REPORT P roperty M anagement A REGIONAL REPORT FOCUSING ON THE GTA, HAMILTON & NIAGARA JULY 2012 VOL.19 NO 4 Province Halts Geothermal Drilling New Code Standards for Balconies Congestion Reduction Strategies Advocates for the commercial real estate industry are united in opposition to a suggested new formula for calculating Toronto’s storm water service charges. The fee is still conceptual and just one of the discussion items in a more wide-ranging public consultation on the City’s need to augment capital funding for its water infrastructure, but is envisioned as a user- pay approach based on a property’s impervious surface area and the resulting volume of storm water runoff. City staff sees it as a potential means to raise additional revenue and/or create a better balance between the rates property owners pay and the storm water services they receive. Currently, storm water management is funded through the water rates, thus tying ratepayers’ contribution to the volume of water they consume. “For every dollar collected, about 15% of it goes to storm water management and that’s expected to increase to about 30% in the next 30 years so it’s a growing part of the [water] program,” reports Adir Gupta, Manager of Financial Policy in Toronto’s Corporate Finance department. “But there is inequity. There is no relation between water consumed and the runoff.” Meanwhile, the public consultation occurs in the broader context of a capital funding shortfall. Toronto’s long-range water infrastructure program, which City Council approved in 2006, was to be CONTENTS Storm Water Management Charges 1 Ground Source Heat Pump Regulation 7 Ontario Building Code Addresses Energy 10 Cycling’s Economic Spinoffs 12 Continued on page 4. Toronto Water Brainstorms to Keep Capital Plans Afloat Re-evaluating Runoff By Barbara Carss
Transcript
RepoRtProperty Management
A RegionAl RepoRt focusing on the gtA, hAmilton & niAgARA
July 2012 Vol.19 no 4
Province Halts Geothermal Drilling
New Code Standards for Balconies
Congestion Reduction Strategies
Advocates for the commercial real estate industry are united in opposition to a suggested new formula for calculating Toronto’s storm water service charges. The fee is still conceptual and just one of the discussion items in a more wide-ranging public consultation on the City’s need to augment capital funding for its water infrastructure, but is envisioned as a user-pay approach based on a proper ty’s impervious surface area and the resulting volume of storm water runoff.
City staff sees it as a potential means to raise additional revenue and/or create a better balance between the rates property owners pay and the storm water services they receive. Currently, storm water
management is funded through the water rates, thus tying ratepayers’ contribution to the volume of water they consume.
“For every dollar collected, about 15% of it goes to storm water management and that’s expected to increase to about 30% in the next 30 years so it’s a growing part of the [water] program,” reports Adir Gupta, Manager of Financial Policy in Toronto’s Corporate Finance department. “But there is inequity. There is no relation between water consumed and the runoff.”
Meanwhile, the public consultation occurs in the broader context of a capital funding shortfall. Toronto’s long-range water infrastructure program, which City Council approved in 2006, was to be
CoNteNtSStorm Water Management Charges 1Ground Source Heat Pump Regulation 7ontario Building Code Addresses energy 10Cycling’s economic Spinoffs 12
Continued on page 4.
toronto Water Brainstorms to Keep Capital Plans AfloatRe-evaluating Runoff
Plumbing | Light Fixtures | Light Bulbs | Electrical | HVAC | Hardware | Seasonal | and More
Choosing H&S as your maintenance materialsupplier means you are putting your confidencein a supplier willing to go the extra mile toprovide you with the best one-on-one service.A knowledgeable sales staff and over 35 yearsof industry experience – no one else offers thatcombination and it’s why people all acrossOntario choose H&S Building Supplies Ltd. astheir One Stop Maintenance Supply Superstore!
Choosing H&S as your maintenance materialsupplier means you are putting your confidencein a supplier willing to go the extra mile toprovide you with the best one-on-one service.A knowledgeable sales staff and over 35 yearsof industry experience – no one else offers thatcombination and it’s why people all acrossOntario choose H&S Building Supplies Ltd. astheir One Stop Maintenance Supply Superstore!
Global Doesn’t Mean equitableRepresentatives from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) faced a tough, although, of course, polite room at a recent seminar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto. Speakers had the unenviable task of promoting a fee structure that evidence shows is unfair to the majority of BOMA members who typically oversee commercial properties with peak demand less than five megawatts (MW) of electricity.
It had to be galling for many in the audience to be told that a Global Adjustment allocation formula that rewards larger, primarily industrial users is a “system benefit.” However, beyond fundamental good manners, seminar attendees were perhaps predisposed to be forgiving of their guests’ awkward obligation to uphold a system not of their own making.
“We’ve really been getting policy directives from government,” reiterated the IESO’s Ryan King, as he outlined the motives for instituting the two-class rate structure in January 2011 and the ensuing consequences for ratepayers.
The Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel Report, released earlier this year, highlights a shifting cost burden in the six months between May and October 2011, as Class B consumers – with peak demand less than 5 MW – absorbed a greater share of the overall Global Adjustment charge.
“From May to October 2011, the effective GA cost averaged $24.93/MWh (megawatt-hour) for Class A customers and $39.62/MWh for Class B customers…Over the reporting period, Class A customers consumed about 16 percent of total electricity in Ontario and paid 11 percent of the total GA charges. Class B customers consumed about 84 percent of the power and paid 89 percent of total GA charges,” the report states.
That doesn’t mean that all of Ontario’s approximately 215 Class A customers have seen their costs drop, however. Although potentially – and arguably, inequitably – beneficial, Class A rate calculations are tied to the customer’s consumption in just five hours during the 12 months between May 1 and April 30. Much depends on the ability to foresee peak demand and curtail loads during the five hours with the highest demand, which will ultimately be used to calculate each customer’s Global Adjustment for a 12-month period from July 1 to June 30.
King maintained that the formula keeps large-volume users vigilant throughout any prolonged period of high demand. “We don’t know when the [five] peaks are going to be. That’s one of the benefits and the challenges of the program,” he said.
Nor do all Class A customers have loads that can be quickly and straightforwardly reduced. Large commercial buildings, municipalities and health care facilities have a different demand profile than many of the industrial operators with the flexibility to cut or halt production. For this segment of Class A consumers it could make sense to voluntarily choose to be billed at the Class B volumetric rate – a commitment they must make before May 31 of any year, and would then be locked into for the subsequent 12 months from July to June.
Even so, King suggested the option of switching back to Class A should factor into voluntary Class B operations. “You are still going to be looking at those five peaks for next year,” he advised.
Seminar discussion also focused on the largely undefined basket of costs that comprise the Global Adjustment – i.e. contracted prices for an estimated 90% of the electricity supply and the cost of conservation and demand management programs. Currently, Bruce Power receives the largest single share of the monthly levy. Other producers will take an increasing share as more renewable energy begins to come on-line next year.
“There is no doubt about it. The Global Adjustment is going to increase in the short term,” King said. However, he doesn’t see renewable energy as the sole culprit.
“New gas is more expensive. New hydro is more expensive. With new renewables, the trend is that they are going to be coming down, and new nuclear is going up,” he reflected. “You have to compare new versus new, not new versus old.”
CIRCulATION Lina Trunina [email protected] Ext. 232 Property Management Report is produced as a supplement to Canadian Property Management magazine, published 8 times a year by:
5255 Yonge St., Suite 1000 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6P4 PRESIDENT Kevin Brown [email protected] TEl: (416) 512-8186 FAx: (416) 512-8344 E-mail: [email protected]
4 julY 2012 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
1.800.707.9947www.facilityservices.com
Facilities we Service:Commercial
ResidentialIndustrial
RetailHealth Care
Hotels
Services we provide:Housekeeping/JanitorialLandscaping/Snow RemovalFire and Flood RestorationPost Construction CleaningPower WashingTotal Floor and Carpet Services
With our exceptionally trained staff, green-certified products and state-of-the-art technology, we guarantee superior maintenance and quality assurance. Use our integrated solutions to match the needs of your industry, and let us deliver the cost-effective solutions you need.
Expect More
11202_Facility_Management_2011version2.indd 1 11-09-27 11:22 AM
Continued from page 1.
Infrastructure
financed through nine successive years of 9% annual increases in the water rate, commonly known as 9 for 9. Now, after seven years of rate increases, last decade’s economic prognosis is off-target, partly due to newly emerging priorities and lower than anticipated revenue.
FuNDING GAPIn particular, the City needs to upgrade and/or replace its water and wastewater assets, including aging combined sewers that discharge storm overflow into Lake Ontario and the Don River. Other capital budget i tems introduced s ince 2006 include: a program to address the chronic
problem of system backup and basement f looding dur ing severe weather ; the switchover from chlorination to ultraviolet light for wastewater treatment; and new infrastructure to serve the redevelopment of the Regent Park and Lawrence Heights communities.
At the same time, a reduction in water consumption from the levels foreseen in 2006 translates into a 1.5 to 2% drop in projected annual revenue. The public consultation will contemplate possible additional funding mechanisms including o n g o i n g r a t e i n c r e a s e s , d e b e n t u r e financing and a new storm water utility charge that could be separated out from
the water rate and apportioned differently.“Council asked staff to consult with
stakeholders. We haven’t recommended anything; we’re just putting out some ideas,” Gupta says. “There is $1 billion in funding pressure on Toronto Water’s budget. The way that’s been managed so far is by deferring capital spending and the depletion of what was once a reasonable reserve fund.”
In a joint letter, four of Toronto’s prominent real estate associations have declared their preference for continued water rate increases in the period beyond 2014.
“By extending rate increases over the next several years and thereafter reducing rate increases to a yearly inflationary level, our respective members hope Toronto Water will be able to avoid impacts to the quality of their water service, and trust that revenue generated will enable the City to raise the $1.1 billion in additional funds required to reinstate the original capital plan,” states the submission from the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Toronto, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), NAIOP Toronto Chapter and the Real Property Association of Canada (REALpac).
Four of Toronto’s prominent real estate associations have declared their
preference for continued water rate increases in the period beyond 2014.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT julY 2012 5
Infrastructure
EQuITY & INCENTIVESIn contrast, the four organizations reject the proposal for a targeted storm water management charge, which would shift costs between property classes and within the various classes. They argue that many larger retail and industrial facilities would suffer for complying with the parking design standards that the City enforced in the era when the projects were built.
“Existing developed properties are not able to reduce their impermeable area w i t h o u t p r o h i b i t i ve r e t r o f i t c o s t s . Therefore, an impermeable rate structure is not an effective incentive to reduce runoff,” the letter contends.
Toronto’s Green Development Standard, adopted in 2010, now places restrictions on the volume and quality of storm runoff from a site, requiring developers/owners to implement on-site features and strategies to hold and filter rainfall. At minimum, new ICI and multi-residential development must be capable of retaining the first five millimetres from each rainfall or at least 50% of the annual rainfall, while 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) must be removed from runoff leaving the site. D e ve l opm en t com p ly i n g w i t h t h e s e standards would presumably have a lower quotient of impervious surface, which would be reflected in the calculation of a storm water fee.
M a n y i n d u s t r i a l r a t e p a y e r s a r e disproportionally contributing to storm water management through the current funding formula and likely would benefit from a separate rate t ied to the proper ty ’s impermeable area. Citywide, storm water management costs currently average out to 61 cents per square metre of impervious surface area.
“A large industr ia l [water] user is contributing about $12 per square metre,” Gupta says. “A large commercial shopping centre doesn’t consume a whole lot of water, but i t has a huge square footage of impervious area so it might be paying 25 cents per square metre, which is well under the average.”
A separate storm water fee would be somewhat analogous to the way the reassessment process redistr ibutes the property tax burden. Some property owners would pay more than they currently do for storm water services, but if the City simply needs to raise the same amount of money as it now collects through water rates, some ratepayers would pay less. Much would depend on how Council would choose to use the fee.
Citywide, storm water management costs currently average out to 61 cents per
square metre of impervious surface area.
Let Us Restore Them In-Place To a Better Than New ConditionLet Us Restore Them In-Place To a Better Than New Condition
• Ontario Building Code Approved• 20 Year Warranty• Improved Water Quality - Reduced Lead + Metal Content• BPA FREE• Improved Water Flow• Better than a New Pipe• Turn Key Installation• Certified to NSF 61
Epoxy Application parameters developed with our PIPE SHIELD™ BELT (blown epoxy lining technology) software program, developed with the assistance of
NRC-IRAP and the University of Toronto
Pipe Shield™ AN500 Epoxy is manufactured with non-toxic base ingredientswww.pipe-shield.com
Division of:
“Experience you can count on since 1985”
PIPEREHABILITATIONPROFESSIONALS
www.pipe-shield.com
No More Rip and Replace
Leaking Pipes?Leaking Pipes?
11080_BradleyMechanical_WilsonBlanchard_2011.indd 1 11-06-10 9:51 AMUntitled-2 1 11-12-14 11:37 AM
6 julY 2012 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
“A new fee structure might just be used to deal with the equity issue and as an incentive for site upgrades, rather than to raise additional revenue,” Gupta suggests.
That said, the City’s public consultation documentation does state that funding is “not fully in place for projects dealing with combined sewer overf lows and improving water quality in the Don River and Waterfront” and the consultation is an exercise in looking for that money.
ADMINISTRATIVE ExTRASGupta says it’s premature to speculate how such a new fee would be assessed and administered, but it seems inevitable that i t w o u l d r e q u i r e s t a f f , I T a n d administrative resources – costs that the four real estate associations highlight in their objections.
“A charge to impervious area wil l require the creation of a new costly administration to measure and calculate charges based on imper v ious area , including the creation of an impartial dispute resolution process to handle area disagreements. The database will have to be maintained and constantly updated to reflect physical changes,” their letter predicts.
Other Canadian municipalities that levy a dedicated storm water charge include Kitchener, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton. “It’s very common in the United States,” Gupta adds.
The City of Hamilton also explored the concept in 2009/2010, garnering a response from the local Chamber of Commerce similar to the sentiments expressed by Toronto’s commercial real estate industry representatives. (See Canadian Property Management, March 2010.)
“We took a report to Council on the possibility of implementing a new storm water management fee, but Council did not approve and directed staff to stop working on the project,” says Roberto Rossini, Hamilton’s General Manager of Finance & Corporate Services. i
The complete text of the organizations’ letter can be found at www.bomatoronto.org/images/BOMA/downloads/Submission-Toronto-Water-Rate-Pricing.pdf. For more information about Toronto Water’s public consultation see the web site at www.toronto.ca/finance/waterrates.htm. For more information about Toronto’s Green Development Standard see the web site at www.toronto.ca/planning/environment/greendevelopment.htm.
Infrastructure
• Access Control Management• Live Camera Verifi cation• Emergency & Elevator Phone Monitoring• Fire, Sprinkler & Life Safety Monitoring• Security & Intrusion Monitoring• Concierge Service• Property Mgmt Answering Service
• Access Control Systems• Security Systems• Camera Systems• Building & Automation Systems• Condo Suite Security Systems• Intercom & Communication Systems• Entry Systems
416.445.8274 1.800.445.9949www.247into.com
Cameras
Emergency Phones
Your Property.
24/7
Full Sales and Installation of:
24/724/7 Monitored, Managed and Secure
Entry/Exit Doors
Panic StationsKeypadsCard Readers
24/7
Toronto’s Green Development Standard, adopted in 2010, now places restrictions
on the volume and quality of storm runoff from a site, requiring
developers/owners to implement on-site features and strategies to hold and filter
rainfall.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT julY 2012 7
Regulatory update
Depth Delay Vertical Geothermal Systems Newly Subject to Environmental Approval
By Barbara Carss
A recently introduced regulation amounts to a temporary stop-work order for many large-scale geothermal projects in Ontario. O.Reg. 98/12 now mandates an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for installers of vertical closed loop ground source heat pumps – the system configuration predominantly used for commercial sites in more densely developed urban areas or district geothermal n e t wor k s t h a t wo u l d s e r ve a h o u s i n g subdivision.
“Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the world to institute this type of regulatory requirement,” says Ted Kantrowitz, Vice President of the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition (CGC), which represents Canada’s geothermal industry. “We find it extraordinary that after years of hearing that this is not a priority from government staff, a drastic and comprehensive new regulation is enacted within about five days without industry consultation.”
The new rules follow from an incident in an Oakville neighbourhood in early May, in which drillers unexpectedly hit a natural gas pocket while drilling a geothermal borehole. In response, local officials and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs called for enhanced safety measures.
“Under the Green Energy Act, 2009, the Town cannot pass by-laws that would prevent or restrict the installation of ground
source energy systems so it i s i m p e r a t ive t h a t t h e
Province take action,” urged Oakville Mayor Rob Burton.
ONE-TIME ClEARANCETo obtain an ECA, geothermal
installers will have to engage a licensed engineering practitioner
or professional geoscientist to prepare a work plan and summary
of risk prevention and abatement measures for vertical closed loop
systems extending more than f ive metres beneath the site surface. This
must also be posted on the Ministry of the Environment’s EBR, Environmental
Registry for at least 45 days, in keeping with the requirements for an ECA, before
approval can be granted. At a mid-June technical briefing, Ministry
of Environment officials assured geothermal industry representatives that the ECA will be a
one-time requirement for each installer, after which approved companies would be al lowed to dr i l l
geothermal boreholes anywhere in Ontario. However, the Regulation’s wording doesn’t clearly convey that message.“It seems to apply to the heat pump, not the installer,”
RETROFIT IN A TIGHT FIT
By Meirav Even-Har
Geothermal innovators are promoting vertical systems for existing buildings in Vancouver’s high-density urban core. Drilling will begin this fall to accommodate a geoexchange retrofit at Cadillac Fairview’s Pacific Centre, garnering a projected 55% savings in thermal energy.
Project plans were highlighted at the recent Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) annual conference in a session entitled, Buildings: Thermal Energy Producers. The presenters, from Vancouver-based Fènix Energy, outlined how geoexchange technology can capture, store and reuse waste heat with minimal disruption to existing surroundings by drilling vertically from within a building’s parkade. They also foresee potential for a district energy system via connections to adjoining parkades and their associated buildings.
Such applications are key to achieving emissions reductions targets since it’s estimated that today’s existing buildings will still comprise as much as 80% of the total stock in 2050. This is in sync with Vancouver’s 2020 Greenest City Action Plan and a growing number of other municipal climate change actions aimed at reducing carbon footprint.
For more information see the web site at http://fenixenergy.com.
8 julY 2012 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
observes John Willms, a Partner with Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers. “The EBR posting is also ambiguous.”
T h e E B R p o s t i n g d o e s o f f e r t h e government’s rationale for its lack of public consultation, noting: “the delay involved in giving notice to the public and allowing for publ ic par t ic ipat ion could de lay the making of regulations that would help reduce the risk that deep boreholes that are drilled for vertical closed loop geothermal systems could encounter explosive or flammable gasses and pose a risk to public health and safety.” Yet, it’s unclear how a o n e - t i m e c l e a r a n c e f o r a d r i l l e r ’s operations would achieve this at any specific site.
In any case, the CGC forecasts that it will be late August before affected installers
incident followed conventional safety protocol and had conducted a standard subsurface review and assessment of the site before drilling. The team’s analysis indicated a natural gas deposit about 1,000 feet below the surface, but, instead, dril lers hit a pocket at 250 feet. The resulting gas release was detected and safely ameliorated.
“The driller followed regular shallow-dr i l l ing procedure, and would have encountered the exact same situation had he been drilling for pilings or water,” Kantrowitz notes. “There are about 55,000 water wells drilled in Ontario every year and about 2,500 boreholes so we’re wondering why the geothermal industry has been singled out.”
The regulat ion does not apply to hor izontal or open loop geothermal systems, which do not entail drilling to the depth where natural gas could be encountered. However, vertical systems typically have the smallest footprint, which frees up more room for other below-grade functions like water storage or parking space in high-density urban a r e a s a n d r e q u i r e s f e w e r s y s t e m com p o n en t s a n d l e s s l a b o u r on a subdivision-wide basis. i
have fulfilled the necessary steps to resume work – a delay of more than three months f r o m t h e r e g u l a t i o n ’s M a y 1 8 t h introduction, which has created layoffs and is expected to cause other economic losses for the industry.
SIMIlAR DRIllING ACTIVITY OVERlOOKED“This regulation was adopted in a few days without any industry or public consultation,” says Denis Tanguay, the CGC’s President and CEO. “We have recommended that companies involved in geothermal dril l ing more systematically follow long-established safety guidelines used for comparable drilling activities within Ontario while more thorough and fair regulation is drafted and publicly consulted.”
Power Sweeping/WashingPost Construction CleaningWindow CleaningDisaster Restoration Services • Flood,•Fire• Smoke•Crime/Trauma• DesignatedSubstanceSurveys•MoldAssessments•IndoorAirQualityTesting
Total Carpet Care Services • MaintenancePrograms• RestorationCleaning• Upholstery/Modular FabricCleaning• CarpetSales/Installations/ Repairs
Specialists in….
“There are about 55,000 water wells drilled in Ontario every year and about 2,500 boreholes so we’re wondering why the
geothermal industry has been singled out.”
Contact Clinicair today to schedule medical-grade duct cleaningand indoor air quality assessment servicesfrom Canada’s only professional airquality specialists.
For a free estimate call 647-777-1044Toll Free: 1-877-318-3588
clinicair.com
truth is, we’ve made our buildings so energy efficient that dust, humidity, volatile organic compounds and hidden gases are trappedindoors. and unless treated properly and regularly, the air in yourbuildings can become a reservoir for dirt and potentially dangerouscontaminants and a source of irritation for your tenants.
Clinicair is here to help with a specially selected suite of the lateststate-of-the-art services and products to identify and resolve iaQ
problems in multi-unit buildings, businesses, andmedical and dental offices. and every member ofthe Clinicair team attends rigorous training and iscertified by Healthy indoors Partnership (HiP), theCanadian professional iaQ association.
Putting the “quality”back in “air quality.”
Because if your building’s not healthy,neither are your tenants.
CliniCair is Proud to offer
Proud MeMber of
NAT034 Clinicair Air Ad FNL V2_Layout 1 23/04/12 9:12 AM Page 1
10 julY 2012 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
Energy Management
Cracking the Code for energy PerformanceBuilders, Inspectors and Operators Have Key and Complementary Roles
By Gord Miller
Ontario’s Green Energy Act provides the frame of reference for the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s recently released a n n u a l p r o g r e s s r e p o r t o n e n e r g y conservation. In part one of this year’s two part report, Commissioner Gord Miller examines the Act’s intent ions and the achievements attained in the past three years. The following excerpt focuses on the Ontario Building Code – Editor.
The Ontario Building Code’s original (and still its primary) purpose is to ensure public health and safety, but this was expanded in 1990 to include requirements related to energy efficiency. The Code has also been used to advance other social priorities, including barrier-free access for Ontarians with disabilities.
Compared with other jur isdictions, Ontario has been a leader in embedding energy conservation in its building code. Since it affects the energy consumption of all new buildings, the OBC is one of the most important conservation tools available to the Ontario government. A great deal of activity has taken place in the three years since the passage of the Green Energy Act.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) has es tabl i shed a Building Code Energy Advisory Council that is composed of experts familiar with energy efficiency and building construction in large and small buildings. Since first meeting in February 2010, the Council’s advice played a major role in shaping the energy efficiency proposals proposed by MMAH for the next generation of the Building Code. The Council has recently been given a broader mandate to examine water conservation in buildings as well, following the passage of
skills training for builders. The Ontario Building Officials Association has been delivering skills training for inspectors, as well as working with industry to design a summary energy efficiency form that bui lders can submit to inspectors , simplifying an inspector’s job of assessing compliance.
NExT GENERATION CONSIDERATIONSAt the same time that MMAH was working to implement the energy performance provisions from the 2006 Code it also released for public comment a discussion paper that proposed changes for the next edition of the Code – the 2012 Code. The discussion paper proposed another round of improvements in overall building energy performance levels and sought comments on the proposed new levels for houses and larger buildings.
Two options were tabled for larger buildings – a 10 or 13% improvement over 2012 l e ve l s . The h ig her e f f i c i ency requirements would come into effect at the beginning of 2017, giving the building industry a five-year window to prepare.
T h e d i s c u s s i o n p a p e r p ro p o s e d expanding the scope of the Code to include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a n d p e a k e l e c t r i c a l d e m a n d , a n d introducing caps on greenhouse gas emissions and peak demand for large buildings. While these caps have no practical impact at this time (any building that met the proposed building energy performance requirement would also meet the greenhouse gas emissions and peak electrical demand requirements), the proposed changes would open the door to future Code measures that could specifically
the Wate r O pp or t un i t i e s and Wate r Conservation Act, 2010.
CuRRENT STANDARDSPrior to passage of the Green Energy Act, the 2006 Building Code had established higher energy performance levels for both small and large buildings, with the requirements coming into force January 1, 2012. This required large buildings to meet energy performance levels 25% higher than the 1997 Model National Energy Code for Buildings.
This was also a conceptual change based on an entire building’s energy performance, rather than simply mandating specific practices or technologies for certain elements of a building’s construction. Meeting these requirements would require large jumps in energy efficiency.
For larger buildings, MMAH intended to develop a compliance pathway that used the ASHRAE 90.1 standard already referenced in the Code. It had originally been thought that simply updating to the newest version (2010) of the ASHRAE 90.1 standard would achieve the Code’s energy efficiency goal of 25% than the Model National Energy Code for Buildings.
However, MMAH’s analysis suggested that buildings in minimal compliance with the ASHRAE 90.1 (2010) standard would fall slightly short of this goal. Therefore, MMAH amended a supplementary standard (SB-10) that built on the ASHRAE 90.1 standard, but slightly strengthened its energy efficiency levels.
Actual achievement of the new energy performance requirements in the Code requires builders to have the skills to build to Code, and inspectors to be qualified to detect non-compliance. The Ontar io Home Builders’ Association has been working with service providers to deliver energy efficiency
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT julY 2012 11
Energy Management
target reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or peak demand.
Public consultation on these changes closed on April 1, 2011, and was followed by a review by a technical advisory committee. At the time of writing this report, the government has not announced a decision on the proposed changes.
ECO COMMENTThe Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) is generally pleased with progress on the Building Code and believes that the government has met the original intent of this promise in the Green Energy Act. MMAH i s to b e commende d for the smo oth implementat ion of the higher building energy efficiency requirements that took effect in 2012 and for not retreating from the original energy goals.
In particular, the ECO notes that compliance with the energy goal for large buildings r e q u i r e d M M A H t o a d d a d d i t i o n a l requirements to the generally accepted standard (ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010), and commends MMAH for doing this. The new requirements ensure that Ontario continues to be a North American leader in its Code energy efficiency requirements.
The ECO supports the intention in the 2012 Code proposals to continue improving building energy efficiency, and encourages MMAH to move forward with a decision in a timely
fashion. The Green Energy Act requires a review of the Code’s energy efficiency provisions every five years, but the ECO is concerned that this period between Code updates is too long. The ECO recommends that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing review energy conservation amendments to the Ontario Building Code more frequently than the current five-year cycle.
FuTuRE DEVElOPMENTSThe ECO suggests that MMAH work with selected municipalities to have an independent energy auditor assess the “as-built” energy performance of a representative sample of large and small buildings built under the Code requirements that came into effect at the beginning of 2012.
The intent would not be to retroactively penalize underperforming buildings, but to gain an understanding of how well the new rules are working, and to determine whether the Code’s energy performance goals are being met. This work would help inform MMAH as to whether changes are needed in the current operation of the Code (e.g., additional training for builders or inspectors, or changes to the prescriptive packages), and would also inform the design of future versions of the Code.
For larger buildings, commissioning (testing of building systems) and data collection and measurement of energy use can help an operator ensure that a building is functioning as intended and prevent its performance from degrading over time. The current Code now requires large buildings to commission Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and daylighting systems.
Some additional ideas worth examining are to be found in the green model code, ASHRAE 189.1, which expands the commissioning requirements, and requires sub-metering of a building’s key energy loads, the collection and storage of energy consumption data, and a plan to track and measure ongoing energy performance. The ECO encourages MMAH to assess opportunities to increase a building’s energy performance through wise operational practices. i
The complete text of Restoring Balance: A Review of the First Three Years of The Green Energy Act can be found on the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s web site at www.eco.on.ca
DECEPTIVE CUTTING EDGE DESIGN
A recent amendment to the Ontario Building Code imposes new requirements for glass panels in residential balconies. As of July 1, 2012, builders must use heat-strengthened laminated glass, which is also used in automobile windshields to safeguard against shattering.
The amendment follows from a spate of incidents in which glass has broken and fallen from high-rise towers – spurring the Ontario government to establish an Expert Advisory Panel on Glass Panels in Balcony Guards. The new requirements, recommended in the Expert Advisory Panel’s report released in June 2012, are intended as an interim measure until the Canadian Standards Association can develop a national technical standard.
“The Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON) supports the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Panel on Glass in Balcony Guards,” says Michael Steele, RESCON’s Director of Technical Standards and a member of the Expert Panel. “These amendments will impose new standards, making Ontario’s Building Code provisions the most stringent in Canada with respect to use of glass panels in balcony guards.”
The amendment applies for building permits issued on or after July 1 so high-rise towers currently under construction will not necessarily comply unless builders choose to do so voluntarily. Economic analysis estimates that the mandated heat-strengthened laminated glass and/or heat-soaked tempered glass for guards inset from the edge of the balcony would add less than 1% to the cost of an average condominium unit.
Meanwhile, a recent report from Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, points to the higher energy costs inherent in the popularity and proliferation of so-called glass boxes – i.e. residential towers with a higher percentage of glazing. He commends the City of Toronto for implementing energy performance requirements in its Green Development Standard that should rein in some of the worst offences, but laments that too many slipped through before the stipulations and the Ontario Building Code’s higher energy standards went into effect.
“It is unfortunate that this change took so long and first required the City of Toronto to act on its own. The large number of high-rises designed before 2010 in Toronto and before 2012 in the rest of the province will be locked into lower energy performance for decades to come,” his report states. “The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has expressed a preference for consistent building standards across the province, yet this example shows why municipalities have been compelled to seek work-arounds with stricter requirements, outside of the framework of the Building Code. This episode illustrates the need for a quicker turnaround time on energy efficiency updates to the Building Code.”
12 julY 2012 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
Road ReckoningCalculating the Costs of Integrating Travel Modes
By Todd Litman
The benefits o f n o n - m o t o r i z e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n v a r y d e p e n d i n g o n perspective and conditions. Some result from increased walking and cycling activity, and others only result if automobile travel is reduced. Some benefits are internal (they directly benefit mode users); others are external (they benefit other people).
Benefits for the wider public include reduced roadway and parking facility costs, energy conservation, reductions in air, noise and water pollution, and economic activity arising from a more walkable and bikeable community. Various academic and gover n m en t - s p on s ore d s t u d i e s h ave estimated the value of these benefits, but most only consider a portion of benefits such as health and environmental benefits,
increased 1% to 9% for each 10-point WalkScore increase.
Other findings include 5.2% higher residential property values and 4.9% h i g h e r r e t a i l r e n t s i n L o n d o n neighbourhoods w ith good walking conditions. Retailers sometimes oppose non-motorized improvements, such as streetscaping and bicycle lanes, because they assume that motorists are better customers than pedestrians and cyclists, but this is often untrue. Bicycle parking is space-efficient and so generates about five times as much spending per square metre as car parking.
Non-motorized modes help achieve land use planning objectives, such as urban redeve lopment and compact , mixed-use community design. Moreover, pedestrian environments (sidewalks, paths and hallways) are a major portion of the public realm. Many beneficial activities ( soc ia l iz ing , wai t ing , shopping and eating) occur in pedestrian environments, and improving walkability can support these activities.
Walking and cycling improvements can support strategic land use development objectives by helping to create more compact, mixed, multi-modal, “smart growth” communities, where residents drive less and rely more on alternative modes. Improving walking and cycling conditions provides enjoyment and health benefits to users, and it can support re la ted industr ies , inc luding re ta i l , recreation and tourism.
Fundamenta l ly, too, wa lk ing and c y c l i n g p r o v i d e a f f o r d a b l e , b a s i c transport. People who are physically, economically and socially disadvantaged often rely on walking and cycling. Thus, non-motorized modes can help achieve social equity and economic opportunity objectives.
CONGESTION CONDITIONSMotorists are occasionally delayed by pedestrians and cyclists so people may wonder if shifts from driving to non-motorized modes reduces congestion overall. In most cases, pedestrians and cyclists prefer to avoid busy roads and so reduce congestion. To analyze this impact,
user savings and congestion reductions. Few have included outcomes such as parking savings or reduced chauffeuring responsibilities. Including other benefit categories (reduced congestion, parking costs , user costs , e tc .) could fur ther influence assumptions about value.
ECONOMIC SPINOFFSAnalysis indicates that better walking and cycling conditions and increased non-motorized travel activ ity can increase p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . L o o k i n g a t U. S . metropolitan regions, studies have shown a one point increase in WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) is associated with a $700 to $3,000 increase in home values, while o f f i ce , re t a i l a n d a p a r t m en t v a lu e s
Green Fundamentals
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT julY 2012 13
Green Fundamentals
bicycling conditions are divided into four classes: 1. Uncongested roads and separ ated
paths. Bicycling in these conditions causes no traffic congestion.
2. C o n g e s t e d r o a d s w i t h s p a c e f o r bicyclists. Bicycling on a road shoulder (common on highways), a wide curb lane (common in suburban and urban areas), or a bike lane contributes little traffic congestion except at intersections where turning manoeuvres may be delayed.
3. Nar row, congested roads w ith low speed traffic. Bicycling on a narrow, congested road where cyclists can keep up with traffic (common on urban streets) probably causes less congestion than an average car due to bicycles’ smaller size.
4. N a r r o w , c o n g e s t e d r o a d s w i t h m o d e r a t e t o h i g h s p e e d t r a f f i c . Bicycling on a narrow, congested road where the rider cannot keep up with traffic and faster vehicles cannot easily pass can cause significant congestion delay.
Congestion is reduced when motorists shift to bicycling under the first three conditions. Only under condition #4 does a shift fail to reduce congestion. This represents a small portion of cycling travel because most cyclists avoid riding under such conditions if possible, and bicycling is forbidden altogether on urban freeways.
Empirical evidence indicates that, all else being equal, improved walking and cycling conditions and shifts from driving to these modes tends to reduce traffic congestion. For example, a major study for the Arizona Department of Transportation analyzed the relationships between land use patterns and traffic conditions in Phoenix, Arizona.
It found significantly less congestion on roads in older, higher density areas than in newer, lower density suburban areas due to more mixed land use (particularly more retail in residential areas), more transit and non-motorized travel, and a more connected street grid that provides more route options and enables more walking. A s a r e s u l t , r e s i d e n t s o f o l d e r
While our competitors are just starting to “go green”...
905.761.9411~ www.mainlineservices.com
• We are the only cleaning company who has implemented certified ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems.
• Our environmental solution focuses on conserving water, minimizing energy consumption and using safe, non-toxic cleaning products/systems.
• Our programs contribute to LEEDS & BOMA Go Green Programs
• Each technician is certified in Health & Safety, IICRC & WHMIS.
• Servicing millions of square feet per month.
• Satisfying clients since 1978.
Mainline is leading the way with a deeper commitment
14 julY 2012 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
neighbourhoods generate less total vehicle travel and drive less on major roadways, reducing traffic congestion.
SAFETY & HEAlTH Because pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable to traffic injuries than motor vehicle occupants, people may also wonder if shifts from motorized to non-motorized t r ave l are over a l l sa fe and hea l thy. Although walking and cycling have higher per-mile casualty rates than automobile travel, empirical evidence indicates that shifts from driving to non-motorized modes tends to reduce total per capita crash casualty rates. As walking and cycling activity increases in an area, total traffic accident rates tend to decline – an effect known as safety in numbers.
Meta-analysis indicates that people who shift from driv ing to bicycling enjoy substantial health benefits (3 to 14 month longevity gains), plus external health benefits from reduced air pollution and crash risk to other road users. It has been estimated that Portland, Oregon’s 40-year bicycle facility investments provide $388- to $594-mil l ion wor th of healthcare sav ings and $7-12 bi l l ion wor th of
longevity value, resulting in positive net benefits.
Other European based researchers have estimated the health impacts caused by shifts from car to bicycling or walking considering changes in physical fitness, air pol lution exposure and accident r isk. Switching from driving to bicycling for a 5-kilometre one-way commute provides physical activity health benefits worth 1 , 3 0 0 € a n nu a l l y a n d a i r e m i s s i o n reduction worth 30 €/yr. overall.
Commuters who switch modes bear additional air pollution costs averaging 20 € / y r, b u t t h i s d e p e n d s o n c yc l i n g conditions and can often have the opposite sign if cyclists are separated from major roadways. Changes in bicyclists’ accident risk vary. Overall, any increase in accident r isk is at least an order of magnitude smal ler than physical act iv i ty heal th benefit. i
Todd Litman is with the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The preceding article is excerpted from his recent report, Whose Roads? Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways. For more information, see the web site at www.vtpi.org.
Green Fundamentals
Duro-Last’s prefabricated roofing system is ideal for any flat or
