Energy Efficiency in Houses

Workshop

January 22, 2009, 9:30 am – 4:30 pm

Alek Antoniuk – the Building Code (see slide presentation)

Alek Antoniuk is the Manager of the Code Development and Advisory Unit in the Building and Development Branch.

He led the team responsible for the production of the 2006 edition of Ontario’s Building Code. Since joining the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 1989, he has been involved in building code interpretation, education and development. Prior to joining the Ministry, Alek was the deputy chief building official for the former Borough of East York.

He holds degrees in Architecture and Environmental Studies and he practised architecture for 5 years. He has been a member of the Ontario Association of Architects since 1980.

Kevin Lee – EnerGuide (see slide presentation)

Kevin Lee is a Professional Engineer with a Masters in Architecture, and has been working in the field of housing energy technology for 17 years.  Kevin joined OEE in July, 2008, where as Director of its Housing Division, he is responsible for the EnerGuide Rating System, the R-2000 and EnergyStar programs, the ecoENERGY Retrofit Homes incentive program, and energy code development, to name a few.

Prior to joining the Office of Energy Efficiency, Kevin was Deputy Director in NRCan’s CanmetENERGY branch for several years, heading up its Housing, Buildings, Communities and Simulation Group.  There he oversaw Research and Development activities for emerging housing energy technologies at CANMET, as well as NRCan-funded projects in other federal departments like CMHC and the National Research Council. 

Before joining NRCan, Kevin ran his own building science consulting business for eleven years, servicing industry and government clients in housing energy technology research, training and program development, producing such programs as Super E and eKOCOMFORT.  He was a registered R-2000 professional, designing and evaluating R-2000 and EnviroHome projects.  During this time he also designed and built his own Advanced Home, featured on the Discovery Channel.  Kevin also spent 2 years as V.P. Operations of a NAZDAQ e-learning systems software company.

Corey McBurney – EnergyStar (see slide presentation)

Corey McBurney is the President of EnerQuality, Ontario’s leading Green Building service provider. Founded in 1998 by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) and the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance (CEEA), EnerQuality’s mission is to transform Ontario’s new housing into the most energy efficient and sustainable in the world. Working closely with industry stakeholders, EnerQuality delivers the ENERGY STAR for New Homes, R-2000, GreenHouse Certified Construction and LEED Canada for Homes programs. EnerQuality supports participating builders with an extensive training curriculum and the Building Canada consulting program. Corey’s background is in housing and marketing. Prior to joining EnerQuality in 2005, Corey provided marketing consulting to the residential development industry. His -previous experience includes a number of years in the communications agency world and in sales and customer service roles in the building industry. Corey has a BA in Political Science from the University of Toronto and an MBA from York University.

Introductions

The panel members introduced themselves and talked about their work and about their experience with energy efficiency in houses and the related standards and guidelines.

Andy Thomson is a Senior Associate at Altius Architecture, Inc., a firm that specializes in the design of energy efficient homes and cottages.  Altius has developed its own energy analysis software that contains the detailed parameters needed for renewable energy system design - namely electrical and photovoltaic systems and carbon footprint calculation.  Many of Altius's projects are net-zero energy houses.  However, Thomson noted that a net-zero house will not necessarily meet or exceed the EnerGuide 80 level of performance.  Andy has worked in Germany and remarked that they are generally ahead of Canada in integrating alternative energy generation into their designs, but behind Canada in building science - especially with regard to airtightness, envelope detailing and heat recovery ventilation.   

Tim Moore is Pickering’s Chief Building Official.  He noted that municipal enforcement is structured to deal with prescriptive standards, and that a mandatory energy efficiency performance standard for houses will present implementation difficulties for municipalities.  He feels that plan reviewers and inspectors need to be more engaged and educated on building envelope issues, and that inspections should be more detailed in this area.  He stated that Ontario must learn to build more sustainably, that building regulation needs to be a part of that, and that business and regulators need to anticipate consumer needs in this area. He feels that there’s been a lack of advancement in building science in houses in the last 20 years.  Finally, he emphasized the need for a viable national standard for energy efficiency and for long term targets.

Michael Lio is a professional engineer, consultant and educator.  He noted that the EnerGuide system has its roots in the mid-seventies; that it has gone through a process of development, implementation, and codification, but that it still has flaws.  He emphasized that there is no room for experimentation in a Building Code; all kinds of wide-spread housing defects may result.  “If it’s not tried and true, it has no place in codes.”  He distinguished “Code 80” from “EnerGuide 80,” noting that HOT2000 version 10 redefined EnerGuide 80.  He raised a number of issues related to the “Code 80” standard:

–        Code80 needs to have a performance path, a prescriptive path, and a tradeoffs path

–        Code 80 needs to be grounded in Code objectives and a policy framework

–        Code 80 needs to address financial cost/benefit

–        Code 80 needs to be benchmarked within the entire new house market

–        Code 80 shouldn’t be a heat pump program (compliance should be based on the quality of the building envelope as well)

–        Representation of stakeholders in decision making, transparency of process and accountability, consumer redress are essential to Code 80 roll out

–        Training and education will be important to help industry adjust to Code 80.

–        Clarity around roles and responsibilities in Code 80 compliance is crucial

–        The issue of inconsistency in performance test results needs to be addressed

–        Code 80 needs a meaningful rating scale.  Around the “80” EnerGuide level, each point is worth thousands of dollars.  It is easier to improve the rating lower on the scale.

Questions and Further Discussion

In the remaining time, participants raised questions for panel members and for general discussion.

Issues associated with EnerGuide 80 - summary: 

• Natural Resources Canada-certified energy advisors are needed for the blower door test and possibly for the software-based analysis, and they are not available in remote areas
• Both the software and the blower door test may yield results that appear inconsistent:

–        The blower door test results may not be fully repeatable

–        Houses oriented differently yield different results in the software analysis

–        Mechanical systems – which can be “changed out” after construction – may allow a poorly insulated house to pass

• Several other issues were raised concerning the blower door test, which is performed after construction is completed:

–        The outcome can’t be predicted in advance.  Therefore, a house can’t be inspected for compliance.  This may create liability issues for municipalities

–        A builder can’t predict the outcome.  This may cause marketing problems and create liability issues for builders

• There is a lack of transparency in the development of the standard.  The software and the definition of EnerGuide 80 have changed since the 2006 Code was filed.  (Natural Resources Canada has promised to address this.)
• There are additional costs associated with meeting a requirement for EnerGuide 80 above and beyond the cost of the energy efficiency improvements, i.e. for third party testing.
• Roles and responsibilities in meeting the standard are poorly defined.  For example, is a Natural Resources Canada-certified technician really needed to run the software analysis, or can it be done by a qualified designer?

There was discussion of what an energy standard in the Code should include:

–        DEVELOPMENT: The standard should meet energy efficiency policy objectives set by government, taking into consideration both short-term regulatory needs and long term vision.  Stakeholders, including those in related areas of government, should be consulted. Both the code development process and the development of external standards (or software) referenced in the Code should be clear and transparent.  The standard should not allow residential additions to become a “loophole” in requirements.

–        USAGE: Free access to software is needed, and the cost of ensuring compliance (e.g., for third party testing) kept to a minimum.  The standard should be flexible, with both performance and prescriptive paths.  Builders need to be able to predict the level of efficiency before they start to build. The standard should be compatible with existing models for inspection and risk management.

–        IMPLEMENTATION: Changes should be made with sufficient transition provisions to allow for capacity building and training for builders and designers.  The building sector needs to be able to deliver, and designers need to understand the standard.  The educational component needs to reach small scale builders and designers, as well as large developers and licensed professionals. Consumer education and a clear, informative ratings scale are also needed.  Enforcement needs to be strong and well structured.

–        FOLLOW-UP: Building durability should be paramount.  The requirements should enhance, not detract from, the durability of the building envelope.  Energy efficiency in new construction must be stable; it should not diminish with time. 

There was consensus: an interim prescriptive compliance path under the current Code is needed.  The importance of communication was emphasized.  Stakeholders would like to see the technical standards released well before they go into force.  An interim change is important to address builder and enforcement concerns, and to recognize some of the limitations of the current version of EnerGuide 80.  However, there was agreement that EnerGuide 80 should remain as an alternative for those builders who wish to use it. 

Other issues were raised:

–        Many participants expressed concern about a lack of clarity in the EnerGuide rating system.  Alternatives were suggested:

1.      a simple approval with no number attached;

2.      a meaningful numeric value such as kilowatts per square meter;

3.      an energy efficiency “nutrition label” that would rate the house based on multiple relevant characteristics. 

–        Several stakeholders emphasized the need for ratings averaging for large developments.

–        Some stakeholders felt that there is a need for minimum prescriptive standards that would not be subject to trade-offs with mechanical systems. 

–        Some stakeholders felt that performance testing was a good idea that isn’t ready to become a requirement, but that could at some future time if issues are addressed.  For example, a pre-drywall blower test, as opposed to the post-drywall test used as part of the EnerGuide system, could be done while deficiencies are still relatively east to find and remedy.

Broader issues were also addressed: 

–        Zero-net energy buildings were mentioned as a long-term goal for Building Code energy conservation policy.  

–        The importance of consumer education to residential energy efficiency was discussed, and “smart houses” that provide continuous feedback on energy consumption were mentioned as a potentially valuable tool. 

Everyone agreed that a consistent national policy on energy efficiency for houses, grounded in the model National Building Code, would be optimal.