Post on 16-Jul-2020
Ministry of Education’s Energy Management Initiative
The Power of Data
Presented by: Karen Carter, Senior Policy Advisor, EDUNorm Vezina, Energy Conservation Officer Robert Smith, Incentive Programs Advisor
Insert graphic
AgendaThe Story So Far
Where We Stand
Moving Forward
Takeaways
2
The Story So Far
3In the beginning …
2007• Through the Operational Review pilot project, the Ministry recognized that
energy management was a “weak” area for many school boards
2008• Energy Conservation Officer (ECO)
• role• provide the Ministry with advice on what supports, resources, tools that
boards required to build energy management capacity within the sector• provide boards with technical expertise on energy management
strategies• OMC Energy Subcommittee meetings begin
In the beginning …
4
2009• Incentive Programs Advisor (IPA)
• originally a two-year pilot project co-funded by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and the Ministry of Education
• role• provide school boards with information on incentive programs and to
assist them with completing the applications
• Utility Consumption Database (UCD)• energy management tool was launched with a 24-month rollout to boards• automatically collected electricity and natural gas consumption data for all
sites
• Ministry hosted an Energy Symposium
In the beginning …
5
2010• Released the Green Schools Resource Guide: A practical resource for
Planning and Building Green Schools in Ontario
• Released the Green Clean Program Guide
• Partnered with OECM on an Energy Audit Vendor of Record (VOR) RFS
• Ministry hosted an Energy Symposium
2011 • Released the Inventory of Green Building Initiatives in Ontario District
School Boards
In the beginning …
6
2012• Utility Consumption Database
• Reporting • Board Profile• Green Energy Act• Overview of Boards’ Energy Use• Energy Intensity Trends• Peer Inventory• Annual Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report
In the beginning …
7
2013• Green Energy Act – Annual Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas
Emission Report• first reporting period FY 2012• the importance of data integrity and the UCD are highlighted and begin to
improve
2014• Green Energy Act – 5-Year Energy Conservation and Demand
Management Plan• Word and Excel templates developed by the Ministry and a working group
of 10 boards
In the beginning …
8
2015• Utility Consumption Database (UCD)
• expanded to include the manual collection of consumption data for• Alternative Utilities
• fuel oil (Types 1, 2, 4, 6)• propane• wood• district heat• district cool
• Water• municipal water main – metered• well/aquifer – metered• Trucked-in water
In the beginning …
9
2016• weather normalization research project with Ryerson• Best Practices Working Group - started• water reporting developed in the UCD• Facility Data Survey – water metrics• OECM
• facilities-focused procurement initiative
2017• UCD training
• Analyzing Energy Costs• Energy Budgeting• Energy Performance Trends• Performance Benchmarking
• water consumption • data push
In the beginning …
10
… to a leading edge energy management support system for the sector
RESOURCESEnergy Conservation Officer • expert technical advice on equipment• advanced analysis of energy consumption/costs
Incentive Programs Advisor• expert information on available incentive programs• assistance in successfully securing incentive funding
TOOLSUtility Consumption Database• ~18,000 utility accounts being tracked since 2010• 99.74% data integrity
INFORMATION • OMC Energy Subcommittee meetings
From First Steps …
11
Information SharingOMC Energy Management Subcommittee• 5 to 6 meetings per year• attended by a wide range of participants based on topics of discussion• live webcast for all meetings
Meeting Dates for 2017-18 School Year• September 29th
• November 3rd
• January 26th
• March 02nd
• April 27th
• June 8th
Benefit of the Meetings• information about new technologies• legislation/regulations/reporting requirements• information sharing
• utility price forecasts• best practices
• ministry updates• networking
12
Where we stand …
13
Data is the foundation of every energy management strategy
Every board now has:• detailed consumption data at their fingertips• excellent data integrity
• 99.74% data integrity• recognized by the Ministry of Energy as the best data in the BPS
• multiple years of data• with monthly meter readings
Why this is important?• everyone now has the ability to do specific analysis on a site-by site basis that
will result in targeted energy reduction
We Now Have Data
14
Utility Consumption Database (UCD)
15
Energy Management Tool• data at your fingertips
• site• portfolio• sector
• data integrity is key• board responsibilities
• review for data gaps• provide new meter/account information when applicable• provide consumption data for
• alternative utilities • water
• dependent on everyone ensuring completeness of data• ministry uses the data to advocate on behalf of the sector
• funding• regulations
Utility Consumption Database (UCD)
16
Everything Hinges on Data Integrity• ongoing challenge
• every year we have made strides to reduce gaps in data• the education sector is recognized as having the best consumption data in the
Broader Public Sector
Source: UCD** includes electricity and natural gas consumption data only
Utility Consumption Database (UCD)
17
Data formats increase range of analysis• consumption data is available in multiple formats for analysis
• raw data (quantity of energy used)• loss adjusted data (quantity of energy billed – electricity only)• weather normalized data
• strips the impact of weather from consumption to allow year-over-year comparisons of energy performance
Ontario Degree
DaysFY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
HDD 3241 3698 4285 4091 3335CDD 421 289 217 271 465
NotesSource: Aegent Energy Advisors• weighted average of the six most used Environment Canada weather stations in the UCD
Utility Consumption Database (UCD)
18
Ongoing Improvements to the UCD• visual icon added to quickly identify accounts/meters that have been closed
2017-18• adding new features to existing reports
• electricity and natural gas intensities• improving the collection on consumption data for alternative utilities & water
consumption• direct entry of consumption data into UCD
• exploring new enhancements to UCD via a small working group • advanced training
• how to use the data to manage your energy and water better
19
Electricity• $327.6M annually• 7,522 meters
Natural Gas• $75.3M annually• 5,893 meters
Heating – Fuel Oil∱
• $3.7M annually• 193 accounts
Heating – Other∰
• $2.9M annually• 132 accounts
Water and Sewage• $47.9M annually• 4,438 metered municipal accounts• 129 metered wells/aquifers• 20 sites with trucked in water
Ministry of Education FY 2015-16 Financial Statements∱ Includes Fuel Oil Types 1, 2, 4, and 6∰ Includes Propane, Wood, District Heat, and District Cool 298 sites are either flat rate municipal mains or unmetered well/aquifers
Sector Totals• $457.3M
• 17,921 accounts
Utility Expenses
Utility Costs
20Source: Ministry of Education Financial Statements
Energy Data Review
21
Utility Costs – Electricity
Sources: Ministry of Education Financial Statements, UCD
• varies from 14.3 to 28.2 ¢/kWh
Energy Data Review
22
Boards may have…
Higher Electricity unit cost due to:• ineffective demand management strategies• boards with numerous schools/buildings on time of use pricing• fixed price electricity procurement contract (not including Global Adjustments)• board’s Financial Statement may include other costs (e.g. management fees)
Lower Electricity unit cost due to:• good demand management strategies• small volume schools addressed with HOEP pass-through electricity price• fixed price electricity contract (short term during declining Global Adjustment)• board’s Financial Statement may have expenditures missing
Energy Data Review
23
Utility Costs - Natural Gas
Sources: Ministry of Education Financial Statements , UCD
• varies from 12.4 to 42.7 ¢/m³
Energy Data Review
24
Boards may have…
Higher Natural Gas unit cost due to:• procurement strategy no longer applies• dated gas contracts
• long-term deals• fixed price contracts
• not reflective of market• board’s Financial Statement may include other costs
• e.g. management fees
Lower Natural Gas unit cost due to:• procurement strategy reflects favorable market conditions• fixed price contract
• long-term procurement• board’s Financial Statement may have expenditures missing• participating in a consortium will provide support for decision making
Energy Data Review
25
Energy Intensity – Electricity and Natural Gas
Utility Costs
Source: Ministry of Education Financial Statements, UCD
Fiscal YearElectricity Cost
Weighted Average (¢/kWh)
# of boards
over Avg.
Natural Gas Cost Weighted Average
(¢/m³)
# of boards
over Avg.2016 16.65 44 25.18 422015 14.92 41 27.69 402014 14.09 35 29.23 40
• indicates larger boards pay less than smaller boards
Energy Data Review
26
Energy Cost Intensity (not including water)
Sources: Ministry of Education Financial Statements, UCD
• varies from $0.92 to $2.64/ft²
Energy Data Review
27
Utility Costs
• Highest/lowest cost intensity may be due to• information from Financial Statements• total area for the board not updated• total consumption for utilities have gaps
Sources: Ministry of Education Financial Statements, UCD
Energy Data Review
28
Energy Intensity Trends – Electricity and Natural Gas
Source: UCD – raw data
Energy Data Review
29
Energy Intensity – Electricity and Natural Gas
Source: UCD
• varies from 12.3 to 28.1 ekWh/ft²
Energy Data Review
30
Energy Intensity – Electricity and Natural Gas
Source: UCD
Fiscal Year
Intensity (ekWh/ft²)
Weighted Average (Energy only)
# of boards
over Avg.
2016 17.25 332015 19.68 372014 20.18 39
Energy Data Review
31
Energy Intensity – Electricity and Natural Gas
A Board may have lower electricity intensity if …• No A/C • Small number of portables/portapaks• No “all” electric schools • Older HVAC systems with minimal ventilation • Older portfolio that is more affected by weather• HVAC System is well tuned
A Board may have lower natural gas intensity if …• School using other fuel to heat• Has “all” electric schools (e.g.: ground source heat pumps)• Older HVAC systems with minimal ventilation (reduced fresh air) • HVAC System is well tuned• Improved building envelope
Mostly affected by summer weather
Mostly affected by winter weather
Energy Data ReviewWhat have we learned..
• 14 boards should review their electricity costs• 10 have much higher costs than average• 4 have much lower costs than average• review Board’s Financial Statements and consumption data in the UCD
• 17 boards should review their natural gas costs• 14 have much higher costs than average• 3 have much lower costs than average• review Board’s Financial Statements and consumption data in the UCD
• 12 boards should review their energy intensity the UCD • building area• # of portables/portapak rooms• electricity consumption• natural gas consumption
32
Moving Forward 33
Utility Price – Electricity Estimate
34
Estimated Annual Percentage Increase
Notes• does not include the potential effect that may result from the changes made to the Industrial Conservation Initiative
that comes into effective Jul 1, 2017• includes the Fair Hydro Plan 25% on average reduction (inclusive of the 8% rebate) that comes into effective July 1,
2017 • the 25% on average reduction was applied to 18% of the total costs (152). On a volume-basis, about 18% of
school accounts are eligible to receive the Fair Hydro Plan reduction
Source: Aegent Energy Advisors Inc.
Fiscal Year
Percentage Increase
FY 2018 -5 to 0%FY 2019 5%FY 2020 3%
Utility Price – Natural Gas Estimate
35
Estimated Annual Percentage Increase
Notes• FY 2017 increase due to slightly higher commodity costs and distribution rates; and the pass through of carbon
costs as of January 1, 2017• although almost midway through a board’s fiscal year, the majority of months where gas usage is applicable
• FY 2018 slightly lower commodity prices expected to offset a full year of carbon costs; carbon costs expected to be essentially unchanged
Source: Aegent Energy Advisors Inc.
Fiscal Year
Percentage Increase
FY 2017 21%FY 2018 0%FY 2019 3%FY 2020 3%
Reducing Costs versus Reducing Environmental Impact
Energy Data Review
36Sources: UCD and Ministry of Energy
Utility
Utility Unit Cost (based on FY2016)
(¢)
Average Payback Period
Cost to reduce 1
Utility Unit ($)
Electricity (kWh) 0.17 4 0.67$ Natural Gas (m³) 0.25 15 3.78$ Natural Gas (m³) 0.25 10 2.52$
Therefore
Utility Average Payback Period
kGHG Coefficient
(based on 2016 National
Inventory Report)
Total kGHG saved
Cost ($/kGHG)
Electricity (kWh) 4 1,502 kWh 250.00$ 0.040011 60 16.64$ Natural Gas (m³) 15 265 m3 66.67$ 1.890627 501 2.00$ Natural Gas (m³) 10 397 m3 100.00$ 1.890627 751 1.33$
If you spend $1,000, you will save
Moving Forward
37
Using the Data to Make Informed Decisions
• Is your board’s overall portfolio electricity or natural gas intensive?• electricity intensive – higher costs/ft² /low GHG footprint• natural gas intensive – lower costs/ft² /high GHG footprint
• Identify sites to review• reference UCD training sessions
• Energy Performance Trends• Performance Benchmarking
• Prioritize projects that will reduce energy consumption• reduce operating costs• reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Review sites• prioritize sites based on board priorities and available funding• identify solutions to decrease energy consumption• determine simple ROI and potential • maximize incentive funding opportunities• develop and finalize project list
Operating Costs vs GHG reductions
38
Using the Data to Make Informed Decisions
• important to use data to demonstrate the value of investments • at a board level
• internal stakeholders• incentive funders
• at a ministry level • apply for special funding initiatives
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund• justify ongoing funding levels
• School Condition Improvement Funding
Using Data to Maximize Incentives
39
Sample ProjectLED Lighting Retrofits in Gyms
Required Information• site data
• list of schools to include in the project• 5 secondary & 10 elementary
• for incentive applications• LDC(s) and account numbers for each site• cooling/heating description (high level)• floor area• HST #
Using Data to Maximize Incentives
40
Sample Project cont’d
Required Information cont’d• project data
• # of gyms per school• existing fixture types/counts:
• double gym• 48 fixtures per gym - 400 W MH
• single gym• 14 fixtures per gym - 400 W MH• 16 fixtures per gym - 4’ 4-lamp 32 W T8 fluorescent
• no lighting controls• verify gym usage
• regular weekday schedule• permit schedule• weekend schedule• summer schedule
Using Data to Maximize IncentivesSample Project cont’dPost-Project Analysis – Demand
* fixture count per gym x MH or Fluor kW per fixture x # of schools** fixture count per gym x LED kW per fixture x # of schools*** the difference between existing total and proposed total loads
41
Double/SingleGym
Fixture Count
per Gym
# of Schools
Existing Total Load (kW)
*
Proposed Total Load
(kW)**
Total Savings
(kW)***
Double(MH to LED) 48 5 109.92 33.60 76.32
Single(MH to LED) 14 4 25.65 7.84 17.81
Single(Fluor to LED) 16 6 10.66 3.84 6.82
Totals 15 146.23 45.28 100.95
Using Data to Maximize IncentivesSample Project cont’dPost-Project Analysis – Energy
* assumes 3,000 hours annual usage** assumes 10% annual usage reduction to 2,700 hours with occupancy sensors*** difference between existing and proposed annual energy
42
Double/SingleGym
Fixtures per gym Schools
Existing Annual Energy (kWh)
*
Proposed Annual Energy (kWh)
**
Total Savings(kWh)
***
Double(MH to LED) 48 5 329,760 90,720 239,040
Single(MH to LED) 14 4 76,944 21,168 55,776
Single(Fluor to LED) 16 6 31,968 10,368 21,600
Totals 15 438,672 122,256 316,416
Using Data to Maximize Incentives
43
Sample Project cont’d
Post-Project Analysis cont’d• did the project achieve the expected savings?• data required
• verify actual loads/efficiency • may require metered data
• verify new operating schedule and annual energy use • pre-project baseline versus post-project usage
• impact variables• did the new lighting equipment match design specifications?• were control options added?• did building occupancy change?• was the equipment operator trained on new equipment?• change in use of the gym (operating hours)?
Using Data to Maximize Incentives
44
Sample Project cont’d
Other Considerations• can occupancy sensors, installed to control lighting, also control fans, heating
and cooling in each gym for additional savings?• are occupancy sensors the best form of control? • would the Building Automation System improve savings?• can this process be replicated to analyze multiple projects?
Using Data to Maximize Incentives
45
Sample Project cont’d
Incentive Range• $20-40,000
Variables that Impact Incentive Funding• equipment operation
• during province’s peak demand period• equipment performance
• efficiency rating• operating hours
• where applicable
46
Water
Water
Water is anticipated to become one of the most important global commodities of the next two decades.
Impact on sector• Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
• Safe Drinking Water Act• O. Reg 459/16
• Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, 2010• potential regulation requiring boards to report water consumption
47
Water AnalysisElementary Schools – Water Intensity
48Source: UCD** based on 7 school boards with 1104 elementary schools
Irrigation System
Cooling Tower
Child Care
Daily Flushing
Minimum(l/ft2)
Daily Flushing
Maximum(l/ft2)
Weekly Flushing
Minimum(l/ft2)
Weekly Flushing
Maximum(l/ft2)
27.8 177.2 46.7 55.71
27.8 177.3 25.9 51.9 29.2 258.8 19.7 59.4 12.3 100.6 22.3 148.5
45.0 128 33.9 42.9 2.6 284.3 5.2 199.5
11.76 245.2 1.1 152.6
Elementary SchoolsWater Intensity (l/ft2)
Water AnalysisElementary Schools – Water Use Per Student
49Source: UCD** based on 7 school boards with 1104 elementary schools
Irrigation System
Cooling Tower
Child Care
Daily Flushing
Minimum(l/student)
Daily Flushing
Maximum(l/student)
Weekly Flushing
Minimum(l/student)
Weekly Flushing
Maximum(l/student)
4,198 24,153 20,255
9,212 24,153 3,032 6127 3,434 103,899 1,689 10,000 4,596 12,870 1,975 22,419
8,563 40,335 3,896 4,680 3,595 91,245 1,400 7,580
2,097 194,080 123 32,249
Elementary SchoolsWater Intensity Per Student (l/student)
Water AnalysisSecondary Schools – Water Intensity
50Source: UCD** based on 7 school boards with 197 secondary schools
Irrigation System
Cooling Tower
Child Care
Daily Flushing Minimum(l/ft2)
Daily Flushing Maximum(l/ft2)
Weekly Flushing Minimum(l/ft2)
Weekly Flushing Maximum(l/ft2)
31.9 65.1 17.5 99.4 9.8 146.1
37.0 65.1 41.9 60.1 34.7 66.2 16.0 21.6 5.7 161.7 16.7 126.2
40.4 125.8 28.7 44.6 14.5 128.4 38.7 49.2
11.4 169.9 10.0 110.1
Secondary SchoolsWater Intensity (l/ft2)
Water AnalysisSecondary Schools – Water Use Per Student
51Source: UCD** based on 7 school boards with 197 secondary schools
Irrigation System
Cooling Tower
Child Care
Daily Flushing
Minimum(l/student)
Daily Flushing
Maximum(l/student)
Weekly Flushing
Minimum(l/student)
Weekly Flushing
Maximum(l/student)
6,318 27,790 2,632 47,296 3,240 20,007
6,382 29,890 8,282 13,110 8,008 22,485 4,321 10,000 1,448 61,883 2,150 25,977
5,365 28,494 6,390 7,256 3,139 45,079 6,381 10,490
2,608 113,796 1,552 65,741
Secondary SchoolsWater Intensity Per Student (l/ft2)
Water AnalysisSo What Do All the Numbers Mean?
What We Know• water analysis can be conducted on 16 categories for both elementary and
secondary schools• there is a significant range between the minimum and maximum values in
every category• indicates an opportunity for water conservation• potential issues
• data integrity• variables that impact consumption haven’t been considered
• impact of daily vs weekly flushing requirements
52
Daily Flushing Requirement
Weekly Flushing Requirement
Elementary 64.7 35.7Secondary 53.6 44.7
Water Intensity Weighted Average
(l/ft2)
Qualifiers• Only 7 boards in the sample data• Integrity of the data unknown
Water AnalysisIdentifying Schools with Potentially Incorrect Multipliers
53
School Name
Municipality Total Building Area (includes portables)
(ft²)
Has Cooling Tower
Has Irrigation System
Flushing Requirement (pre-
populated) /
Has Child Care
Total Water Consumption /
(L)
1 B 23,137 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 68,645.322 A 23,509 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 48,482,414.063 H 23,566 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 1,257,206.054 I 23,640 No/Non No/Non Daily/Quotidienne 562,152.775 E 23,663 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 2,132,750.006 J 23,756 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 1,174,100.349 E 40,149 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 93,260.98
10 F 40,199 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 954,875.0011 A 42,365 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire 67,206,796.8812 D 44,306 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire 1,036,000.0013 D 46,669 No/Non Yes/Oui Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 3,989,199.9514 I 47,197 Yes/Oui No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 2,161,866.7015 H 47,735 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 2,026,304.4421 C 52,833 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 2,532,256.3522 C 54,127 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 5,080,549.8023 A 55,763 No/Non No/Non Weekly/Hebdomadaire Yes/Oui 734,982,000.00
Water AnalysisIrrigation System
54
Source: UCDSecondary school, irrigation system, no cooling tower, no child care, weekly flushing requirement
Water AnalysisChild Care
55
Source: UCDElementary school, child care, no irrigation system, no cooling tower, daily flushing requirement
Takeaways – Big Picture• EDU is recognized across the OPS as a leader in energy management• congratulations to the sector
• once again, we have 100% compliance with Green Energy Act (GEA) reporting
• every year since inception• the UCD is recognized as:
• one of the largest databases of its kind in North America• having the best data integrity across the Broader Public Sector
• total energy intensity across the education sector between FY 2012 to 2016 declined by 3.2% (weather normalized data)
• IESO has recognized the Incentive Programs Advisor as a “super user” • tremendous quantity of collaboration across the sector
• OMC Energy Management Subcommittee• sharing of best practices• work on common tools such as the Energy Conservation and Demand
Management Plan
56
Takeaways – the Nitty Gritty• energy costs will continue to rise• there are significant opportunities to reduce consumption
• new technologies, replacing end-of-life equipment, funding• boards must be continually prepared to implement strategies to reduce
consumption• analyze the data
• operating costs• greenhouse gas emissions
• boards should maximize energy management strategies by having internal departments work together
• energy management is the responsibility of everyone in the board• how does senior management actively support energy management?
• boards should leverage all of the resources and tools that the Ministry has put in place• Energy Conservation Officer (ECO)• Incentive Programs Advisor (IPA)• Utility Consumption Database (UCD)
57
Questions?
58