of stormwater (219,269 cf) in an underground reservoir, which some cities such as Montreal and Toronto have put in in order to retain stormwater during heavy rainfall. Stormwater piping would be a fraction of this cost, but still significant, meaning that $3million dollars of LID stormwater investment would save the city around $3 million dollars over an underground reservoir. v City of Ottawa. (2010). Ottawa River Action Plan. Available at http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_water/tlg/alw/brs/orap/index.html (retrieved on March 19, 2012) vi Personal communication, Llewelyn Wells, Living City Block, March 2012 vii Canada’s National Energy Board “Canada’s Energy Future: Reference Case and Scenarios to 2030” Accessed at: http://www.neb-‐one.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2007/fctsht0738ntrlgs-‐eng.html (retrieved March, 2012)
Figure 36: Future Energy Savings (Increased Pricing Scenarios)
Page: 38Eco-Districts Ottawa
Net Present Value (NPV)
NPV is calculated by bringing ongoing costs back to a net present value using an accepted discount rate. This allows a comparison of the overall costs with the overall savings from the project. The net present value for this project was calculated using an 8% discount rate. A comparison of the net present value of costs and savings for each building owner was calculated to understand payback periods for the individual building owners. The over all project payback period will be 14 years with the appropriate amounts of funding subsidizing initial costs. Please refer to the appendix for detailed charts of each Building Owner’s NPV payback period. It was decided not to aggregate a block-level payback period because some of the buildings have a significantly shorter payback period (e.g. the adult high school and the single family homes), whereas the OCH high-rises have a much longer payback period. Since the savings will not be dispersed evenly, this would misrepresent the results.
Financing Scenario
An aggregate comparison of costs and savings can be a bit misleading, since some building types will require more expensive upgrades that have a smaller payouts than others. The following table (table 9) shows the payback periods for the individual building owners, and it becomes clear that upfront funding will make a big difference for many of these building owners. With sufficient funding, the overall project should have a total payback period of 14 years.
In order to finance a large retrofit project, the Eco-District Project will employ two different financing schemes: the first is targeted at large building owners (OCH, OCSD, and commercial stakeholders) and is designed to enable the financing of large and complex retrofit projects. The payback scheme will be based on the success of the project in reducing energy consumption and connected savings. This allows the transfer of risk associated with the project from the building owner onto the ESCO.
Traditionally this has been done in Ottawa and throughout Canada with large ESCOs (e.g. Honeywell, Ameresco, Direct Energy and Siemens have financed projects in Ottawa specifically), however the potential to create a localized or community based utility exists. Living City Block has done this successfully across the US. This financing scheme would depend on third party or outside funders for initial start up costs, but would operate in the same manner as the large ESCOs, where the Eco-District administrative/governance structure would
Financing Scenario: An aggregate comparison of costs and savings can be a bit misleading, since some building types will require more expensive upgrades that have a smaller payouts than others. The following table (table 9) shows the payback periods for the individual building owners, and it becomes clear that upfront funding will make a big difference for many of these building owners. With sufficient funding, the overall project should have a total payback period of 14 years.
Table 12: Estimated Payback Period for Individual Building Owners Note: the 3 million dollar heating system for OCH affects the payback period greatly, which may not pay out efficiently enough to be worth the investment, removing this system would lower OCH payback period to below 10 years without any funding help. In order to finance a large retrofit project, the Eco-‐District Project will employ two different financing schemes: the first is targeted at large building owners (OCH, OCSD, and commercial stakeholders) and is designed to enable the financing of large and complex retrofit projects. The payback scheme will be based on the success of the project in reducing energy consumption and connected savings. This allows the transfer of risk associated with the project from the building owner onto the ESCO. Traditionally this has been done in Ottawa and throughout Canada with large ESCOs (e.g. Honeywell, Ameresco, Direct Energy and Siemens have financed projects in Ottawa specifically), however the potential to create a localized or community based utility exists.i Living City Block has done this successfully across the US. This financing scheme would depend on third party or outside funders for initial start up costs, but would operate in the same manner as the large ESCOs, where the Eco-‐District administrative/governance structure would find the financing and manage the debt/payback through energy savings.ii The second financing scenario is targeted at owners of single-‐family homes and uses the Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits (P.A.P.E.R.) funding model.iii PAPER offers homeowners longer financing terms and larger amounts than traditional bank loans. It allows neighbourhood programs access to bulk purchasing power and rates. The financing is associated with the property and does not affect homeowner’s personal credit as the any charges or debts remain with the property. Charges are then repaid through a temporary fee on the property tax bill. The total cost of our retrofit suggestions for single-‐family homes is estimated to be $5,206.00 and have a payback period of approximately 4.5 years. Depending on incentives
Owner Total Retrofit Cost
Savings (annually)
Funding (goal) Estimated Payback Period
OCH $5.05M $436,804
$1.5 -‐ 2 M
19 years (w/o funding) 11 – 14 years (w/funding)
OCSD $925,010 $264,956
6 years (w/o funding)
Commercial Building
$256,170 $54,822 $75,000
15 years (w/o funding) 11 years (w/funding)
Figure 37: Estimated Payback Period for Individual Building OwnersNote: the 3 million dollar heating system for OCH affects the payback period greatly, which may not pay out efficiently enough to be worth the investment, removing this system would lower OCH payback period to below 10 years without any funding help.
Page: 39Eco-Districts Ottawa
find the financing and manage the debt/payback through energy savings.
The second financing scenario is targeted at owners of single-family homes and uses the Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits (P.A.P.E.R.) funding model. PAPER offers homeowners longer financing terms and larger amounts than traditional bank loans. It allows neighbourhood programs access to bulk purchasing power and rates. The financing is associated with the property and does not affect homeowner’s personal credit as the any charges or debts remain with the property. Charges are then repaid through a temporary fee on the property tax bill.
The total cost of our retrofit suggestions for single-family homes is estimated to be $5,206.00 and have a payback period of approximately 4.5 years. Depending on incentives and funding available, the total cost to each homeowner could also be lowered and the PAPER program used to extend repayment through an increase in annual property taxes.
Subsidies, Incentives and Funding
There are many federal, provincial and municipal levels of funding. Once of the biggest sources of funding comes from the Federation of Candian Municipalities, which funds projects like this all over Canada. Additionally, several not-for-profit and for organizations have provided funding/charitable donations to retrofit or sustainable projects in the past, including:
TD Friends of the EnvironmentTides CanadaCanadian TireRonaOttawa Community Foundation
Funding through a local improvement tax (similar and/or in addition to the BIA funding system, expanding to include residents as well as businesses) will also be a source of money for the energy officer and the initial consulting fees. Other incentives from the City of Ottawa could come through policy changes (e.g., adopting a Stormwater Best Practices Guide and incentives). Please see the appendix for an example of funding available for this pilot project in Ontario.
Support
Politically, this project aligns well with the City of Ottawa vision and long-term goals, as well as the new regional growth project Choosing Our Future, which includes an explicit energy management and reduction plan. With this new plan, there has been, and will continue to be, some adjustments made within the City to adapt to new goals and strategies. Most significant to this project so far has been the choice to remove the Community Sustainability Department, the bureaucrats working in this department being shuffled and absorbed into the other existing departments (e.g. Economic Development Branch or Planning
Political Analysis
Page: 40Eco-Districts Ottawa
and Growth Management Department). This reorganization could impact the feasibility of this project. However, many of the elements built into this project directly align with specific recommendations within Choosing Our Future, and will create an opportunity for the City of Ottawa to be directly involved as a partner in the actual implementation of energy reduction strategies on the ground. Other political (and hopefully financial) support may come from the federal government, which has a number of large older office buildings that would benefit from retrofits.
Other support comes from a strong Community Association and Business Improvement Area network within the City of Ottawa, many of which have been working towards community energy and green strategies (e.g. green roofs in the Hintonburg neighborhood pushed by the Wellington West Business Improvement Association and increased active transportation infrastructure by the Dalhousie Community Association). These groups generally represent the local residential and business communities.
Finally, other social and affordable housing groups, or large residential building owners may be in support of a project like this that demonstrate the feasibility, and profitability of retrofit projects.
Opposition
Innovative projects are always susceptible to opposition. Members of the community may not agree with taxpayer dollars being spent on an experiment, and some of the financial, environmental, and social benefits may not be readily apparent. Depending on the local tax-financing scheme chosen to raise funds for a community energy officer, etc. there could be some local opposition to a small localized increase in taxes (e.g. small property tax increases in designated ‘Eco-Districts to help pay for staff and municipal interventions). Additionally, making changes to large-scale city infrastructure tends to make engineers and mechanics uncomfortable, and could lead to push-back from their departments.
Some of the residents in the Ottawa Community Housing buildings may be opposed to this project, simply because it may cause some disruptions during construction. Also, it can be politically challenging for residents of OCH to have agency over a project of this scale, and could be misinterpreted by the greater public, especially some of the more costly investments to the surrounding environment (e.g. stormwater landscaping improvements).
Additionally, there could be pushback from the construction industry, if it seems like development favors a certain type skillset (e.g., green building technology), or if retrofits are given favor over new construction projects.
Increasing Project Support
If this project undertakes the appropriate level of citizen engagement, and develops a successful governance structure/partnership structure, this project should be able to align itself to community goals, which will eliminate most local opposition. As a program, this should only be implemented in an area with strong grass roots and community organizations, which are excited to do a project like this. Part of the reason the West Centretown area was chosen for the pilot project was due to a strong local Business Improvement Association
Page: 41Eco-Districts Ottawa
and Community Association, as well as an eagerness on the part of the OCH and other partners to be a part of a retrofit project. Opposition may slow a project like this, but it will not stall the project with the levels of support it has.
According to Living City Block, their main focus is always on energy because that is where the measurable impacts and payback are. The main messages that should be put forth for building support for this pilot project should focus on the fiscal benefits of retrofits, because that is what people respond to most. If residents and owners can see beyond the large upfront costs and towards the long-term savings, this project will be a success. Additionally, the ancillary benefits noted before should be communicated.
As discussed earlier under the section on Scope, this project was designed specifically for its transferability and scalability. Once the pilot project has established one year of sufficient savings, the program will be ready to be scaled up to a district level. From there, other cities can see the positive results and begin implementing their own eco-districts. Other cities in Canada should be able to use this program framework to establish a tailored Eco-Districts (your city name here) (e.g. Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton). This type of project has been proven successful at a variety of scales and in a variety of climates, including:
• Living City Block (Denver, CO, Brooklyn, NY and Washington, DC) and initial research started in El Paso, TX• EcoDISTRICTS Portland (Oregon)• Green Impact Zone of Missouri• EcoCity Cleveland (Ohio)• Toronto Mayor’s initiatives on highrise retrofits (Ontario)• Seattle 2030 (Washington)
These iterations demonstrate the transferability of this project to other climates, at different scales and geographies. The single greatest transferability influencing factor, however, is energy prices, and therefore places where electricity prices are low (e.g. Quebec), will have limited savings, leading to greater payback periods, which limits the monetary incentives of investing in retrofits. Due to low electricity prices – often used for heating and lighting, this type of project would probably have a hard time gaining traction in the Province of Quebec, however similar natural gas and oil prices to Ontario and the rest of Canada means this project is still feasible, the case is just not as strong as other parts of the country.
Additionally, this project requires a mixed-use area to be successful. A collaboration of stakeholders keeps costs down. Bigger commercial and institutional buildings have the possibility to create more energy than they use at different times of day than residential uses, thus being able to contribute to the surrounding residential buildings in a systems approach (e.g. district energy, or energy cascading). Therefore, suburban and small rural areas may not be suitable for project such as this.
When identifying a possible Eco-District, the following criteria should be
Transferability and Scalability
Page: 42Eco-Districts Ottawa
considered (adapted from Living City Block’s Evaluation and Stage Gates for New Living City Blocks and the P+OSI EcoDISTRICTS Framework Concept):
• Strong potential partner(s) on the ground (e.g. community associations or BIAs)• Strong grass-roots/community organizations (e.g. an interested and involved community)• Potential champion(s) within the city government (bureaucrats and/or councillors)• Electricity costs of at least 11 cents per kWh • Neighborhoods with:
o Mixed-use (totally residential neighborhoods do not have the energy diversity to be very successful in a project like this)o Several key building owners willing to commit to the projecto A minimum of 600,000 square feet of available existing building o Local interest in district energy, water and waste solutions
The each phase of an Eco-District project will face a variety of challenges (that can be broken down into three main categories: technical, economic and social/political) and below the issues are presented for both the pilot project and the full Eco-District program:
Pilot Project Challenges
Technical• Specific retrofit technologies may not be appropriate for specific buildings, especially if any buildings require additional structural evaluations and upgrades.• Some potential retrofits are technologically complex systems and require additional maintenance and end user knowledge. Replacement costs are also likely to be higher in retrofit systems.• Retrofit technologies are developing rapidly and the pilot project must ensure their new systems are flexible and allow for expansions that will further improve performance.• Certain retrofit systems have physical space requirements (particularly for combined heat and power, geothermal or multi-unit residential waste) that may not be feasible in the pilot project area.• Energy, water and waste data may be difficult to secure, making initial benchmarking difficult. This may also affect the final choice of a retrofit system.• Certain interventions may need to tie into existing municipal infrastructure systems or the electrical grid, requiring technical cooperation between different agencies.
Economic• Replacement costs for more efficient systems are likely to be high (especially in the older buildings in the pilot project that may require additional structural improvements), and may not be justified by current energy, water or waste
Challenges and Risks
Page: 43Eco-Districts Ottawa
disposal pricing.• Appropriate funding may not be available at the right time to support either research and development or construction and installation, or the specific project partner affected.• Costs of retrofit technologies are still high, and have not lowered by very much despite increased uptake in recent years. Replacement and maintenance costs for these newer systems are also likely to be higher and more complex systems often require additional maintenance.• Budget sharing among participants may be difficult, especially if one project partner has access to more funding options than others.• Some proposed interventions (specifically those around stormwater) have high costs and despite providing numerous ancillary benefits have long economic payback periods.
Social and Political• Capacity of Local agencies – City of Ottawa and Ottawa Community Housing have been enthusiastic partners during the development of this project, but may not have the financial or administrative capacity to sustain the project over the long term.• Community buy-in for the entire project may be difficult to achieve, especially if additional funding options are not available and energy prices remain static.• Other neighbourhoods in Ottawa that did not have the opportunity to be involved in the pilot Eco-District Project may provide some opposition.• Some of the interventions (specifically around stormwater) have higher costs and provide highly localized benefits; these costs could also be a source of opposition from other neighbourhoods and citizens.• It may be difficult to locate a team of consultants with experience in starting this kind of block level sustainability project. Additional challenges around finding staff or contractors will appropriate skill sets may occur throughout the project.
Full Eco-District Program Challenges
(Note: the challenges from the pilot project are similar to those in the program, and thus have not been repeated)
Technical • Determining appropriate retrofit technologies will be a challenge regardless of Eco-District partners or building types. Additional structural upgrades may be necessary and additional resources will needed to do structural studies and evaluations.• Certain retrofit systems have physical space requirements that may not be possible in an Eco-District.• Waste systems are often controlled by the municipality or are contracted out to the private sector, which may make small-scale management or technological changes difficult. • In Ottawa OC Transpo controls the public transportation system for the entire city and potential service increases or system upgrades may be difficult to secure, depending on the location, population and existing service levels of the Eco-District. OC Transpo should be considered a key stakeholder when deciding on a new Eco-District location.• Energy, water and waste data may be difficult to secure, making initial benchmarking difficult. This may also affect the final choice of a retrofit system.• Certain interventions may need to tie into existing municipal infrastructure
Page: 44Eco-Districts Ottawa
systems or the electrical grid, requiring technical cooperation between different agencies.• Eco-Districts may contain sites targeted for redevelopment (eg brownfields) that have contamination or pollution challenges.• Skilled consultants or labourers may not be locally available in Eco-District neighbourhoods.
Economic• As the number of potential project partners increases, they may be in conflict for certain sources of funding and depend increasingly on municipal budgets (especially if OC Transpo, the City of Ottawa and OCH are all key project partners). Additionally budget sharing among participants may be difficult, especially if not all project partners have access to the same level of funding or rebate programs.• Depending on the proposed interventions, Eco-Districts may not have access to bulk purchasing power, placing increased financial burdens on project partners.• The suggested financing model for single-family homes (PAPER ) is still relatively untested in Canada and may present some logistical and administrative challenges. The suggested model for multi-residential, commercial and institutional financing (performance based financing model) has also not been used in this kind of multi-stakeholder retrofit project and may need some modifications to be applicable to the Eco-District framework.
Social and Political• Capacity of local agencies – City of Ottawa recently disbanded the Community Sustainability program and may face capacity issues as the Eco-District grows, other potential partners like OC Transpo, local Business Improvement Associations, and community groups are likely project partners, but may not have the financial or administrative capacity to sustain the project over the long term.• Local utilities providers (like Hydro Ottawa) could be important project partners, but may be reluctant to get involved in projects on such a small scale, or provide different rate structures and incentives to small areas.• Community buy-in for an entire Eco-District project program may be difficult to achieve, and will depend on potential retrofit technologies, energy savings, available funding options, expanded transit and community benefits funding options. Project support may be contingent on ensuring these benefits for all participants, something that may be difficult with changing energy prices and rebate structures.• Some of the interventions (specifically around stormwater) have higher costs and provide highly localized benefits; these costs could also be a source of opposition from other neighbourhoods and citizens.• A large part of the overall program is focused on the end user and lifestyle changes, though the project will have a strong education component, the Eco-District program may not be successful in achieving these.• Communication with such a wide variety of stakeholders and project partners will be difficult, especially since the large program involves numerous phases around a variety of different topics, issues and interventions.• Eco-Districts are high-risk projects for the city (e.g. neighbourhoods could use a failed project against the city, causing municipal officials to lose control of the program).• Eco-Districts require staff and consultants with specific technical skills that may be difficult to find locally and may result in additional training program costs.
Page: 45Eco-Districts Ottawa
The overall objective of this project was to outline the possibility of an Eco-District program in Canada. This project took a systems-based, retrofit approach to creating more sustainable communities, with a goal of being comprehensive and innovative, while remaining realistic in the Canadian context.
The Eco-District program we put forward calls for a reduction in building energy use, more efficient water and waste systems, maximization of land efficiency, creation of healthy communities, and creation of green jobs. We believe these goals were well addressed in the pilot project outlined. In addition, this pilot project and program have a very clear and very large reduction in energy use, as well as a number of ancillary benefits that affect the city as a whole. Overall, we highly recommend the implementation of this pilot project, and the expansion to a full Eco-District after the pilot project’s success.
Conclusion
Page: 46Eco-Districts Ottawa
Sources
1.Bennett, R. (2009). EcoDISTRICTS Framework Concept for Metro Portland. Portland Sustainability Institute, www.pdxinstitute.org/ecodistricts.2.Living City Block (2012) About Living City Block. Retrieved from http://www.livingcityblock.org/about-2/about/ (Accessed February-April 2012)3.Capital Regional District (2012). Low Impact Development Overview. Ac-cessed at: http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/lid/4.City of Ottawa. (2003) City of Ottawa Official Plan, a Component of the Ot-tawa 2020: Growth Management Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/ottawa2020/official_plan/vol_1/in-dex.html (accessed on February 19, 2012).5.Choosing our Future (2012) “Principles and Goals” Accessed at: http://choos-ingourfuture.ca/aboutus/principles_goals_en.html6.Ontario Power Authority (2010) “Micro Feed-In Tariff Program: Program Overview” Available for download at: http://microfit.powerauthority.on.ca/7.City of Ottawa (2012). About Us. Retrieved from http://ottawa.com/about/faq_e.shtml#whatIs, Retrieved on February 19, 2012.8.Environment Canada (2012). Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000: Ottawa, Onatario. National Climate Data and Information Archive. Retrieved from http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=4337&lang=e&dCode=1&StationName=OTTAWA&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12, (accessed on February, 19, 2012)9.Environment Canada (2012). Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000: Ottawa, Onatario. National Climate Data and Information Archive. Retrieved from http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=4337&lang=e&dCode=1&StationName=OTTAWA&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12, (accessed on February, 19, 2012)10.City of Ottawa Department of Infrastructure Services (2010) Map of Com-bined Sewer Overflow Events. Accessed at http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_wa-ter/water_sewer/sewer_septic/collection/sewer_overflows/index.html (February, 2012)11.Legislative Assemby of Ontario (2009) Bill 150: Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Retrieved from http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?BillID=2145, (Accessed in February, 2012)12.Choosing our Future (2012) “Principles and Goals” Accessed at: http://choosingourfuture.ca/aboutus/principles_goals_en.html13.All Growth Management Plans found at City of Ottawa (2012) Ottawa 20/20 Growth Management Plans: http://www.ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/plan-ningprojectsreports/ottawa2020/index.html14.Public Works and Services (2004), Report to Planning and Environment Committee. Retrieved from http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/04-11/pec/ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0006.htm accessed in February 201215.City of Ottawa (2009). Infrastructure Master Plan: a Component of the Ottawa 2020: Growth Management Strategy retrieved from http://www.ot-tawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/master_plans/imp/index.html retrieved in February 201216.City of Ottawa (2010). Ottawa River Action. Retrieved from http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/tlg/alw/brs/orap/, accessed in February, 2012
Page: 47Eco-Districts Ottawa
17.Social Planning Council of Ottawa (2012). Building Greener Futures To-gether. Retrieved from http://www.spcottawa.on.ca/building_greener_eng (accessed in February 2012)18.City of Ottawa. (2003) City of Ottawa Official Plan, a Component of the Ot-tawa 2020: Growth Management Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/ottawa2020/official_plan/vol_1/in-dex.html (accessed on February 19, 2012).19.City of Ottawa (2012). Community Design Plans. Retrieved from http://ot-tawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/planning/community_plans/index.html, (accessed in February, 2012)20.Natural Resources Canada (2006) “Integrated Community Energy Solutions – A Roadmap for Action” – Accessed at http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/cem-cme/1217821.Natural Resources Canada “Moving Forward on Energy Efficiency in Can-ada: A Foundation for Action: Transportation” Accessed at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/energy-efficiency/council-energy-ministers/878#ftn3222.Natural Resources Canada “Moving Forward on Energy Efficiency in Can-ada: A Foundation for Action: Transportation” Accessed at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/energy-efficiency/council-energy-ministers/878#ftn3223.Saad Al-Homoud, Mohammad “Computer-aided building energy analysis techniques” Building and Environment vol 36 issue 4 2001 pg 421-43324.Statistics Canada (2007) Type of main heating fuel used, by province, 2007 retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-526-s/2010001/t002-eng.htm25.Personal Communication, Llewelyn Wells, March 28, 201226.Ministry of Energy (5/2008), Electricity Information. http://www.investinon-tario.com/siteselector/oout_507.asp27.Province of Ontario (2009) “Ontario’s Coal Phase Out Plan” Retrieved from http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2009/09/ontarios-coal-phase-out-plan.html, accessed in April 201228.Ministry of Energy (5/2008), Electricity Information. Accessed at - http://www.investinontario.com/siteselector/oout_507.asp29.U.S. Energy Information Administration. “How much electricity is lost in transmission and distribution in the United States?” http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3 (accessed January 2730.Ontario Power Authority “Connecting, Metering and Settlement” Accessed at: http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/connection-metering-and-settlement31.Statistics Canada (2007) Type of main heating fuel used, by province, 2007 retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-526-s/2010001/t002-eng.htm32.City of Ottawa (2004) Inventory of Air Contaminants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accessed at: http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/12-07/pec/ACS2007-PTE-ECO-0015.htm33.Personal Communication, David Miller, February 201234.American Association of Landscape Architects, Sustainable Residential Design: Improving Water Efficiency, Accessed at: http://www.asla.org/wateref-ficiency.aspx35.Portland Oregon Sustainability Institute (2012). EcoDistricts. Retrieved from http://www.pdxinstitute.org/index.php/ecodistricts, accessed February-April 201236.South Waterfront (2012). Retrieved from http://www.southwaterfront.com, accessed February-April 201237.Portland Oregon Sustainability Institute (2012). Publications. Retrieved from http://www.pdxinstitute.org/index.php/publications, accessed February-
Page: 48Eco-Districts Ottawa
April 201238.Portland Sustainability Institute. (2011). EcoDistricts Toolkit v1.1: Financing an EcoDistrict. Accessed February 20, 2012, from www.pdxinstitute.org/eco-districts39.Living City Block (2012) About Living City Block.40.Personal communication, Llewelyn Wells, Living City Block, March 2012.41.ibid.42.Bennett, R. (2009). EcoDISTRICTS Framework Concept for Metro Portland. Portland Sustainability Institute, www.pdxinstitute.org/ecodistricts.43.ibid.44.Personal communication, Llewelyn Wells, Living City Block, March 2012.45.City of Ottawa (2012). Ottawa’s Business Improvement Areas. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://ottawa.ca/en/licence_permit/business/sup-port/bia/46.ibid.47.City of Ottawa (2012). Planning and Infrastructure Portfolio. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/policiesadministra-tion/charts/infra/index.html48.Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2012). Best Practices Municipal Sus-tainability Planning. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://fcm.ca/home/resources/multimedia/best-practices-municipal-sustainability-planning.htm49.Kooshian, Chuck, & Winkelman, Steve (2011). Growing Wealthier. Center for Clean Air Policy.50.ibid.51.ibid.52.Smart Growth Canada Network (2012). 10 Principles of Smart Growth. Ac-cessed February-April 2012, from http://www.smartgrowth.ca/home_e.html53.Energy Services Association of Canada (2012). Case Studies. Retrieved on March 30, 2012, from http://energyservicesassociation.ca/case-studies/54.Energy Services Association of Canada (2012). Perfromance. Retrieved on March 30, 2012, from http://energyservicesassociation.ca/performance-based-solutions/55.Energy Services Association of Canada (2012). Case Studies.56.ibid.57.Personal communication, Llewelyn Wells, Living City Block, March 2012.58.David Suzuki Foundation. (2011) Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits and Other Financing Options. David Suzuki Foundation and Sustain-able Alternatives Consulting, Inc. available at http://www.sustainable-alterna-tives.ca/PAPER_collaboration.htm59.Green Dot North America (2012). Accessed February-April 2012, from http://www.greendot.ca/60.US Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Stormwater Program. Ac-cessed February-April 2012, from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=661.Ottawa Community Housing (2012). Accessed February-April 2012, from http://www.och.ca/62.Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. (2012). Access February-April 2012, from from http://www.ocdsb.ca/Pages/default.aspx 63.City of Ottawa . City of Ottawa Water Pricing Rates. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/billing/understand-ing/fee_changes/index.html64.Choosing our Future (2012)65.City of Ottawa . City of Ottawa Water Pricing Rates. Accessed February-April 2012.
Page: 49Eco-Districts Ottawa
66.David Miller, City of Ottawa, Personal Communication, February 201267.Marsalek, J. and Schreier H. (2009). Innovative Stormwater Management in Canada: The Way Forward. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, Vol. 44 (1), v – x.68.David Miller, City of Ottawa, Personal Communication, February 201269.Alex Aylett, International Centre for Sustainable Cities, Personal Communi-cation, March 2012. 70.Green Values (2012). National Stormwater Management Calculator. Ac-cessed February-April 2012, from http://greenvalues.cnt.org/national/calcula-tor.php71.National Resources Canada. Screening Tool. Accessed April 2, 2012, from http://screen.nrcan.gc.ca/72.Stephen Pope, Natural Resources Canada, Personal Communications, March 201273.National Resources Canada. Screening Tool.74.City of Ottawa. (2012). Choosing our Future: Waste and Wastewater. Ac-cessed February-April 2012, from http://choosingourfuture.ca/resources/foundation_papers/water_en.html; City of Ottawa (2012). Water Consump-tion. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_wa-ter/water_sewer/water_wells/conservation/consumption/index.html75.City of Ottawa. Wastewater treatment. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/sewer_septic/treatment/treat-ment/index.html76.Green Values (2012).77. Hydro Ottawa. 2012. Your Bill. Accessed February 20, 2012, from https://www.hydroottawa.com/residential/index.cfm?lang=e&template_id=2478.Province of Ontario: Ministry of Energy. Ontario’s Electricity System. Ac-cessed March 29, 2012, from http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ontarios-elec-tricity-system/79.This figure includes all building energy use (plug loads, heating, cooling, lighting, mechanical and auxiliary systems) and presents electricity (originally measured in kilowatt hours) and natural gas combined into a single amount of gigajoules for simplified comparisons and analysis.80.National Climate Archive. Information for the City of Ottawa. Accessed February-April 2012, from http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate-Data/canada_e.html81.Energy use and cost based off of municipal numbers provided for cost per $1,000 litres pumped for the city in 2010. Provided by the City of Ottawa, accessed March 29, 2012, from http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/sewer_septic/treatment/treatment/index.html82.City of Ottawa. 2009 City of Ottawa Results Dashboard. Accessed March, 2012, from http://www.ottawa.ca83.Choosing our Future (2012)84.Energy use and cost based off of municipal numbers provided for cost per $1,000 litres pumped for the city in 2010. Provided by the City of Ottawa, accessed March 29, 2012, from http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/sewer_septic/treatment/treatment/index.html85.Waltham, Chris, Tymos, Brittany (2010). Comparing Energy and Heat Units. UBC. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/comparing-energy-and-heat-units86.ibid.87.ibid.88.ibid.89.ibid.
Page: 50Eco-Districts Ottawa
90.Eartheasy: Solutions for Sustainable Living . LED Light Bulbs: Comparison Charts. Accessed March 29, 2012, from http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html#a; Anonymous, Triangle Tube, Personal Communica
Page: 51Eco-Districts Ottawa
Appendix
_̂̂_
_̂
_̂
_̂_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂ _̂
_̂
HIGHWAY 417
BANK ST
WALKLEY RD
BLAI
R RD
MONTREAL RD
OGILVIE RD
CARLING AVE
FISHER AVE
SMYTH RD
BRONSON AVE
ROCKCLIFFE PKWY
BASELINE RD
SCOTT ST
RIVERSIDE D
R
RIDEAU ST
VANIER PKWY
CONR
OY R
D
RICHMOND RD
KIRKWOOD AVE
PRESTON ST
S T. L AUR E NT BLVD
LAURIER AVE W
INNES RD
HERON RD
LEES AVE
ST. LAURENT BLVDCARLING AVEHIGHWAY 417
Department of Infrastructure ServicesThis map was compiled from existing & collected engineering information from the
City of Ottawa Geographic Information System and is protected by copyright.The location of Infrastructure is approximate.
- Legend
_̂ CSO Outfall Outlet
Extent of Original Combined Sewer Areas
Interceptor-Outfall Sewer
West Nepean Collector
Trunk and Collector Sewers
or Potentially Active Overflows
Alvin Heights Pullback Sewer
Booth Street Sewer
Cathcart/King Edward System
Cave Creek Collector
Hemlock Pumping Station
Kent Street Sewer
Mooney's Bay Collector
RCAF East and NRC
Rideau Canal Interceptor
Rideau River Collector
0 1 2 30.5
Kilometers1:50,000
ROPEC( WWTP )
Sewershed Total CSO volumes are reported in cubic metres.
CSOVolume
122,000
26,200
20,100
26,100
4,310
1,200
146,000
019 13,10
2544
28
3
13
4,1
Current Combined Sewershed Areas:CSO Location, Frequency and Volumes
During 2010 Control Period *
Sewersheds With Active
8
23
47
15
48
Number of Events per Control period (at the outlet point onwaterway) Values with represent two distinct seweroverflows to same location.
1
0
* Control Period - April 15 to November 15
Numberof Events
13
28+8
4+1+10
13+48
25
19
44
3+15+23+47
2010 Control Period
Most sewersheds have grown beyond the combined area; sewers outsideof the original combined sewer areas are either separated or partiallyseparated. Current combined areas are less than half of original arearepresented in this figure.
Notes:
134
4
11,20013
1,1004+4
59,100
0
Building Type Energy Use by KwH Energy Use by GJ Total Energy Use (GJ)
Addition of a forced air HVAC and HRV system -‐ costs include mechanicals and ductwork -‐ Price based on a range between 2.75-‐3.5 millionAddition of a 2 high efficiency natural gas boilers to radiant floor system -‐ Unit Cost between $2,100 -‐ $4,750Additional of electric ground source heat pump system -‐ Unit Cost between $999 -‐ $1,500Addition of high efficiency heat recovery ventilation unit on roof -‐ Unit Cost $26,250.00
79,600 sq ft -‐ Based on 144 sq ft per residential OCH unit and 200 sq ft per Single Family Home -‐ $8.25 per lineal ft2,500 sq ft -‐ Based on 1500 sq ft for the adult high school and 1000 sq ft for the commercial complex -‐ $ 8.00 per lineal ft
LED Light bulb replacements costs per 20 Single Family Homes/525 OCH Units -‐ $255.00 per unit
58,575 linear ft -‐ Based on 85 linear ft per OCH unit, 375 linear ft per single family home, 3750 linear ft for school and 2700 linear ft for commercial complex -‐ $1.75 per linear ft
2 -‐ 399,000 BTU Natural Gas Water Heater -‐ 200 Gallon Storage Tanks -‐ Unit Cost $7,735.002 -‐ 285,000 BTU Natural Gas Water Heater -‐ 150 Gallon Storage Tanks -‐ Unit Cost $7,735.00Solar Thermal Hot Water System -‐ Capable of handling 6 units -‐ Total Cost for 22 Units -‐ Unit Costs range from $18,500.00 -‐ $22,850.00
High Efficiency Natural Gas Boiler -‐ Unit Costs range from $999.00 -‐ $1,500.00
4 -‐ 199,000 BTU Natural Gas Water Heaters, 100 Gallon storage tanks -‐ Unit costs $2,599.00
Faucet Replacement costs -‐ 10% water use reduction -‐ Unit Costs range from $34.00 -‐ $75.00Showerhead Replacement -‐ 40% water use reduction -‐ Unit Costs $30.00Toilet Replacement costs -‐ saves 7 litres per flush -‐ 60% water use reduction -‐ Unit Costs $150.00
Sensitivity Analysis -‐Future Energy Pricing ScenariosYear 0 Year 5
Building Type Current Baseline costCurrent Retrofit Energy Cost
Monetary savings7.5% Baseline
IncreaseHigh Rise 347,654.00$ 161,924.00$ 185,730.00$ 373,728.05$ Mid Rise 202,418.00$ 97,824.00$ 104,594.00$ 217,599.35$ Townhouses (160 OCH Units) 401,760.00$ 255,280.00$ 146,480.00$ 431,892.00$ Single Family Home (20 units) 87,520.00$ 40,380.00$ 47,140.00$ 94,084.00$ School 568,755.00$ 303,799.00$ 264,956.00$ 611,411.63$ Commercial Complex 114,900.00$ 79,084.00$ 35,816.00$ 123,517.50$
784,716.00$
Future Energy Pricing Scenarios provided by Canada’s National Energy Board “Canada’s Energy Future: Reference Case and Scenarios to 2030” Accessed at: http://www.neb-‐one.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2007/fctsht0738ntrlgs-‐eng.html (retrieved March, 2012)Pricing scenario assumes a yearly 1.5% increase in energy prices for electricity and natural gas
Future Energy Pricing Scenarios provided by Canada’s National Energy Board “Canada’s Energy Future: Reference Case and Scenarios to 2030” Accessed at: http://www.neb-‐one.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2007/fctsht0738ntrlgs-‐eng.html (retrieved March, 2012)
Future Energy Pricing Scenarios provided by Canada’s National Energy Board “Canada’s Energy Future: Reference Case and Scenarios to 2030” Accessed at: http://www.neb-‐one.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2007/fctsht0738ntrlgs-‐eng.html (retrieved March, 2012)
Sensitivity Analysis -‐Future Energy Pricing ScenariosYear 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Building Type Current Baseline costCurrent Retrofit Energy Cost
Future Energy Pricing Scenarios provided by Canada’s National Energy Board “Canada’s Energy Future: Reference Case and Scenarios to 2030” Accessed at: http://www.neb-‐one.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2007/fctsht0738ntrlgs-‐eng.html (retrieved March, 2012)Pricing scenario assumes a yearly 1.5% increase in energy prices for electricity and natural gas
Potable Water Retrofit Scenarios, One Time Costs and Cost SavingsResidential Potable Water Conservation Gains
235 litres per capita per day*
Use Assumptions Units Total Water Use470 litres per 2 person household/day
366 (2 person units)172,020 litres per household per day
822 litres per 3 person household/day
160 (3 person units)131,520 litres per household per day
940 litres per 4 person household/day
20 (4 person units -‐ single family homes)
18,800 litres per household per day
Total litres Per Day: 322,340.00Total m3 per day: 322.34Total m3 per year: 117,654.10
**Water use breakdowns by category provided by POLIS -‐ Accessed at http://www.ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/water_wells/conservation/consumption/index.html
*** Water Pricing based on current City of Ottawa Water Pricing Rates -‐ Accessed at "Changes to Your Water and Sewer Bill" City of Ottawa Web Site -‐ Accessed at:
**** Energy Calculations based on water pumpting and treatment costs -‐ Accessed at "City of Ottawa" -‐ Wastewater treatment http://ottawa.ca/en/env_water/water_sewer/sewer_septic/treatment/treatment/index.html
Eco-‐District Ottawa Pilot Project Neighbourhood -‐ West Centretown
One Time Costs -‐ Detailed by Retrofit System and Pilot Project Building
Building CostsOttawa Community
Housing Adult High School Retail ComplexSingle Family
Home (Unit Cost)Pilot Project
Total
Energy Retrofits
HVAC system -‐ High Rise3,120,000.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 3,120,000.00$ Addition of a forced air HVAC and HRV system -‐ costs include mechanicals and
ductwork -‐ Price based on a range between 2.75-‐3.5 million
Radiant Floor Heating -‐ Mid Rise6,855.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 6,855.00$ Addition of a 2 high efficiency natural gas boilers to radiant floor system -‐ Unit Cost
between $2,100 -‐ $4,750
Residential Heating Systems-‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 1,200.00$ 24,000.00$ Additional of electric ground source heat pump system -‐ Unit Cost between $999 -‐
$1,500
HRV Unit-‐$ 26,250.00$ 26,250.00$ -‐$ 52,500.00$ Addition of high efficiency heat recovery ventilation unit on roof -‐ Unit Cost
$26,250.00
Residential Glazing623,700.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 1,650.00$ 656,700.00$ 79,600 sq ft -‐ Based on 144 sq ft per residential OCH unit and 200 sq ft per Single
Family Home -‐ $8.25 per lineal ft
Office and School Glazing-‐$ 12,000.00$ 8,000.00$ -‐$ 20,000.00$ 2,500 sq ft -‐ Based on 1500 sq ft for the adult high school and 1000 sq ft for the
commercial complex -‐ $ 8.00 per lineal ft
Lighting Residential133,350.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 255.00$ 138,450.00$ LED Light bulb replacements costs per 20 Single Family Homes/525 OCH Units -‐
$255.00 per unit Lighting Commercial -‐$ -‐$ 212,000.00$ -‐$ 212,000.00$ Lighting School -‐$ 875,000.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 875,000.00$
Caulking/ Weatherstripping 78,599.00$ 6,570.00$ 4,725.00$ 656.00$ 103,014.00$ 58,575 linear ft -‐ Based on 85 linear ft per OCH unit, 375 linear ft per single family home, 3750 linear ft for school and 2700 linear ft for commercial complex -‐ $1.75 per
Domestic Hot Water 20 storey15,470.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 15,470.00$ 2 -‐ 399,000 BTU Natural Gas Water Heater -‐ 200 Gallon Storage Tanks -‐ Unit Cost
$7,735.00
Domestic Hot Water 6 storey15,470.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 15,470.00$ 2 -‐ 285,000 BTU Natural Gas Water Heater -‐ 150 Gallon Storage Tanks -‐ Unit Cost
$7,735.00
Domestic Hot Water Townhouses 546,828.00$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 546,828.00$ Solar Thermal Hot Water System -‐ Capable of handling 6 units -‐ Total Cost for 22 Units -‐ Unit Costs range from $18,500.00 -‐ $22,850.00
Domestic Hot Water Single Family Home
-‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 1,225.00$ 24,500.00$ High Efficiency Natural Gas Boiler -‐ Unit Costs range from $999.00 -‐ $1,500.00
Hot Water -‐ Office Building/School -‐$ 5,195.00$ 5,195.00$ -‐$ 10,390.00$ 4 -‐ 199,000 BTU Natural Gas Water Heaters, 100 Gallon storage tanks -‐ Unit costs
$2,599.00
Potable Water
Faucet -‐ Bathroom and Kitchen20,564.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 40.00$ 21,364.00$ Faucet Replacement costs -‐ 10% water use reduction -‐ Unit Costs range from $34.00 -‐
$75.00
Showerhead 15,750.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 30.00$ 16,350.00$ Showerhead Replacement -‐ 40% water use reduction -‐ Unit Costs $30.00
Low Flow Toilet 78,750.00$ -‐$ -‐$ 150.00$ 81,750.00$ Toilet Replacement costs -‐ saves 7 litres per flush -‐ 60% water use reduction -‐ Unit Costs $150.00
StormwaterGreen Roof 2,414,484.64$ 285.23 8 465Landscaping for Rain Gardens 255,850.00$ Rain Cisterns 2,725.00$ Vegetated Swales 72,500.00$ $1.45 -‐ $1.59 per square foot, including planting costs and aggregateBioswales 57,500.00$ $1.31 -‐ $1.44 per square foot, including planting costs and aggregateTrees and Vegetation 760,000.00$ $3,800 per tree, tree box and aggregatePermeable Pavers 248,048.00$ $10.13 -‐ $11.13 per square foot including pavers and aggregatePermeable Asphalt 171,515.00$ $6.34 -‐ 6.97 per square foot include asphalt and aggregate
Total Costs: 3,982,622.64$
Total Project Costs: 9,923,263.64$
Cost Sources
Costs provided by personal communication with contractors and suppliers:
Cost figures provided by Green Values Stormwater Toolbox -‐ Accessed at http://greenvalues.cnt.org/
Cost figures provided by Home Depot (Canadian on-‐line site) -‐ Accessed at http://www.homedepot.ca/:
Cost figures provided by Homewyse -‐ Accessed at http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_caulk_perimeter_of_home.ht
Cost figures provided by eComfort and personal communication with suppliers -‐ Accessed at http://ecomfort.com/index.php:
Ottawa Community Housing
Ottawa Carleton School District
Type Year Built
Current Systems Retrofit Systems Current Energy Use
Current Energy Cost
Total Energy Savings
Total Financial Savings
Payback Period
High School
1967 Natural gas HVAC, electrical ventilation, double-‐glazed windows, stucco/brick exterior, fluorescent lighting, natural gas boilers
Double glazed windows, additional caulking, green roof (75% coverage), T8F, LED Light bulbs and High-‐Eff NGB
43,681 GJ
$568,755
25,482 GJ
$264,956
7 years
Type Year Built
Existing Systems Retrofit Interventions Current Energy Use
Current Energy Cost
Total Energy Savings
Total Financial Savings
Payback Period
High-‐Rise 1972 Electric baseboards, single-‐glazed windows, brick exterior, fluorescent lighting, natural gas boilers
Forced air Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) System with Heat Recovery Ventilation, double glazed windows, additional caulking, green roof, T8 Fluorescent lighting (T8F), LED Light bulbs and High Efficiency Natural Gas Boilers (High-‐Eff NGB)
Double glazed windows, additional caulking, green roof (50% coverage), T8F, LED Light bulbs and High-‐Eff NGB
6,818 GJ $202,418 1,196 GJ $104,594 11 years
Town Houses
1966 Natural gas radiant heating, single-‐glazed windows, fluorescent lighting, electrical hot water heaters
High-‐Eff NGB, Power Pipe heat recovery added to hot water pipes, double glazed windows, additional caulking, green roof, T8F, LED Light bulbs and solar thermal hot water
31,350 GJ $401,760 17,776 GJ $156,480 11 years
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Hard Costs $5,000 $3,025,968 $1,629,367 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Savings / Funding $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $283,922 $436,804.00 $443,356 $450,006 $456,756 $463,607 $470,561 $477,620 $484,784 $492,055
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Hard Costs $5,000 $166,510 $89,659 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Savings and Funding $50,000 $25,000 $23,280 $35,816 $36,353 $36,898 $37,452 $38,013 $38,584 $39,162 $39,750 $40,346
Current Systems Retrofit Systems Current Energy Use
Current Energy Cost
Total Energy Savings
Total Financial Savings
Payback Period
Retail Complex 2000
Natural gas HVAC, electrical ventilation, double-‐glazed windows, stucco/brick exterior, fluorescent lighting, natural gas boilers
Double glazed windows, additional caulking, green roof (50% coverage), T8F, LED Light bulbs and High-‐Eff NGB
9,142 GJ $114,900 3,449 GJ $35,816 12 years
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Hard Costs $5,000 $166,510 $89,659 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Savings and Funding $50,000 $25,000 $23,280 $35,816 $36,353 $36,898 $37,452 $38,013 $38,584 $39,162 $39,750 $40,346
Interventions System Details Increase in Permeable Area
Runoff Volume Reduced
Cost
Green Roofs 6 inch Substrate. 45% absorption Rate 16,198.7 m2 41,568.3 m3 2,414,484.64$
Rain Gardens (Created through landscaping, disconnected downspouts)
Xeriscaping and natural plants, 12'' soil depth 55% void ratio
3,318.5 m2 2,908.1 m3 255,850$
Rain Cisterns (Rainwater Collection at High School)
1,000 Gallons, attached to downspout at High School
4.6 m2 9.5 m3 2,725$
Vegetated Swales (Around high school field, along Highway)
Swales hold rainwater, soil at base is 12", 45% void ratio
3,483.8 m2 1,415.8 m3 72,500$
Bioswales (reconfigured pubic green spaces, areas along roads, behind parking lots)
Swales hold rainwater, soil at base is 12", 45% void ratio
2,392.25 m2 90.2 m3 57,500$
Trees and Vegitation 200 Trees and Tree boxes
11.6 m2(av. Canopy/ 297.3 sq ft tree boxes
94.8 m3 760,000$
Permeable Pavers (Sidewalks, school couryard, retail store sidewalks)
6" Concrete paving stones with 8" of aggregate below
1,231.4 m2 174.4 m3 248,048$
Permeable AsphaltVoid Ratio of 35%, 8'' of aggregate below asphalt
4,487.7 m2 525.3 m3 171,515$
Total 31 414.5 m2 6 209.0 m3 3,982,623$
Data and pricing information obtained using the Green Values National Stormwater Management Calculator -‐ Accessed at http://greenvalues.cnt.org/national/calculator?s=785
Eco-‐District Energy Use Scenarios
Baseline Building Energy Use
Building Type Energy Use by KwHCost of kWh Energy Use by GJCost of GJ Total Energy Use (GJ)Total Energy Cost20 Storey Highrise Apartment
Program Amount Program Description For More Information
Notes: (e.g., due dates if applicable)
Province of Ontario
Trillium Foundation Community Program
Up to $375,000 over 5 years
Through the Community Program, the Foundation makes grants of up to $375,000 over five years. This can include up to $75,000 per year for operating or project expenses and up to $150,000 over one or more years for capital initiatives such as building renovations and/or equipment purchases. The decision to fund all or part of a request depends on how well an application fits with OTF's granting priorities and assessment criteria as well as the overall demand and granting budget in the catchment area.
Grant Deadlines Grant application deadlines for the Community and Province-Wide grant programs are March 1, July 1 and November 1 Applications must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the deadline date
Trillium Foundation Future Fund
$2 million The Future Fund allocates $2 million each round to innovative projects that are focused on Ontario's futures. In 2007, the Future Fund targeted leadership in the environment sector. In 2009, the Fund focused on initiatives creating economic opportunities for Ontarians. The 2009/10 Future Fund grants supported initiatives focused on building skills for the green economy.
Ontario Power Authority Programdesigned to stimulate solar,
wind, biomass/gas fuelled electricity generation projectsT.he program provides a 20 year premium incentive rate, up to $.802 per kWh, for solar electric “photovoltaic” systems depending on the size of the particular installation. This program will mostly be used for photovoltaic systems and is suited to larger multifamily buildings with large unobstructed south facing roof areas.
Government of Canada
Natural Resources Canada ecoENERY Grants
Up to $5,000
This program provided $400 million in 2011-12 to help homeowners make their homes more energy-efficient and reduce the burden of high energy costs.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/14511
Deadline of March 2012, but something similar may be renewed in the future
NRCan Innovators Initiative Building Program
NRCan Commercial HRV rebate program
Enbridge Gas 2012 Energy Efficiency Incentives and Services
0.10 per m³ of gas saved, Up to $100,000
Incentives for Schools, Offices, multi-residential, and custom incentives for commercial buildings. Programs and Services: Steam Saver Program - save steam energy and cut costs Building Design Programs - incorporate energy efficiency into building design Energy Management Services - decide
whether an energy management service is right for you Equipment and Appliances - choose the right equipment and technology for your facility Incentives: Audit Incentives - rebates for energy audits Retrofit Incentives - rebates for installing efficient appliances and systems in older buildings Prescriptive Incentives for specific category (e.g., schools, residential…)
CMHC CMHC Green Home Mortgage Loan Insurance
Up to 10% of a mortgage loan insurance premium
If you plan to use CMHC insured financing to make energy-saving renovations, a refund equivalent to 10% of your CMHC mortgage loan insurance premium may be available, as well as a full refund of any premium surcharge paid to extend the amortization of your mortgage loan beyond 25 years. To qualify for this refund, you must carry out the steps described below within a reasonable time after funding of the CMHC insured loan. Normally, the time period between the date of funding (purchase with improvements or refinance) and the date of the post-retrofit assessment should not exceed 24 months.
Additionally, several not-‐for-‐profit and for organizations have provided funding/charitable donations to retrofit or sustainable projects in the past, including:
TD Friends of the Environment Tides Canada Canadian Tire Rona Ottawa Community Foundation
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Green Municipal Fund
Funding is provided for up to 80% of eligible project costs. The loan maximum is $10 million, and the grant amount is set at up to 20% of the loan to a maximum of $1 million
Fund innovative plans, studies and projects Funding is allocated in five sectors of municipal activity: brownfields, energy, transportation, waste and water.
The objective of this program is to implement the next generation of innovation in renewable energy strategies, green technologies, and green civic infrastructure in an integrated and localized way in order to transform an existing neighbor-hood into one with the lowest environmental impact and highest economic, social, and physical infrastructure resiliency in Canada. This program is designed to be both scalable and transferable. This will be achieved through the following goals:
In order to establish a successful precedent in Canada, a pilot project will test the results of some of the key goals of the Eco-District program. This green infrastructure/retrofit pilot project is set in the West Centretown neighborhood of the City of Ottawa with the goals of decreasing build-ing energy use and creating more efficient water systems through stormwater reduction techniques and potable water interventions, with the long-term possibility of introducing renewable energy supply to the area.
Buildings Affected: The majority of the buildings part of this retrofit strategy were built in the 1950s, and ‘60s, with a couple of the large apartment buildings from the 1970s. The exception to this is the commercial complex, which was built in the 2000. These building types include: 20-storey Highrise 6-storey Midrise Townhouses Single Family Homes Commercial building Adult High School
Project Partners
Ottawa Community Housing (OCH) Ottawa Carleton School District (OCSD) Commercial Building Owner Single Family Homeowner
Results
Total cost: $1,719,607Total energy savings: 48,721 (44.7%)Total annual cost savings: $$781,316Total payback period: 14 years (for all of the build-ings, some individual buildings payback quicker)
InterventionsHigh-efficiency natural gas boilers for heating and hot water systems, double-glazed windows, additional caulking and sealing, heat ventilation and air conditioning system, heat recovery system
There are three key elements:
1. A partnership approach in an effort to tap into joint community capital
2. Implementing a unique financing scenario
3. Providing measurable results
The Program The Pilot
Reduce Building Energy Use
More Efficient Water Systems
More Efficient Waste Systems
Maximize Land Efficiency
Create Healthy Communities
Green Job Creation
Why Ottawa?
Canada’s Capital CityTypical Canadian Climate
Sustainability Mandate
Why This Block?
Mixture of UsesRange of Building Types
Strong Community AssociationBusiness Improvement Area
3
Intervention: Reduce Building Energy Use
Eco-Districts Ottawa
Build
ings/
Infra
stru
ctur
e Water
Waste
Jobs
Land-UseCommunity
Energy
What is an Eco-District?
“Eco-DISTRICTS” is a strategy developed by the Portland + Oregon Sustainabil-ity Institute to build ‘triple bottom line’ neighborhood with the lowest possible environmental impact and highest long-term economic and community returns” (P+OSI, 2009).
What does the City of Ottawa need to do to implement an Eco-District Program?
For starters the City could create an official Eco-District designation (similar to Business Improve-ment Areas) with a corresponding local improve-ment tax to help fund a community energy officer and other community programs related to energy.
When identifying a possible Eco-District, the fol-lowing criteria should be considered: • Strong potential partner(s) on the ground (e.g. community associations or BIAs)• Strong grass-roots/community organizations (e.g. an interested and involved community)• Potential champion(s) within the city govern-ment (bureaucrats and/or councillors)• Electricity costs of at least 11 cents per kWh • Neighborhoods with: Mixed-uses, several key building owners willing to commit to the project and local interest and buy-in.
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION Engagement Organization/Governance Structure Designation of Eco-District by City
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Baselines/Audits/Targets/Strategies Partnerships/Funding/Financing
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Construction Education Program MONITORING Savings/Monitoring Results/Reporting
For Large Building and Multiple Building Owners: Performance based solutions (PBS), promoted by Energy Services Association of Canada (ESA), is de-signed to enable the financing of large and com-plex retrofit projects. A third party takes control of the funding of a retrofit or upgrade project and the utility costs of the project partners. The pay-back scheme is based on the success of the project in reducing energy consumption and connected savings. This allows the transfer of risk associated with the project from the building owner onto the third party.
For Single Family Homeowners: The second financing scenario is targeted at own-ers of single-family homes and uses the Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits (P.A.P.E.R.) funding model. PAPER allows neighbourhood programs access to bulk purchasing power and rates. The financing is associated with the property and does not affect homeowner’s personal credit as any charges or debts remain with the property and charges are then repaid through a temporary fee on the property tax bill.
