A Study of Prescriptive Requirements for EnerGuide 80 in Ontario s Building Code. for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Transcription

1 A Study of Prescriptive Requirements for EnerGuide 80 in Ontario s Building Code for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing March 2010

2 Copyright 2010 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing All Rights Reserved Reproduction of this publication in whole or in part is strictly prohibited without the expressed permission of the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

3 A Study of Prescriptive Requirements for EnerGuide 80 in Ontario s Building Code for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing March 2010

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION...3 Scope and Objectives of the Research Study...4 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY...5 Review Energy Simulation Programs with Energy Advisor Survey...6 ERS 80 Analysis of 2006 OBC Archetype and 11 NRCan Houses...6 Develop New 2009 MMAH Archetype...6 ERS 80 Analysis of 2009 MMAH Archetype...6 ERS 80 Compliance Packages...7 Capital Cost of Upgrade Components...7 Life Cycle Costing of Compliance Packages...7 CHAPTER HOT2000 AND THE ENERGUIDE RATING SYSTEM...9 EnerGuide Rating System (ERS)...10 HOT2000 Background...11 HOT2000 Survey...12 Summary of Survey Results (N=16)...12 Alternative Analysis Programs...15 CHAPTER COMPLIANCE PACKAGES...17 Generating the 2009 MMAH Archetype...18 Sensitivity Analysis Upgrades to 2009 MMAH Archetype...18 Sensitivity Analysis Special Conditions...21 Proposed Compliance Packages...21 Additional Compliance Packages: Insulating Concrete Forms and Combo Systems...28 CHAPTER ENERGY CONSUMPTION...31 Energy Consumption for Each Compliance Package...32 Energy Consumption Impact Forecast Example: Toronto...34 CHAPTER LIFE CYCLE COSTS...37 Capital Costs of Energy Measures...38 Annual Operating Costs...39 Study Period...40 Energy Price Forecasts...40 Interest Rates...40 Life Cycle Costing Formula...40 Three Forecast Scenarios...41 CONCLUSION APPENDICES... 47

6

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 1, 2012, the Building Code will require the energy efficiency design of a building or part of a building of residential occupancy within the scope of Part 9 that is intended to be occupied on a continuing basis during the winter months to achieve a performance level that is equal to a rating of 80 (ERS 80) or more when evaluated in accordance with Natural Resources Canada s (NRCan) EnerGuide for New Houses: Administrative and Technical Procedures ERS 80 as an energy efficiency performance level has not been translated in a comprehensive way into a prescriptive equivalent. While approaches have been used to calibrate ERS 80 in single houses, none have extended the analysis to a representative sample of Ontario houses. The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing sought to better define the requirements for energy efficiency for housing within the Building Code for new Ontario houses. The task consisted of two activities grounded in the actual performance of housing currently constructed in Ontario. This document summarizes the results and observations of the second activity completed by Lio & Associates and EnerQuality Corporation. The objective of this study was to develop alternative packages of prescriptive energy efficiency requirements that are equivalent to the efficiency level offered by EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). The goal of the study was to identify prescriptive packages that could reasonably be adopted by the home building industry and that achieve a level of energy efficiency deemed equivalent to that of EnerGuide 80. The following tasks were completed for this study: review energy simulation programs; complete an EnerQuality energy advisor survey; complete a sensitivity analysis using HOT2000; perform an ERS 80 analysis for the old house archetypes; develop a new 2009 MMAH Archetype House; perform an ERS 80 analysis of the 2009 MMAH Archetype House; test and generate full range of compliance packages for natural gas, oil and electrically heated houses in less than and more than 5000 degree day climate zones for the new archetype house; establish capital costs associated with compliance packages; and establish life cycle costing for the range of compliance packages. The results of each task presented in this document attempts to advise the Ministry in the development of prescriptive options for the Building Code in response to consumer and building industry demand for higher energy efficiency. A total of 38 packages were developed for natural gas, oil, and electrically heated houses in Zones 1 and 2 of Ontario. Each package considered upgrade options for envelope and mechanical components. The envelope components included the insulation and performance of the ceiling, above grade walls, 1

8 foundation, and windows. Different levels of mechanical equipment efficiencies for ventilation, heating, and domestic hot water systems were also analyzed and proposed as upgrade options. A forecast of the cumulative savings in energy and greenhouse gas emissions was developed. The proposed 38 packages showed a cumulative energy savings of 10 petajoules and a cumulative green house gas emission reduction of 500 kilotonnes over the current 2006 Code built house by the year When compared to a 1997 Code-built house, the cumulative energy savings increased to 27 petajoules and the cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emission rose to 1300 kilotonnes. 2

9 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Ontario has consistently been a leader in the development of building codes in Canada. This has been particularly true in relation to the energy efficiency provisions for housing. The energy efficiency requirements embodied in the Building Code are the results of the strong government policies and priorities. In the development of the energy efficiency provisions that will achieve the government s targets: practicality, enforceability and cost effectiveness were considered. While the Ontario Code s energy efficiency requirements are some of the most progressive in Canada, the Ministry is interested in staying at the forefront of building standards in Canada and is seeking ways to improve the provisions within the Code. By the end of December 2011, new housing must be built to have an energy efficiency performance level equivalent to that of EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). ERS 80 as a performance level of energy efficiency has not been translated in a comprehensive way into a prescriptive equivalent aligned with the current provisions of the Code. While approaches have been used to calibrate ERS 80 in single houses, none have extended the analysis to a representative sample of Ontario houses, nor have equivalents been established for the Code s fuel choice categories or climatic zones. In addition, it has been more than a decade that Ontario houses have been assessed with regard to air tightness. Cross Canada studies conducted in the past tested a very limited sample of Ontario houses which provided an indication of levels of tightness, but the sample was not statistically significant. 1, 2 1 Airtightness Tests on 200 New Houses Across Canada: Summary of Results, by Michael Sulatisky for Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, January Airtightness and Energy Efficiency of New Conventional and R-2000 Housing in Canada, by Tom Hamlin and John Gusdorf, for Natural Resources Canada (CANMET), November

10 Scope and Objectives of the Research Study The results of two studies undertaken by the Ministry have helped to better define the requirements for energy efficiency for housing within the Code. These two activities are grounded in the actual performance of housing currently constructed in Ontario. The objective of the first activity, completed by ALC Incorporated, was to conduct a survey of average air leakage rates for typical homes built in accordance with the Building Code and to identify the best practices with respect to installation of air barrier systems that were currently used in achieving improved airtight home envelopes and how they may differ from conventional building practices. While the focus was detached single dwelling units for this study, the air leakage of town homes and semidetached homes was also assessed. The objective of the second study, completed by Lio and Associates and EnerQuality Corporation, was to develop alternative packages of prescriptive energy efficiency requirements that are equivalent to the efficiency level offered by EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). The goal of the study is to identify prescriptive packages that will have minimal negative impact on homeowners and the home building industry while achieving the level of energy efficiency equivalent to that of EnerGuide 80. The analysis considers detached houses, Part 9 apartment buildings, attached (townhomes) and semi-detached houses. 4

11 CHAPTER 2 Methodology Several alternative prescriptive compliance packages that achieve EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80) have been created, tested and optimized as part of this study. The compliance packages were initially developed for the existing OBC archetype house. The packages were then applied to the new 2009 archetype house developed from housing characteristics extracted from the first study. The results from past and current archetype were compared. This study also assessed the performance of the 11 archetype buildings Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has developed as part of its Protocol for Validating ENERGY STAR for New Homes Builder Option Packages (BOPs). The requirements of ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative and the capabilities of energy simulation programs were also examined. The following tasks were completed for this study: review energy simulation programs; complete an EnerQuality energy advisor survey; complete a sensitivity analysis using HOT ; perform an ERS 80 analysis for the old house archetypes; develop a new archetype house; perform an ERS 80 analysis of the new archetype house; test and generate full range of compliance packages for natural gas, oil and electrically heated houses in less than and more than 5000 degree day climate zones for the new archetype house; establish capital costs associated with compliance packages; and establish life cycle costing for the range of compliance packages. 3 HOT2000 is an official mark of Natural Resources Canada 4 HOT2000 version 9.34c 5

12 Review Energy Simulation Programs with Energy Advisor Survey The HOT computer simulation program was examined in detail to investigate the capabilities and limitations of the program. Energy consumption results were considered and analysed that resulted from variations due to house size, orientation, fuel type, and window percentage area. Alternative programs, including but not limited to HOT2XP, HOT2-EC, HOT3000, Houstrad, and RETScreen, were analysed for their capabilities and limitations. The results were documented and compared to the HOT2000 program. An Energy Advisor survey was prepared and distributed to all EnerQuality certified energy advisors to complete. The survey was used to capture the opinions from energy advisors of HOT2000 based on their daily experience with the software. ERS 80 Analysis of 2006 OBC Archetype and 11 NRCan Houses A preliminary ERS 80 analysis was completed using the HOT2000 software against the existing OBC archetype house and NRCan s 11 reference houses used for the development of the current ENERGY STAR for New Homes Technical Specification in the province. The analysis generated a number of options for complying with ERS 80. A preliminary list of compliance packages was developed for use with a new archetype house. Develop New 2009 MMAH Archetype A new archetype house was developed by considering all the relevant house characteristics of all houses evaluated in Activity 1. Activity 1 evaluated the performance of 100 houses representing the most popular models currently built in the province and gathered from among Ontario s largest builders. The sample represents a very large number of houses currently built in the province, proportional to the local construction activity. It includes semi-detached and attached building in the approximate proportion of those currently built in the province. The housing characteristics that were used included the following: foundation wall area, ceiling area, exterior main wall area, floor area, exposed floor area, slab perimeter, slab area, window area, air change rate and house volume. ERS 80 Analysis of 2009 MMAH Archetype Based on the results of the preliminary analysis, a more tailored sensitivity analysis was performed on the new archetype house. The envelope components and mechanical systems were reassessed and their impact in achieving ERS 80 was re-examined. 5 HOT2000 version 9.34c 6

13 ERS 80 Compliance Packages In conjunction with Ministry Staff, compliance packages were generated and tested. The analysis included an examination of the ENERGY STAR for New Homes Technical Specifications Version 4.0. Numerous packages were generated and tested for natural gas, oil and electric space heating in the two climatic zones of the Building Code. Each package was developed to achieve a performance level of ERS 80 for the archetype house. Capital Cost of Upgrade Components The capital cost borne by the homebuyer for every upgraded envelope component and mechanical appliance within each ERS compliance package was determined. A number of builders were requested to price each upgrade and report their results on a set of standardized worksheets. The upgrade components selected from the results of the sensitively analyses were summarized into Builder Worksheets to obtain initial costs. Participating builders used the worksheets to present their costs including all labour and mark-up costs. The results from all participating builders were averaged and used to assess the initial viability of each upgrade component. The builder worksheet template can be found in Appendix A. Life Cycle Costing of Compliance Packages A life cycle costing analysis of each of the compliance packages was conducted. The life cycle analysis used a study period of 25 years which corresponds to a typical residential mortgage. A discount rate was calculated from the current mortgage rate and the current inflation rate. The analysis considered the future forecast of energy prices using a range of escalation rates between 0.5% and 4.5%. The range captures the escalation rates predicted by the National Energy Board. 7

14 8

15 CHAPTER 3 HOT2000 and the EnerGuide Rating System Natural Resources Canada s EnerGuide Rating System uses the HOT2000 software to evaluate the energy performance of houses. The software underpins the EnerGuide labels provided to owners of both new and existing homes. ERS is used as part of the administration of grants for the federal government s ecoenergy program. HOT2000 is also used to establish compliance to the ENERGY STAR for New Homes program and the R-2000 Standard. This section assesses the capabilities of the HOT simulation program particularly its use within the province as part the Building Code. 6 HOT2000 version 9.34c 9

16 EnerGuide Rating System (ERS) The EnerGuide Rating System (ERS) uses a rating scale from 0 to 100. A score of 100 represents a home with zero purchased energy. The ERS presents the opportunity for a performance approach method by modeling each house individually and demonstrating where it sits on the rating scale. ENERGY STAR levels of energy efficiency are calibrated to an ERS 80 on the scale. ERS 80 also represents the target space and water heating consumption for R-2000 houses. The formula for calculating ERS can be found in Appendix B of this report. HOT2000 is able to simulate the energy performance of houses quite accurately. It considers all envelop areas and their corresponding thermal resistances, the building s orientation and level of exposure to wind, the mechanical and lighting systems installed together with occupant characteristics. Taken together all of the inputs to the simulation program define the heat loss and heat gain characteristics of virtually any small residential building. Almost all of the federal government s energy efficiency programs for housing reference HOT2000 in one way or another: ecoenergy this NRCan housing energy efficiency program requires houses registered in the program to be evaluated by trained energy advisors. Certification, training and quality assurance is supplied by NRCan or its service organizations. The Government of Canada offers grants for qualifying energy upgrades to homeowners as part of the ecoenergy incentive program. The Government of Ontario through its Retrofit Rebate Program provides matching grants to those from the federal government. Homes must have an evaluation completed by a licensed energy advisor who recommends upgrades. Financial incentives are provided for homeowners who perform the recommended upgrades within an 18 month period. HOT2000 is the assessment tool used as part of the ecoenergy Program and by extension the Retrofit Rebate Program. EnerGuide Rating System Initiative for New Homes This initiative is administered by Natural Resources Canada to provide energy ratings for new houses. No minimum rating is prescribed. Energy advisors, who are trained and certified by NRCan-licensed service organizations, work with builders to provide ratings for houses under construction. HOT2000 is the assessment tool for houses rated under the program. Enrolled and evaluated houses can qualify for an EnerGuide label. R-2000 Standard The R-2000 Standard is administered by NRCan and developed in partnership with Canada s residential construction industry. Each R-2000 home must be individually assessed using HOT2000 and must achieve the following in order to qualify for R-2000 certification: an ERS 80 level of efficiency; a mechanical ventilation system; indoor air quality and environmental features; and water conservation measures. R-2000 houses when tested using a blower door cannot be leakier than Pa. Complying with this air tightness requirement suggests that strict quality assurance both during construction and after construction is necessary. HOT2000 is the energy performance simulation program that calculates the house energy consumption and the R-2000 energy target against which it is compared. 10

17 ENERGY STAR for New Homes this program is administered by NRCan. It is an energy-efficient new homes initiative aimed at production builders who can have their homes labeled through a prescriptive or a performance method. HOT2000 is only used when the performance compliance path is used. No computer simulation is needed when the prescriptive approach is used. HOT2000 Background HOT2000 originated in 1982 as HOTCAN, first developed by the National Research Council of Canada. Today, the software is developed and distributed by Natural Resources Canada. With every new release new calculation modules have been added and the user interface improved. The program now includes enhanced foundation heat loss analysis, a combination heating and hot water system calculation module, improved energy upgrades analysis, and improved reporting. Its accuracy has been verified by testing and confirming results against actual houses. HOT2000 was developed for North American home design professionals. HOT2000 s heat loss/gain calculations account for building location and orientation, solar gains, and the operation and performance of the building s HVAC systems. It can be used to forecast energy consumption on a monthly basis, project energy costs, and improve the energy efficiency of building designs. HOT2000 can model various building geometries and configurations as well as various heating and domestic hot water systems using different fuel types and different steady state or seasonal efficiencies. It can also model tilted windows and skylights, various thermal mass levels, and various weather/climate profiles. Finally, mechanical ventilation can be modeled with various systems, and actual blower door test results or pre-defined air tightness levels can be chosen for air infiltration. Aside from calculating EnerGuide ratings, HOT2000 can also project energy costs and performance, predict air infiltration rates, account for passive solar heating, and ensure compliance with energy regulations. 11

18 HOT2000 Survey An online survey of Ontario energy advisors was developed to obtain feedback on the use of HOT2000 and the EnerGuide Rating System. Survey participants, drawn from EnerQuality s roster of certified advisors, were asked to comment on their experience using HOT2000 and the EnerGuide Rating System. A complete set of survey responses are provided in Appendix C. Summary of Survey Results (N=16) Question 1: How easy is HOT2000 to use? Overall, there was a mixed response regarding the ease of use of HOT % of respondents rated the program as somewhat difficult to use, 38% of respondents rated the program as somewhat easy, and 19% felt neutral about the ease of use of the program. Respondents attributed difficulties in using the program to a number of factors including software errors and glitches, as well as a lack of troubleshooting/training help. Some respondents also indicated that information in the default libraries does not match common industry data or information and is out of sync with industry practice. Question 2: How accurately does HOT2000 simulate the total energy use of houses? Respondents felt that HOT2000 was accurate in simulating the total energy use for different types of houses (e.g. single, semi-detached, row-house), occupancy conditions (e.g. multi-generational family), and for different types of mechanical heating and ventilating. However, responses were mixed as to whether HOT2000 accurately simulates the total energy use of houses when on-site renewable energy systems are installed. Question 3: Is HOT2000 sufficiently capable at modelling all components of a house? The majority of survey respondents (81.3%) felt that HOT2000 is sufficiently capable of modelling all components of a house. Those that did not find the program sufficiently capable of modelling all components of a house (18.8%) commented on a number of components that were not modeled accurately. These include air conditioning, drain water heat recovery systems, solar hot water tanks, and solar panels. Others felt that there is limited flexibility in modelling windows, and the list of selections for foundation modelling could be improved. Another concern is limited modelling with regard to building envelopes and effects of wind washing. 12

19 Question 4: Are HOT2000 results consistent when generated by different advisors? There was a mixed response as 62.5% of respondents felt that results were consistent, while 37.5% of respondents felt that results were not consistent when generated by different advisors. Some respondents expressed that adequate training reduces the discrepancies between advisors. Others commented that discrepancies were in part caused by large number of inputs and variables and rounding off of numbers. However, respondents commented that even though evaluations differed, results usually varied within a 10% range. One respondent suggested that the discrepancy between results supports the case for more fixed average inputs. Question 5: To what extent does the HOT2000 output provide sufficient information to enable the assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive requirements? The majority of respondents felt that HOT2000 provides sufficient information to enable the assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive requirements. Specifically, some respondents felt that HOT2000 requires many extraneous and insignificant inputs, but if these inputs were defaulted or kept constant, the program could be used as compliance tool. Question 6: Overall, from your experience, how well does HOT2000 simulate the actual energy consumption within the home? Overall, respondents felt that HOT2000 simulates the actual energy consumption within the home fairly well. However, respondents indicated that occupancy and lifestyle influences can affect actual consumption. Advanced building techniques may also influence results. Question 7: What other computer simulation programs for energy use in housing would you recommend? Other suggested computer simulation programs for energy use in housing recommended by respondents are Energy Gauge, RemRate, HRAI, and Wrightsoft. Respondents commented on their experience with other programs: other programs seem to have other limitations, RemRate has less inputs available than HOT2000 RetScreen may be too extensive for residential modeling Wrightsoft is too be basic in comparison to HOT2000 Right Suite, or other such commonly available heat loss programs could be adapted for compliance verification an excel spreadsheet could be configured for use as a compliance tool. 13

20 Question 8: Please provide your thoughts or additional comments that you may have on the use of the EnerGuide Rating System and the HOT2000 computer program to establish the energy use of new houses. Some common themes from respondents feedback: HOT2000 is too complex for use as a compliance tool EnerGuide rating scale is too large and small changes in energy efficiency are often not reflected as a change in points All new houses fall in a narrow range on the scale, much improvement is needed to move a house up on the scale - multiple measures are generally required to move the scale by one integer making it difficult for the builder to measure the merit of each individual technology or strategy The scale used for the EnerGuide Rating System is not clearly communicated and calculations behind ratings are not made clear enough Alignment of the rating system with the HERS Index used in the United States with a score of zero denoting no energy use in a home Others suggested improvements to specific applications and components in HOT2000, such as addition of a room by room heat loss measure, improvement of the assessment of lighting and entertainment devices, and problems with analysis of air tightness and ventilation Some felt that the EnerGuide Rating System is a well recognized program, and there is merit in using a program with which builders are already familiar Survey Conclusions Overall, respondents feel that HOT2000 output provides sufficient information to enable the assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive requirements. It is accurate in modelling most components of a house and in modelling different types of houses. However, there are some limitations to the program, such as it s inflexibility to model renewable energy technologies and proper window performance. As a compliance assessment tool, it is sufficient in providing enough information and may actually be overly complex for use as a compliance tool. The EnerGuide Rating System is already recognizable by builders which may help to ease its transition for use as a compliance tool; however there are issues with the system that need to be further examined. There is also misunderstanding of the EnerGuide rating scale convention of 100 being the best and 0 the worst. Survey respondents have recommended that the scale should model the HERS scale used in the U.S., where a rating of zero equals no energy use. In any case, better communication of the rating systems would help to remedy any misunderstanding by both builders and consumers. The use of HOT2000 as a compliance tool must be accompanied by adequate training and education for evaluators. Adequate training is required in order to reduce discrepancies between results generated by different advisors. 14

21 Alternative Analysis Programs CanmetENERGY has developed other software in addition to HOT2000 that to analyze, model, and simulate the energy use of housing. This software is intended provide industry with a means to reduce costs, assess compliance, and qualify for funding and incentive programs. HOT2XP shares the same analysis engine as HOT2000 however it requires fewer inputs than HOT2000. The program defaults a number of inputs for internal calculations. HOT2XP is an accurate analysis tool for simple single-family housing. HOT2000 is recommended for more complex take-offs where default inputs may not be as accurate. HOT2XP has fallen into disuse as the benefits to an experienced HOT2000 operator are negligible. HOT2-EC is a special version of HOT2000 that provides compliance with the 1997 Model National Energy Code for Houses (MNECH). The program is used when building designs do not meet the Prescriptive or Trade-offs Paths but are designed to be energy efficient. HOT2-EC is used in these cases to show that the buildings meet MNECH Thus this program should not be used for conventional EnerGuide rating takeoffs. As the MNECH is significantly out of date the usefulness of the software is also questionable. HOT3000 is fundamentally more accurate and comprehensive than HOT2000 due to its time-step engine as opposed to the bin-based core of HOT2000. This approach allows more complex house systems and heat transfer processes to be modeled, resulting in broader and finer resolution of simulation. Specifically, HOT3000 evaluates hourly energy demands and fuel consumption, time-ofuse rates and includes a three-dimensional graphical view of the house model. Finally, it allows for HVAC system sizing, a problem apparent in most of the current analysis programs. HOT3000 is not yet commercially available; however, a public release of Version 1 was expected in Fall The program remains a research tool. It may eventually be ported over to a HOT2000 platform, Similar to HOT2-EC, Houstrad is used to demonstrate compliance with the envelope requirements of the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Houses (MNECH) using trade-offs. Again, this program should not be used for conventional EnerGuide rating takeoffs. RETScreen is a comprehensive analysis program that can evaluate the energy production and savings, costs, emission reductions, financial viability and risk for various types of Renewable-energy and Energy-efficient Technologies. However, RETscreen is primarily a decision support tool as opposed to a rating and analysis software. 15

22 United States of America - RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) RESNET is an industry not-for-profit corporation that develops standards regarding the energy performance of homes. RESNET has a standard that covers software accreditation; the tests were developed by U.S. National Laboratories and RESNET. RESNET has a standard that accredited software tools must meet. The requirements can be found in the Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards. The ratings are based on calculation procedures for evaluating the home, including the assumptions for baseloads, default efficiencies, default framing fractions, etc. It also provides the parameters that must be used for the reference house. Currently, there are three approved software programs for evaluating the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index: EnergyGauge USA Version 2.8 EnergyInsightsTM V5 REM/Rate v12.7. The software outputs a rating using the relative energy-use index called the HERS index. The HERS index is not a fixed scale but starts at 100 and can go up or down from there. 100 represents a home built to the characteristics of the reference house as defined by RESNET. A score of 0 would represent a house that requires no net purchased energy. The reference house is integral to the evaluation software and takes into consideration the climate, efficiencies of mechanical equipment, construction and other characteristics. 16

23 CHAPTER 4 Compliance Packages The effects of incremental energy efficiency improvements to the building envelope and mechanical systems were simulated using the HOT2000 computer simulation program. The improvements taken together were considered in relation to the EnerGuide rating they produced. Energy efficiency upgrades that were examined included improvements to insulation, windows, air leakage, mechanical equipment, and lighting. The effect of each measure on the house s rating was established. Sets of measures were bundled as compliance packages and tested to reach an EnerGuide 80 energy efficiency level. The EnerGuide rating considers energy used for space and water heating. Electrical consumption for specific energy efficient products was considered through as a fixed set of energy credits. Compliance packages were generated for each climatic zone as defined by the Building Code (Zone 1, less than 5000 degree days and Zone 2, 5000 degree days or more) and for different fuel types (natural gas, oil, and electric space heating). Each compliance package attempted to capture reasonable combinations of mechanical equipment and envelope upgrades. Final compliance packages were selected and assembled for the life cycle costing analysis that follows in the next Chapter. 17

24 Generating the 2009 MMAH Archetype In previous Ontario studies of regulated housing energy efficiency, a benchmark house was used as the basis for the estimates of construction costs and energy consumption. The building was a two-storey detached house with an approximate size of 2100 square feet (123 square metres) that was representative of Ontario norms at the time with respect to size and layout. Preliminary sets of compliance measures or packages were developed based the performance of this house. These formed the basis for the eventual development of compliance packages that were based on an updated 2009 archetype house. Please see Appendix D for the summarized results. In February 2009, the ENERGY STAR for New Homes Technical Specifications Version 4.0 was released across the province. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) required that the development of the Specification be based on 11 reference houses. The 11 houses, representing a variety of home configurations and sizes were considered in the development of the provincial code compliance packages. Please see Appendix E for the summarized results. A new 2009 archetype house was developed for this study. The new archetype house was developed by considering all the relevant house characteristics of all 100 houses evaluated in Activity 1. The 100 house sample represented the most popular models currently built in the province and gathered from among Ontario s largest builders. The sample represents a very large number of houses currently built in the province. It includes semi-detached and attached building in the approximate proportion of those currently built in the province. The housing characteristics that were used included the following: foundation wall area, ceiling area, exterior main wall area, floor area, exposed floor area, slab perimeter, slab area, window area, air change rate and house volume. The arithmetic mean of all 100 data inputs for each characteristic was calculated to derive the physical attributes of the new archetype. The attributes of the existing benchmark house were comparable to the new archetype. While minor differences were identified, in general the physical characteristics of both houses were very similar. This observation served to validate the new 2009 MMAH Archetype as derived from the 100 sample. The archetype, the authors believe, is representative of new housing currently built across the province and is suitable as a norm for use in demonstrating provincial code compliance. See Appendix F for more details on the new archetype. Sensitivity Analysis Upgrades to 2009 MMAH Archetype Figures 1 and 2 summarize the sensitivity analysis results using the new archetype house for Zone 1 and Zone 2. These figures show the incremental effect of each upgrade on the EnerGuide rating. 18

25 Figure 1: 2009 MMAH Archetype Sensitivity Analysis Zone 1 # Upgrade ERS 1 ENERGY STAR V4 Specification (EnerQuality) Electric Furnace w/ OBC R values Zone C Windows (1.6 W/m^2) % % Wall 4: R29 (R " insulating sheathing) % Wall 3: R27 Wall 1 + Wall % Wall 2: R24 (R19 + 1" insulating sheathing) Zone B Windows (1.8 W/m^2) CFL (550 kwh Total) R20 batt Basement EF Gas 94% AFUE Wall 1: R22 High density batt kwh electrical credits 17 R50 Blown cellulose + 10" raised heel truss ERS R50 Blown Fibreglass + 10" raised heel truss Delta EF R5 1" full slab Gas 92% AFUE R50 Blown cellulose R50 Blown Fibreglass R5 1" 600 mm perimeter Enery Efficient Motor Credit (ECM) R31 Exposed Floors Steel Polyurathane Core Door MMAH Archetype Toronto Oil 85% AFUE w/ Oil DHW Oil 85% AFUE w/ Electric DHW Oil 80% AFUE w/ Oil DHW Oil 80% AFUE w/ Electric DHW

26 Figure 2: 2009 MMAH Archetype Sensitivity Analysis Zone 2 # Upgrade ERS 1 ENERGY STAR V4 Specification (EnerQuality) Zone C Windows (1.6 W/m^2) Electric Furnace w/ OBC R values % % Zone B Windows (1.8 W/m^2) % % Wall 4: R29 (R " insulating sheathing) R20 batt Basement CFL (550 kwh Total) Gas 94% AFUE EF R50 Blown cellulose + 10" raised heel truss R5 1" full slab Wall 3: R27 Wall 1 + Wall kwh electrical credits 17 R50 Blown Fibreglass + 10" raised heel truss ERS EF Delta Gas 92% AFUE R50 Blown cellulose R50 Blown Fibreglass R5 1" 600 mm perimeter Wall 2: R24 (R19 + 1" insulating sheathing) * Code 24 Enery Efficient Motor Credit (ECM) R31 Exposed Floors Steel Polyurathane Core Door Wall 1: R22 High density batt ** downgrade from Code 2009 MMAH Archetype Sudbury Oil 85% AFUE w/ Oil DHW Oil 85% AFUE w/ Electric DHW Oil 80% AFUE w/ Oil DHW Oil 80% AFUE w/ Electric DHW Note: EnerQuality's ENERGY STAR for New Homes Technical Specifications Version 4.0 does not have a prescriptive package for Sudbury (Zone 2) 20

27 Sensitivity Analysis Special Conditions Based on NRCan s 11 reference houses, the authors observed specific conditions that required further analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of window area and house volume on the overall EnerGuide rating. The results showed a negative correlation between window area and the EnerGuide rating and showed no correlation between house volume and the EnerGuide rating. See Appendix G for details. To address the effects of large window areas, the authors proposed upgrading the window s overall coefficient of heat transfer required by the selected compliance package to the next level if the percentage of window area is more than 17% but not more than 22% of the total wall area. If the percentage is greater than 22%, it is recommended to require a performance path approach. Among the NRCan archetypes, two more conditions needed to be addressed: slab-on-grade and basement walkouts. To address these lower performing conditions, the authors proposed to upgrade insulation level of the walkout basement walls and require insulation with a minimum R Value of 10 to be installed around the perimeter of slab-edge-on-grade walkouts and the entire slab for slab-on-grade and basement floor slabs. Proposed Compliance Packages Compliance packages were generated for each climatic zone (Zone 1, less than 5000 degree days and Zone 2, 5000 degree days or more) and for natural gas, oil, and electric space heating. Each compliance package attempted to capture reasonable combinations of mechanical equipment and envelope upgrades. Each compliance package was tested to verify that it in fact achieved the EnerGuide 80 energy efficiency level. Final compliance packages were selected and assembled for the life cycle costing analysis that follows in the next chapter. Figures 3 to 8 present the selected compliance packages that were evaluated as part of the life cycle costing analysis in the Chapter that follows. (See Appendix H for initial costs and the EnerGuide rating for each compliance package) 21

28 Figure 3: Zone 1 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code A B C D E F G H I J Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R19 R24 R27 R27 R24 R24 R24 R24 R24 R22 R22 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) Skylights (max U value) 2.0 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 2.0 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K Basement Walls R12 R20 R20 R20 R20 R20 R12 R12 R12 R20 R12 Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/Gentire surface Slab =<600mm B/Gentire surface - R R8 Perimeter 2' Heated surf. Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) Ventilation % 60% 60% 70% HRV 55% HRV 60% Domestic Hot Water EF

29 Figure 4: Zone 1 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment between 78 90% AFUE Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code A B C D E F Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R19 R29 R29 R29 R27 R27 R27 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) Skylights (max U value) 2.0 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K Basement Walls R12 R20 R12 R20 R20 R20 R20 Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/Gentire surface Slab =<600mm B/Gentire surface Heated surf R8 Perimeter 2' R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) % 84% 84% Ventilation - 55% 55% 70% 55% 70% 75% Domestic Hot Water EF

30 Figure 5: Zone 1 Compliance Packages Electric Space Heating Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code A Upgrade B Upgrade Ceiling R50 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R29 R29 R29 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K Skylights (max U value) W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K Basement Walls R19 R20 R12 Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/Gentire surface Slab =<600mm B/Gentire surface Heated surf R10 Perimeter 2' R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) Ventilation - 55% 75% Domestic Hot Water EF

31 Figure 6: Zone 2 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code A B C D E F G H I J Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R24 R29 R29 R29 R27 R27 R27 R27 R24 R24 R24 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 2.0 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.8 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K Skylights (max U value) W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K Basement Walls R12 R20 R20 R20 R20 R20 R20 R12 R20 R20 R12 Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/Gentire surface Slab =<600mm B/Gentire surface Heated surf. - R5 - - R R5 - - R8 Perimeter 2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) Ventilation HRV 60% - - HRV 60% HRV 75% - HRV 60% HRV 60% Domestic Hot Water EF

32 Figure 7: Zone 2 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment between 78 90% AFUE Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code A Upgrade B Upgrade Ceiling R40 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R24 R29 R29 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 2.0 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K Skylights (max U value) W/m 2 K 2.8 W/m 2 K Basement Walls R12 R20 R20 Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/Gentire surface Slab =<600mm B/Gentire surface Heated surf. - R5 R5 R8 Perimeter 2' R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) Ventilation - 75% 60% Domestic Hot Water EF

33 Figure 8: Zone 2 Compliance Packages Electric Space Heating Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code A Upgrade Ceiling R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 Walls Above Grade R29 R29 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) Skylights (max U value) 1.6 W/m 2 K 1.6 W/m 2 K W/m 2 K Basement Walls R19 R20 Exposed Floor R25 R31 Slab >600mm B/Gentire surface Slab =<600mm B/Gentire surface Heated surf. - R5 R10 Perimeter 2' R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) - - Ventilation - 75% Domestic Hot Water EF

34 Additional Compliance Packages: Insulating Concrete Forms and Combo Systems The use of insulating concrete forms (ICFs) and combination heat and domestic hot water systems was also considered. A sensitivity analysis was performed to document the incremental effects of these two measures on the EnerGuide rating. Compliance packages were tested and generated for each measure. Figure 9 shows the selected compliance packages for ICFs and Combo/DHW Systems in each climatic zone. Houses with ICFs walls and foundations benefit from reduced thermal bridging and the availability of the thermal mass associated with the ICF wall. 28

35 Figure 9: ICF and Combo/DHW System Compliance Packages Zone 1 and Zone 2 Zone 1 ICF Above and Below Grade ICF Below Grade Only Combo/DHW Component (minimum efficiency) Package A Package AA Package B Ceiling R50 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R31 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R22 ICF R24 Stud R24 Stud Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.8 W/m^2 K 1.8 W/m^2 K 1.8 W/m^2 K Skylights (max U value) 2.8 W/m^2 K 2.8 W/m^2 K 2.8 W/m^2 K Basement Walls R22 ICF R22 ICF R20 Exposed Floor R31 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface Slab =<600mm B/G R10 R10 R10 Heated surf. R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 90% 94% 90% Combo Ventilation Domestic Hot Water EF Combo Zone 2 ICF Above and Below Grade ICF Below Grade Only Combo/DHW Combo/DHW Component (minimum efficiency) Package A Package AA Package B Package BB Ceiling R50 R50 R50 R50 Ceiling Below Attic R31 R31 R31 R31 Walls Above Grade R22 ICF R24 Stud R24 Stud R27 Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.8 W/m^2 K 1.8 W/m^2 K 1.8 W/m^2 K 1.6 W/m^2 K Skylights (max U value) 2.8 W/m^2 K 2.8 W/m^2 K 2.8 W/m^2 K 2.8 W/m^2 K Basement Walls R22 ICF R22 ICF R20 R20 Exposed Floor R31 R31 R31 R31 Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface Slab =<600mm B/G R10 R10 R10 R10 Heated surf. R10 R10 R10 R10 Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 94% 94% 90% Combo 90% Combo Ventilation - - HRV 55% - Domestic Hot Water EF Combo 0.80 Combo 29

36 30

37 CHAPTER 5 Energy Consumption The energy consumption associated with each proposed compliance package was determined using both computer simulations and analytical tools. Using HOT2000 (version 9.34c) the 2009 MMAH Archetype house was modeled with 2006 Code levels of energy efficiency and with each proposed compliance package. The energy consumption data was established and compared to determine the energy savings for each proposed package. In addition to energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions were also established. Using this data, a 10 year forecast for Zone 1 gas compliance packages was performed to illustrate the future impact of the proposed prescriptive requirements. 31

38 Energy Consumption for Each Compliance Package Figure 10 shows the energy consumption savings associated with each compliance package. The energy use by fuel type (natural gas, oil and electricity) is also shown. Finally, greenhouse gas emission savings that result from each upgrade package are also shown. Zone 2 data are shown in Figure 11. Figure 10: Energy Consumption Summary Zone 1 Compliance Packages Zone 1 - Compliance Packages: Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Space + DHW Energy Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Emissions Package Consumption (MJ) Savings Electricity Savings Natural Savings Reduction Oil (l) Savings (l) (kg/year) (MJ) (kwh) (kwh) Gas (m3) (m3) (kg/year) BASE A B C D E F G H I J Average Zone 1 - Compliance Packages: Space Heating Equipment between 78-90% AFUE Package Estimated Annual Space + DHW Energy Consumption Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MJ) Savings Electricity Savings Natural Savings Reduction Oil (l) Savings (l) (kg/year) (MJ) (kwh) (kwh) Gas (m3) (m3) (kg/year) BASE A B C D E F Average Zone 1 - Compliance Packages: Electric Space Heating Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Space + DHW Energy Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Emissions Package Consumption (MJ) Savings Electricity Savings Natural Savings Reduction Oil (l) Savings (l) (kg/year) (MJ) (kwh) (kwh) Gas (m3) (m3) (kg/year) BASE A B Average