ministry of education’s energy management initiative the ... · • omc energy subcommittee...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


• 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


Energy Data Review

28

Energy Intensity Trends – Electricity and Natural Gas

Source: UCD – raw data

Energy Data Review

29


Source: UCD

• varies from 12.3 to 28.1 ekWh/ft²

Energy Data Review

30


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


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 #


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


43


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)?


44


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?


45


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

ministry of education’s energy management initiative the ... · • omc energy subcommittee...

Documents