Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PUB-018-25
Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: November 3, 2025 Report Number: PUB-018-25 Authored by: Natalie Ratnasingam, Project Manager, Climate Response and Sustainability Submitted By: Lee-Ann Reck, Deputy CAO, Public Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: Report Subject: GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study Results Recommendations: 1.That Report PUB-018-25, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2.That Council approve Pathway 1 as the preferred corporate GHG reduction pathway and; 3.That Council direct staff to move forward with implementation of the recommended actions where feasible, as funding becomes available through approved budgets and external grant opportunities. GG-170-25 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PUB-018-25 Report Overview funded by a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund 1. Background Previous Decisions 1.1 On March 2, 2020, the Municipality of Clarington declared a climate emergency, highlighting its commitment to protecting the community and ecosystems from climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Resolution: GG-083-20). 1.2 In March 2021, Council endorsed the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCAP) (Resolution: C-085-21). The CCAP contains 116 actions to respond to the impacts of climate change and establishes corporate GHG emissions reductions targets. The CCAP sets a target of 35% reduction from baseline 2018 GHG emissions by 2030, and to achieve net-zero by 2050. 2. Study Overview Objectives and Scope 2.1 The GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study (the “Study”) was partly funded by a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund (GMF). The Municipality retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to complete the work. The Study was completed for 25 of our municipally owned and operated buildings. Table 1 shows the list of facilities included in the Study. Each facility has its own final report and pathway(s) to achieving the two reduction pathway scenarios listed below. Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PUB-018-25 Table 1 List of Facilities included in the GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study Facility Address Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre 49 Liberty Street N, Bowmanville Animal Shelter 33 Lake Road, Bowmanville Courtice Community Complex 2950 Courtice Road, Courtice Bowmanville Operations Depot 33 Lake Road, Bowmanville Community Resource Centre 132 Church Street, Bowmanville Darlington Sports Centre 2276 Taunton Road, Hampton Diane Hamre Recreation Centre 150 King Avenue W, Newcastle Fire Station #1 2430 Highway 2, Bowmanville Fire Station #2 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2, Newcastle Fire Station #3 5708 Main Street, Orono Fire Station #4 2611 Trull Road, Courtice Fire Station #5 2354 Concession Road 8, Haydon Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Centre 2440 Highway 2, Bowmanville Hampton Hall 5360 Old Scugog Road, Hampton Hampton Operation Depot 2320 Taunton Road, Hampton Kendal Community Centre 6742 Newtonville Road, Orono Municipal Administration Centre 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Newcastle Branch Library 150 King Avenue W, Newcastle Orono Library 127 Church Street, Orono Orono Operations Depot 3585 Taunton Road, Clarington Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre 62 Temperance Street, Bowmanville South Courtice Arena 1595 Prestonvale Road, Courtice Visual Arts Centre 143 Simpson Avenue, Bowmanville Yard 42 178 Clarke Townline, Bowmanville 2.2 The purpose of the Study is to support decision-makers in making informed decisions on capital planning in alignment with our GHG emissions reductions targets. The Study explores alternative GHG reduction measures and capital investment timings to meet these goals, considering life cycle cost implications and specific operational constraints. 2.3 The Study includes two GHG reduction pathway scenarios: Pathway 1: A “minimum performance” scenario that achieves a minimum 50% reduction in on-site GHG emissions in 10 years and an 80% reduction in 20 years, and Pathway 2: A “short-term deep retrofit” scenario that builds on the minimum performance scenario as well as additional upgrades, with all measures implemented within the first five years. Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PUB-018-25 Methodology and Timeline 2.4 The project team consisted of staff representatives from Finance, Procurement, Public Services Administration, Public Works, Community Services, Planning and Infrastructure, and the Office of the CAO. 2.5 SPG applied a structured methodology combining on -site assessment, data analysis, and life cycle cost evaluation to determine feasible energy conservation and GHG reduction measures. 2.6 Detailed site audits were completed in March 2024 to document existing conditions and operational characteristics. Data was collected from building drawings, utility records, and staff interviews. The assessment covered all major building systems, including the envelope, HVAC, domestic hot water, lighting, and water fixtures. 2.7 Utility data from April 2022 to March 2024 were analyzed to establish baseline performance for energy use, cost, and GHG emissions, and an energy mod el was developed and calibrated to the utility data to estimate end uses and system efficiencies. 2.8 Potential Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each facility were identified based on audit findings, discussions with facility operations staff, and best practices in municipal building energy management. Each measure was evaluated for its expected energy, water, and GHG savings, implementation cost, payback period, and net present value. 2.9 For each facility, the two pathways were compared to assess their relative GHG reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, and implementation feasibility. Ontario’s projected grid decarbonization was factored into future emissions calculations to reflect changes in electricity generation intensity. Attachment 1 includes a table of the full list of measures for all facilities. Where on-site measures alone were insufficient to meet the targets, the analysis incorporated carbon offsets to close the remaining reduction gap. 3. Key Findings 3.1 In total, the Study found that municipal operations currently produce about 5,200 tonnes of GHG emissions each year, mostly from natural gas used for heating. 3.2 Pathway 1 includes 86 ECMs, such as efficiency upgrades, electrification of equipment, and renewable energy projects. These actions could save 1,815 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) and over $617,000 per year in utility costs. Pathway 2 expands on this with 123 ECMs and could achieve a reduction of 1,908 tCO2e and savings of over $281,000 annually in utility costs. Attachment 2 includes the Final Reports for each facility separately. Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PUB-018-25 3.3 Both pathways show a strong opportunity to significantly reduce emissions from the current baseline. The most effective ECMs include switching from natural gas to electric heating, installing rooftop solar panels, and continuing to improve energy efficiency across facilities. Together, these measures would move the municipality closer to its long-term climate goals and help make municipal operations cleaner and more energy efficient. 4. Recommended Pathway 4.1 Based on the results of the GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study, staff recommend that Council approve Pathway 1 as the preferred approach to reducing corporate emissions for each facility. 4.2 Pathway 1 represents a balanced and achievable means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions while managing cost and implementation timelines. The pathway includes 86 measures that can be phased in over time, coordinated with lifecycle replacement schedules and approved capital budgets. It emphasizes co st-effective actions that provide measurable reductions in the near term while maintaining flexibility for future planning and investment. 4.3 Pathway 1 also provides a fiscally responsible framework, enabling the Municipality to advance electrification, renewable energy, and efficiency measures as funding becomes available. While Pathway 2 demonstrates a slightly higher long-term reduction potential, it involves greater upfront costs and more aggressive implementation requirements. Pathway 1 establishes a practical and financially sustainable foundation for achieving corporate climate goals in alignment with municipal budget processes and external funding opportunities 5. Financial Considerations 5.1 The ECMs identified have been included in the 2025 Asset Management Plan, including the average annual capital and operating investment required to meet the corporate GHG reduction targets identified in the Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCAP) for both Corporate Facilities and Recreation and Community Facilities. These activities generate a net reduction in average annual operating costs as any of these activities generate their own energy resulting from reduced utility costs. 5.2 Before proceeding with implementing the ECMs identified in Pathway 1, Community Services will be completing an audit of all facilities to identify where electrical servicing improvements are required to support ECM implementation and electrification. 5.3 To support implementation of the ECMs identified in Pathway 1, Community Services will incorporate the associated costs into future capital budget submissions, with Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PUB-018-25 supplemental funding from the Climate Action Plan Reserve Fund where appropriate. Staff will actively pursue external grant and funding opportunities to reduce the financial impact on the Municipality. 6. Strategic Plan G.4.2 Be a leader in anticipating and addressing the impacts of climate change. 7. Climate Change The study supports implementation of the Municipality’s Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCAP) by outlining a clear pathway to reduce GHG emissions from municipal buildings and progress toward the target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. 8. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO of Finance and Technology who concurs with the recommendations. 9. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council endorse Pathway 1 as the preferred approach to reducing corporate GHG emissions for each facility. It is recommended that Council direct staff to move forward with implementation of the recommended actions where feasible, as funding becomes available through approved budgets and external grant opportunities. Staff Contact: Natalie Ratnasingam, Project Manager, Climate Response and Sustainability, 905-623-3379 ext. 2429, nratnasingam@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Table of the Full List of Energy Conservation Measures Attachment 2 – GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study – Final Report for each facility Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. $WWDFKPHQWWR5HSRUW38% Building ECM Name Measured Life Reduction Type Utility Switch (20 year)? Lifecycle replacement yr Include measure? Implement ation yr Include measure ? Implementa tion yr Annual Utility Cost Savings Yr 0 cost ($)Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Electricity savings (kWh/yr) Natural gas savings (GJ/yr) Propane Savings (GJ/yr) P1 Utility Switch Savings (kWh/yr) P2 Utility Switch Savings (Elec Dep Node) (kWh/yr) P2 Utility Switch Savings (kWh/yr) P2 Utility Switch Savings (Elec Dep Node) (kWh/yr) GHG Reduction @ Yr 20 (tCO2e) GHG Reduction rate @ Yr 20 ($/tCO2e) P2 GHG Reduction @ Yr 5 (tCO2e) P2 GHG Reduction rate @ Yr 5 ($/tCO2e) Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2038 Yes 2025 20,860.00$ $242,082 N/A $242,082 102,811 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.9 35,302$ 6.9 35,302$ Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre Boilers - Electrification (Pool) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2030 Yes 2030 Yes 2026 (177,933.00)$ $192,793 $372,755 -$179,962 -789,653 3,008 0 0 379,981 0 379,981 96.9 1,989$ 96.9 1,989$ Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre Thermal Mass BAS Optimization 15 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2034 Yes 2025 9,895.00$ $169,179 N/A $169,179 0 704 0 244,446 0 244,446 0 35.0 4,832$ 16.3 10,376$ Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre Low Flow Water Fixtures 25 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2025 Yes 2025 1,168.00$ $29,104 N/A $29,104 0 69 0 23,944 0 23,944 0 3.4 8,487$ 1.6 18,224$ Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre Hydronic Heating Additive 8 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 3,382.00$ $4,950 N/A $4,950 0 241 0 83,681 0 83,681 0 12.0 413$ 5.6 887$ Alan Strike Aquatic and Squash Centre Liquid Pool Cover 10 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 1,132.00$ $3,195 N/A $3,195 0 80 0 27,910 0 27,910 0 4.0 799$ 1.9 1,716$ Animal Services Building High Efficiency MUA 25 Reduction No 2038 Yes 2034 Yes 2029 1,081.00$ $68,604 $19,256 $49,348 0 66 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.3 20,812$ 3.3 20,812$ Animal Services Building Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2027 Yes 2025 4,224.00$ $59,446 N/A $59,446 25,661 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.7 34,732$ 1.7 34,732$ Animal Services Building Heat Pumps - Furnaces (F1&F2) / AC Unit (CU1/CU2)20 Electrification Elec (Indep) N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 1,303.00$ $41,600 N/A $41,600 -19,732 279 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.6 3,312$ 12.6 3,312$ Animal Services Building DHW Heater - Electrification 15 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2033 Yes 2033 Yes 2027 (1,873.00)$ $20,514 $8,698 $11,816 -19,012 77 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.6 8,010$ 2.6 8,010$ Animal Services Building Unit Heater (UH1) - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2028 Yes 2026 Yes 2028 (5,654.00)$ $10,943 $4,472 $6,471 -57,442 233 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.8 1,411$ 7.8 1,411$ Bowmanville Operations Depot Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2025 No 2025 824.00$ $16,329 N/A $16,329 5,132 0 0 0.3 47,703$ 0.3 47,703$ Bowmanville Operations Depot Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) N/A Yes 2033 Yes 2025 337.00$ $14,110 N/A $14,110 -4,801 63 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 5,016$ 2.8 5,016$ Bowmanville Operations Depot Unit Heater - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2038 Yes 2034 Yes 2029 (1,111.00)$ $3,963 $2,778 $1,185 -12,504 51 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.7 2,328$ 1.7 2,328$ Bowmanville Operations Depot LED Upgrade - Controls 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 No 2025 63.00$ $1,915 N/A $1,915 391 0 0 0.0 73,417$ 0.0 73,417$ Community Resource Centre Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2030 Yes 2030 Yes 2026 (16,148.00)$ $154,886 $134,193 $20,694 -188,738 728 0 0 0 0 47,907 23.6 6,559$ 23.6 6,559$ Community Resource Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2031 Yes 2025 4,346.00$ $79,658 N/A $79,658 29,321 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 40,731$ 2.0 40,731$ Community Resource Centre Low flow water fixtures 25 Reduction No N/A No 2025 No 2025 167.00$ $24,118 N/A $24,118 309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1,170,366$ 0.0 1,170,366$ Community Resource Centre LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 No 2025 446.00$ $11,960 N/A $11,960 3,009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 59,587$ 0.2 59,587$ Community Resource Centre Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2028 Yes 2025 2,390.00$ $8,437 N/A $8,437 7,388 80 0 0 0 27,685 0 4.5 1,892$ 0.5 17,120$ Community Resource Centre Hydronic heating additive 8 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2028 Yes 2025 946.00$ $7,275 N/A $7,275 0 58 0 0 0 20,222 0 2.9 2,512$ 0.0 109,070,464,768$ Courtice Community Complex Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU - 2,3,5,6) 20 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2032 Yes 2032 Yes 2026 (192.00)$ $1,230,001 $115,453 $1,114,548 -54,810 599 0 0 0 0 0 26.1 47,068$ 26.1 47,068$ Courtice Community Complex Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 30,737.00$ $413,152 N/A $413,152 176,142 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.7 35,166$ 11.7 35,166$ Courtice Community Complex Boilers - Electrification (Heating) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 2 2027 Yes 2027 Yes 2027 (29,954.00)$ $235,004 $62,500 $172,504 -267,750 1,071 0 0 0 0 0 35.4 6,638$ 35.4 6,638$ Courtice Community Complex High-efficiency MUA (MUA 1 & 2) 25 Reduction No 2042 Yes 2042 Yes 2029 666.00$ $131,197 $111,362 $19,835 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 62,042$ 2.1 62,042$ Courtice Community Complex Boilers - Electrification (DHW) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 3 2027 Yes 2027 Yes 2027 (23,326.00)$ $117,502 $31,250 $86,252 -208,500 834 0 0 0 0 0 27.6 4,262$ 27.6 4,262$ Courtice Community Complex Low flow water fixtures 25 Reduction Yes 3 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 10,133.00$ $70,786 N/A $70,786 0 262 0 91,045 0 91,045 0 13.0 5,429$ 6.1 11,656$ Courtice Community Complex Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2028 13,843.00$ $48,574 N/A $48,574 50,429 322 0 111,850 0 111,850 0 19.4 2,506$ 10.8 4,488$ Courtice Community Complex VFD-Pumps (Main Pool / Water Slide) 10 Reduction No N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 (90.00)$ $14,552 N/A $14,552 21,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 10,114$ 1.4 10,114$ Courtice Community Complex Hydronic heating additive 8 Reduction Yes 2 N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2028 1,346.00$ $7,275 N/A $7,275 0 86 0 29,861 0 29,861 0 4.3 1,701$ 2.0 3,653$ Courtice Community Complex Liquid pool cover 10 Reduction Yes 2 N/A No 2026 Yes 2025 3,268.00$ $1,825 N/A $1,825 0 208 0 0 0 72,248 0 10.3 176$ 0.0 N/A Darlington Sports Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2028 Yes 2025 16,393.00$ $178,596 N/A $178,596 89,252 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 30,001$ 6.0 30,001$ Darlington Sports Centre Tube Heater - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep)* 2037 Yes 2037 Yes 2028 (12,935.00)$ $79,042 $41,790 $37,252 -93,117 353 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 6,956$ 11.4 6,956$ Darlington Sports Centre DHW Heater - Electrification (DHW Boiler / Zamboni DHW Heaters)15 Electrification No 2032 Yes 2032 Yes 2027 (14,249.00)$ $63,190 $61,710 $1,480 -104,868 425 0 0 0 0 0 14.1 4,473$ 14.1 4,473$ Darlington Sports Centre BAS Install 15 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2026 Yes 2025 11,020.00$ $32,142 N/A $32,142 47,229 199 0 0 0 69,002 0 13.0 2,466$ 3.2 10,203$ Darlington Sports Centre Unit Heater - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep)* 2028 No 2028 Yes 2028 (1,610.00)$ $3,963 $2,778 $1,185 -11,852 48 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 2,482$ 1.6 2,482$ Darlington Sports Centre Heat Pump Upgrade (MUA 1 & 2) 20 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2028 Yes 2028 Yes 2028 (5,653.00)$ $799,337 $111,362 $687,975 -105,443 1,162 0 0 0 0 0 50.8 15,749$ 50.8 15,749$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) 20 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2033 Yes 2033 Yes 2027 (6,249.00)$ $1,683,589 $400,001 $1,283,588 -179,986 2,270 0 0 0 0 0 100.9 16,689$ 100.9 16,689$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 2 2032 Yes 2032 Yes 2026 (175,261.00)$ $335,700 $129,963 $205,737 -1,337,811 5,418 0 0 0 0 0 180.2 1,863$ 180.2 1,863$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2028 Yes 2025 18,106.00$ $188,286 N/A $188,286 102,546 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.8 27,528$ 6.8 27,528$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2028 Yes 2025 11,149.00$ $56,732 N/A $56,732 37,923 396 0 0 0 137,472 0 22.2 2,553$ 2.5 22,429$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2026 Yes 2025 2,986.00$ $20,658 N/A $20,658 16,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 18,315$ 1.1 18,315$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Hydronic Heating Additive 8 Reduction Yes 2 N/A No 2026 Yes 2025 4,876.00$ $14,831 N/A $14,831 0 433 0 0 0 150,505 0 21.6 688$ 0.0 222,357,571,214$ Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Liquid Pool Cover 10 Reduction Yes 2 N/A No 2026 Yes 2025 7,679.00$ $8,178 N/A $8,178 0 216 0 0 0 74,944 0 10.7 762$ 0.0 122,608,695,652$ Fire Station #1 High Efficiency MUA (MUA 1) 25 Reduction No 2025 No 2025 No 2025 $65,598 $55,681 $9,917 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 74,420$ 0.9 74,420$ Fire Station #1 Low Flow Water Fixtures 25 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2025 No 2025 $15,876 N/A $15,876 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 18,166$ 0.0 2,380,154,811,837$ Fire Station #1 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A Yes 2025 Yes 2025 4,552.00$ $10,043 N/A $10,043 24,882 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 6,052$ 1.7 6,052$ Fire Station #1 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 103.00$ $18,124 N/A $18,124 -2,979 37 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 11,042$ 1.6 11,042$ Fire Station #1 Solar Carports - 14 kW 27 kW 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2034 Yes 2025 10,436.00$ $245,765 N/A $245,765 57,048 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 64,588$ 3.8 64,588$ Fire Station #1 DHW Heater - Electrification 15 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2031 Yes 2031 Yes 2027 (1,918.00)$ $21,063 $8,698 $12,365 -17,116 69 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 9,136$ 2.3 9,136$ Fire Station #1 Unit Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2034 Yes 2034 Yes 2028 (13,893.00)$ $43,774 $10,992 $32,782 -119,572 456 0 0 0 0 0 14.7 2,978$ 14.7 2,978$ Fire Station #1 Heat Pump RTU Upgrade (RTU 1) 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2046 Yes 2043 Yes 2029 631.00$ $334,171 $18,750 $315,421 -25,065 298 0 0 0 0 0 13.1 25,417$ 13.1 25,417$ Fire Station #2 Tube Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2028 Yes 2028 Yes 2028 (17,695.00)$ $115,118 $46,632 $68,486 -124,561 478 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 7,450$ 15.5 7,450$ Fire Station #2 Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2025 9,833.00$ $100,621 N/A $100,621 45,248 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 33,340$ 3.0 33,340$ Fire Station #2 BAS Install 15 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 3,241.00$ $32,429 N/A $32,429 8,241 74 0 25,659 0 25,659 0 4.2 7,676$ 2.3 14,342$ Fire Station #2 Boilers - Electrification (B 1 & 2) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2038 Yes 2034 Yes 2028 (7,889.00)$ $31,141 $134,193 -$103,052 -53,456 190 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 5,293$ 5.9 5,293$ Fire Station #2 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A Yes 2025 Yes 2025 5,793.00$ $11,499 N/A $11,499 26,659 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 6,467$ 1.8 6,467$ Fire Station #2 Heat Pump Upgrade (AHU) 8 Reduction Elec (indep) 2038 Yes 2034 Yes 2029 (158.00)$ $446,802 $90,000 $356,802 -18,965 202 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 50,886$ 8.8 50,886$ Fire Station #3 Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2038 Yes 2034 Yes 2029 (9,256.00)$ $77,443 $67,096 $10,347 -77,576 284 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 8,654$ 8.9 8,654$ Fire Station #3 Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2036 Yes 2025 1,902.00$ $30,058 N/A $30,058 11,498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 39,193$ 0.8 39,193$ Fire Station #3 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 785.00$ $13,426 N/A $13,426 4,744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 42,434$ 0.3 42,434$ Fire Station #3 Hydronic Heating Additive 8 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 286.00$ $3,206 N/A $3,206 0 23 0 0 0 7,877 0 1.1 2,842$ 0.0 48,069,715,142$ Fire Station #4 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2029 Yes 2029 Yes 2029 3,057.00$ $967,495 $105,000 $862,495 -26,672 418 0 0 0 0 0 19.0 50,907$ 19.0 50,907$ Fire Station #4 Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2036 Yes 2025 2,275.00$ $35,864 N/A $35,864 15,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 34,974$ 1.0 34,974$ Fire Station #4 Tube Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2030 Yes 2030 Yes 2028 (650.00)$ $39,521 $16,716 $22,805 -21,600 152 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 6,463$ 6.1 6,463$ Fire Station #4 Unit Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2045 Yes 2043 Yes 2028 (2,331.00)$ $7,614 $10,992 -$3,378 -28,803 115 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 1,999$ 3.8 1,999$ Fire Station #5 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) N/A Yes 2027 Yes 2027 573.00$ $23,476 N/A $23,476 -16,494 0 200 0 0 0 0 11.1 2,109$ 11.1 2,109$ Fire Station #5 Unit Heater - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2041 Yes 2041 Yes 2029 (2,084.00)$ $5,394 #REF! $5,394 -14,780 0 60 0 0 0 0 2.7 2,010$ 2.7 2,010$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2042 Yes 2042 Yes 2026 (49,926.00)$ $77,076 $103,970 -$26,894 -507,404 1,768 0 0 0 0 0 54.1 1,425$ 54.1 1,425$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Domestic Hot Water Heaters - Electrification (DHWH 1- 4)15 Electrification Elec (Dep) 2 2038 Yes 2038 Yes 2027 (16,580.00)$ $84,253 $50,000 $34,253 -169,445 597 0 0 0 0 0 18.4 4,576$ 18.4 4,576$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 22,503.00$ $81,216 N/A $81,216 96,913 647 0 224,698 0 224,698 0 38.6 2,102$ 21.5 3,786$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Gas-Fired Unit Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep)* 2030 Yes 2030 Yes 2028 (4,974.00)$ $16,647 $17,890 -$1,243 -54,691 221 0 0 0 0 0 7.4 2,260$ 7.4 2,260$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2035 Yes 2034 Yes 2029 (636.00)$ $1,729,669 $281,792 $1,447,877 -211,058 2,264 0 0 0 0 0 98.5 17,558$ 98.5 17,558$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Hydronic heating additive 8 Reduction Yes N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2025 1,862.00$ $2,625 N/A $2,625 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 39,355,322,339$ 7.0 373$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2025 10,412.00$ $170,910 N/A $170,910 72,170 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 35,504$ 4.8 35,504$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Low flow water fixtures 25 Reduction Yes 2 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2026 3,412.00$ $84,466 N/A $84,466 0 83 0 28,820 0 28,820 0 4.1 20,464$ 1.9 43,941$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2040 Yes 2025 88,492.00$ $1,434,670 N/A $1,434,670 613,362 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.9 35,068$ 40.9 35,068$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex Tube Heater - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep)* 2030 Yes 2030 Yes 2028 2,580.00$ $59,282 $26,688 $32,594 -63,000 886 0 0 0 0 0 39.9 1,487$ 39.9 1,487$ Garnet Rickard Recreation Complex VFD(s) - Brine Pumps 10 Reduction No N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2025 3,540.00$ $33,225 N/A $33,225 24,538 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 20,300$ 1.6 20,300$ Hampton Hall Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2031 Yes 2031 Yes 2029 (13,005.00)$ $31,141 $67,096 -$35,955 -69,626 282 0 0 0 0 0 9.4 3,320$ 9.4 3,320$ Hampton Hall Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2027 Yes 2025 2,051.00$ $28,691 N/A $28,691 8,883 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 48,424$ 0.6 48,424$ Hampton Hall LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 199.00$ $7,847 N/A $7,847 863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 136,281$ 0.1 136,281$ Hampton Hall Hydronic Heating Additive 8 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 246.00$ $1,463 N/A $1,463 0 23 0 0 0 7,833 0 1.1 1,304$ 0.0 N/A Hampton Operations Depot Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-2) 20 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2047 Yes 2044 Yes 2029 (1,669.00)$ $515,748 $75,000 $440,748 -11,804 127 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 93,291$ 5.5 93,291$ Hampton Operations Depot Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2034 Yes 2027 46,354.00$ $403,469 N/A $403,469 170,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 35,429$ 11.4 35,429$ Hampton Operations Depot High-Efficiency MUA Upgrade (Repair shop, stockroom, and delivery bay)25 Reduction No 2032 Yes 2032 Yes 2028 357.00$ $172,555 $167,043 $5,512 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 117,458$ 1.5 117,458$ Hampton Operations Depot Tube Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2037 Yes 2034 Yes 2028 (831.00)$ $53,086 $39,888 $13,198 -70,984 278 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 5,830$ 9.1 5,830$ Hampton Operations Depot LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A Yes 2025 Yes 2025 5,615.00$ $33,575 N/A $33,575 20,681 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 24,340$ 1.4 24,340$ Hampton Operations Depot DHW Heater - Electrification 15 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2025 Yes 2025 Yes 2025 (13,719.00)$ $21,063 $8,033 $13,030 -61,658 250 0 0 0 0 0 8.3 2,536$ 8.3 2,536$ Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Building ECM Name Measured Life Reduction Type Utility Switch (20 year)? Lifecycle replacement yr Include measure? Implement ation yr Include measure ? Implementa tion yr Annual Utility Cost Savings Yr 0 cost ($)Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Electricity savings (kWh/yr) Natural gas savings (GJ/yr) Propane Savings (GJ/yr) P1 Utility Switch Savings (kWh/yr) P2 Utility Switch Savings (Elec Dep Node) (kWh/yr) P2 Utility Switch Savings (kWh/yr) P2 Utility Switch Savings (Elec Dep Node) (kWh/yr) GHG Reduction @ Yr 20 (tCO2e) GHG Reduction rate @ Yr 20 ($/tCO2e) P2 GHG Reduction @ Yr 5 (tCO2e) P2 GHG Reduction rate @ Yr 5 ($/tCO2e) Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Kendal Community Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2027 Yes 2028 2,299.00$ $29,723 N/A $29,723 11,599 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 38,419$ 0.8 38,419$ Kendal Community Centre Boiler Electrification 30 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2024 Yes 2025 Yes 2025 (9,438.00)$ $74,924 $57,441 $17,483 -144,114 530 0 0 0 0 28.1 2,664$ 28.1 2,664$ Kendal Community Centre LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 Yes 2026 2,703.00$ $20,879 N/A $20,879 13,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 22,955$ 0.9 22,955$ Kendal Community Centre Piping Insulation - DHW 10 Reduction No N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 1,291.00$ $693 N/A $693 6,512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 1,596$ 0.4 1,596$ Municipal Administrative Centre High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade 20 Reduction No 2042 Yes 2042 Yes 2028 3,626.00$ $419,625 $39,775 $379,850 22,355 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 281,418$ 1.5 281,418$ Municipal Administrative Centre Boilers - Electrification (All) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2027 Yes 2027 Yes 2027 (82,467.00)$ $309,773 $259,926 $49,847 -820,329 3,207 0 0 0 0 0 104.8 2,957$ 104.8 2,957$ Municipal Administrative Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2038 Yes 2028 5,030.00$ $79,067 N/A $79,067 31,013 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 38,223$ 2.1 38,223$ Municipal Administrative Centre DHW Heaters - Electrification 15 Electrification Elec (Dep) 2 2025 Yes 2025 Yes 2025 (1,155.00)$ $99,342 $17,742 $81,600 -11,752 48 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 62,752$ 1.6 62,752$ Municipal Administrative Centre Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2028 Yes 2028 7,729.00$ $80,645 N/A $80,645 26,713 215 0 74,752 0 74,752 0 12.5 6,458$ 6.8 11,916$ Municipal Administrative Centre LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A Yes 2025 Yes 2025 8,704.00$ $69,965 N/A $69,965 53,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 19,546$ 3.6 19,546$ Municipal Administrative Centre Low Flow Water Fixtures 25 Reduction Yes 2 N/A No 2025 No 2025 1,072.00$ $30,956 N/A $30,956 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 161,659$ 0.0 464,112,234,212$ Municipal Administrative Centre Hydronic Heating Additive 8 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2025 Yes 2025 4,047.00$ $15,413 N/A $15,413 0 257 0 89,086 0 89,086 0 12.8 1,208$ 5.9 2,594$ Newcastle Branch Library Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2034 Yes 2034 Yes 2028 3,869.00$ $1,302,215 $187,500 $1,114,715 -25,812 399 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 18.1 71,783$ 18.1 71,783$ Newcastle Branch Library Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2037 Yes 2026 3,127.00$ $43,897 N/A $43,897 19,838 0 0 1.3 33,175$ 1.3 33,175$ Newcastle Branch Library LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 8,892.00$ $32,222 N/A $32,222 56,412 0 0 3.8 8,564$ 3.8 8,564$ Orono Library Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2036 Yes 2026 Yes 2028 (10,170.00)$ $38,538 $61,403 -$22,865 -78,467 314 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 3,715$ 10.4 3,715$ Orono Operations Depot Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2037 Yes 2026 8,631.00$ $104,603 N/A $104,603 43,006 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 36,466$ 2.9 36,466$ Orono Operations Depot Electrification - Radiant Tube Heaters 15 Electrification No 2034 Yes 2034 Yes 2025 (24,586.00)$ $47,035 $32,500 $14,535 -228,480 0 803 0 0 0 0 33.9 1,388$ 33.9 1,388$ Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Boilers - Electrification 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2029 Yes 2029 Yes 2029 (21,279.00)$ $115,614 $201,289 -$85,675 -177,032 711 0 0 0 0 0 23.5 4,912$ 23.5 4,912$ Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2037 Yes 2026 8,328.00$ $104,862 N/A $104,862 48,524 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 32,399$ 3.2 32,399$ Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2028 Yes 2025 2,008.00$ $11,354 N/A $11,354 5,781 79 0 0 0 27,527 0 4.3 2,623$ 0.4 29,445$ Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Hydronic heating additive 8 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 730.00$ $6,113 N/A $6,113 0 57 0 0 0 19,792 0 2.8 2,156$ 0.0 N/A South Courtice Arena Boilers - Electrification (DHW) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 2 2027 Yes 2027 Yes 2027 (76,293.00)$ $192,793 $129,963 $62,830 -721,527 2,922 0 0 0 0 0 97.2 1,984$ 97.2 1,984$ South Courtice Arena Boilers - Electrification (Space Heating) 25 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 2027 Yes 2027 Yes 2027 (111,720.00)$ $235,003 $129,963 $105,041 -1,042,147 4,118 0 0 0 0 0 135.3 1,737$ 135.3 1,737$ South Courtice Arena Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A No 2031 Yes 2029 37,909.00$ $70,594 N/A $70,594 142,288 963 0 0 0 334,479 0 57.4 1,230$ 9.5 7,438$ South Courtice Arena High Efficiency MUA 25 Reduction No 2028 Yes 2028 Yes 2028 1,922.00$ $94,967 $55,681 $39,286 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 14,754$ 6.4 14,754$ South Courtice Arena Hydronic Heating Additive (Space Heating) 8 Reduction Yes 2 N/A No 2036 Yes 2029 4,892.00$ $13,088 N/A $13,088 0 329 0 0 0 114,383 0 16.4 799$ 0.0 196,214,392,804$ South Courtice Arena LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A no 2025 Yes 2025 15,743.00$ $188,058 N/A $188,058 94,907 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 29,708$ 6.3 29,708$ South Courtice Arena Low Flow Water Fixtures 25 Reduction Elec (Dep) 2 N/A No 2035 Yes 2025 15,453.00$ $54,879 N/A $54,879 0 292 0 0 0 0 0 14.5 3,779$ 14.5 3,779$ South Courtice Arena Real Ice - For Two Pads 20 Reduction Elec (Dep) 2 N/A No 2026 Yes 2026 54,720.00$ $184,564 N/A $184,564 237,572 1,001 0 0 0 0 0 65.6 2,813$ 65.6 2,813$ South Courtice Arena Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2039 Yes 2026 70,679.00$ $1,024,556 N/A $1,024,556 426,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.4 36,051$ 28.4 36,051$ South Courtice Arena Tube Heater - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep)* 2028 Yes 2028 Yes 2028 7,209.00$ $66,166 $148,080 -$81,914 -130,410 1,942 0 0 0 0 0 87.9 753$ 87.9 753$ South Courtice Arena VFD-Pumps (P3-P6) 10 Reduction No N/A No 2036 Yes 2025 5,065.00$ $39,835 N/A $39,835 30,534 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 19,559$ 2.0 19,559$ Tourism Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2035 Yes 2027 868.00$ $17,121 N/A $17,121 5,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 50,015$ 0.3 50,015$ Tourism Centre Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 104.00$ $15,448 N/A $15,448 -7,053 96 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 3,590$ 4.3 3,590$ Visual Arts Centre Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A Yes 2037 Yes 2026 1,987.00$ $40,187 N/A $40,187 12,405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 48,569$ 0.8 48,569$ Visual Arts Centre Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement 20 Electrification Elec (Dep) 1 N/A Yes 2026 Yes 2025 654.00$ $23,477 N/A $23,477 -18,150 239 0 0 0 0 0 10.7 2,199$ 10.7 2,199$ Visual Arts Centre Existing building commissioning (EBCx) 5 Reduction Yes 1 N/A Yes 2027 Yes 2025 1,058.00$ $7,261 N/A $7,261 2,186 48 0 16,500 0 16,500 0 2.5 2,894$ 1.2 5,826$ Yard 42 Tube Heaters - Electrification 20 Electrification Elec (Indep) 2030 Yes 2030 Yes 2028 (23,073.00)$ $39,521 $33,432 $6,089 -125,732 0 482 0 0 0 0 21.1 1,874$ 21.1 1,874$ Yard 42 Rooftop Solar PV 25 Generation No N/A No 2029 Yes 2025 3,671.00$ $29,723 N/A $29,723 12,707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 35,069$ 0.8 35,069$ Yard 42 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 15 Reduction No N/A No 2025 Yes 2025 586.00$ $8,213 N/A $8,213 14,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 8,734$ 0.9 8,734$ GHG Reduction Pathway Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre 49 Liberty St N, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Attachment 2 to Report PUB-018-25 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Key Contacts .............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 14 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 17 2.4. Other .......................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2.6. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.7. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 20 2.8. Building Automation System ..................................................................................................... 21 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 22 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 24 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 26 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 28 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 28 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 30 4.3. Electrification – Boilers (Pool) ................................................................................................... 32 4.4. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 33 4.5. Thermal Mass BAS Optimization ............................................................................................... 34 4.6. Low Flow Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................... 35 4.7. Liquid Pool Covers ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.8. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 37 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 38 4.10. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 39 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 41 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 41 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 41 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 42 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ...................................................... 43 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways ................................................................................................................. 44 5.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 44 5.2.1 Pathway 1 .................................................................................................................................. 46 5.2.2 Pathway 2 .................................................................................................................................. 48 5.2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 49 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 52 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 53 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 55 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 55 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 58 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 58 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 59 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 60 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 440% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 350,170 kWh/yr. 1,261 $55,926 10.5 Natural gas 4,222 GJ/yr. 4,222 $67,597 210.0 Water 3,009 m³/yr. $3,009 0.1 Total 5,483 $126,532 220.6 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 220.5 236.1 215.0 220.3 216.1 213.9 137.2 136.0 131.8 126.3 84.4 82.3 80.6 79.3 75.7 74.5 74.0 73.4 73.1 72.6 44.1 Pathway 2 220.5 176.4 106.1 116.1 108.3 44.1 Grid Decarbonization 220.5 239.5 234.4 239.7 235.5 233.3 229.3 228.7 226.7 224.2 221.0 220.0 219.3 218.7 218.2 217.5 217.2 216.9 216.7 216.5 216.2 Baseline GHGs 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 10-yr target (-50%)110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, a greater quantity of offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Six ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for both pathways. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 3.67 0.68 2.65 28% 2.40 35% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.86 0.54 38% 0.06 93% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 147.75 50.70 56.53 62% 29.54 80% ECI ($/m²) $82.73 N/A $114.69 -39% $100.72 -22% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 3.67 0.68 2.40 35% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.86 0.06 93% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 147.75 50.70 29.54 80% ECI ($/m²) $82.73 N/A $100.72 -22% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers – Electrification (Pool) -789,653 3,008 125.9 -$117,933 $192,793 Never -$2,530,692 2 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 241 12.0 $3,382 $4,950 1.4 $24,537 3 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 69 3.4 $1,168 $29,104 16.1 -$2,065 4 Liquid Pool Cover 0 80 4.0 $1,132 $3,195 2.4 $9,064 5 Thermal Mass BAS Optimization 0 704 35.0 $9,895 $169,179 11.6 -$14,421 6 Rooftop Solar PV 102,811 0 3.1 $20,860 $242,082 10.3 $161,366 7 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) - - 27.9 - $502 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 60.1 - $1,082 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity consumption data for the period of April 2022 to March 2024 o Natural gas consumption data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 o Water consumption data for the period of April 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2. Building and Systems Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre is a two-storey, 1,493 m² entertainment/public assembly facility located at 49 Liberty Street North in Bowmanville, Ontario. Constructed in 1976, the building is currently used as an aquatic centre, featuring a six-lane pool, whirlpool, sauna, two squash courts, change rooms, offices and other amenities. The building is staffed by approximately one full-time and one part-time employee, and it welcomes around 100 visitors daily. Operating hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends. Figure 2: Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre exterior from west (left), and simulated aerial view with red highlighting around in-scope building (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a flat built-up roof (BUR) covered with gravel ballast, which helps protect the underlying waterproof membrane from UV damage, thermal expansion, and mechanical wear. The exterior walls primarily consist of brick masonry, with metal and composite panels used in some sections. Metal framed swing doors with and without glazing located at building entrances. Several double glazed, aluminum framed window assemblies of different sizes are located throughout the building. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), door (top right), and window (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like at windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the t hermal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Space heating is primarily provided by six (6) natural gas-powered rooftop units (RTUs). RTUs are controlled via the central BAS system with as schedule with occupied and unoccupied modes. Additionally, baseboard heaters and wall-mounted unit heaters are used to provide additional heating in specific areas of the building. The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency RTU 1 1 Rooftop Change rm Modine HFP250SMLHN40G2 0917055214- 6328 2015 225 MBH 80.0% RTU 2 1 Rooftop Lobby & hallway DAIKIN DCG0360907BXXXAA 1412273424 2015 92 MBH 80.0% RTU 3 1 Rooftop Main office DAIKIN DCG0481157BXXXAA 1412226781 2015 115 MBH 80.0% RTU 4 1 Rooftop Squash courts DAIKIN DCG1022107BXXXAA 1406268089 2015 210 MBH 80.0% RTU 5 1 Rooftop Program rm DAIKIN DCG0721407BXXXA 1410303052 2015 138 MBH ~80.0% RTU 6 1 Rooftop Change rms Modine HFG400SMRHN40G2 0917055214- 6329 2015 360 MBH 80.0% Unit heater 1 Side vestibule Side vestibule - - - - 3.000 100% Electric baseboard 3 Hallway Hallway - - - - 1.000 100% Unit heater 1 Main vestibule Main vestibule - - - - 5.000 100% Electric baseboard 2 Stairs Stairs - - - - 1.000 100% Electric baseboard 2 Program room Program room - - - - 1.000 100% Electric baseboard 1 Reception Reception - - - - 2.000 100% Hydronic unit heater 1 Mech rm Mech rm Universal Electric JA2R025N# - - 0.027 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 5: RTU (top left), boiler (top right), and unit heaters (bottom) Space Cooling The rooftop HVAC units provide cooling by drawing in outside air, conditioning it, and distributing the cooled, treated air through the building's duct system. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency RTU 2 1 Rooftop Lobby and hallway DAIKIN DCG0360907BXXXAA 1412273424 2015 3 Ton 3.31 COP RTU 3 1 Rooftop Main office DAIKIN DCG0481157BXXXAA 1412226781 2015 4 Ton 3.31 COP RTU 4 1 Rooftop Squash courts DAIKIN DCG1022107BXXXAA 1406268089 2015 8.5 Ton 3.31 COP RTU 5 1 Rooftop Program room DAIKIN DCG0721407BXXXA 1410303052 2015 6 Ton 3.31 COP Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 6: RTUs Ventilation Ventilation for the building is provided by the rooftop air handlers, pool deck AHU and pool deck return fan. AHU fans are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs). Rooftop exhaust fans provide additional ventilation for the building. Ventilation equipment is tied to BAS system. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency (%) AHU 1 Mech rm Pool deck DAIKIN CAH025GHDC - - 10 hp 80% Return fan 1 Rooftop Pool deck Cook 300 SQN - 2014 3 hp 80% Exhaust fan 1 Rooftop Pool deck - - - - ¼ hp 79% Exhaust fan 1 Rooftop Upper washroom - - - - ¼ hp 79% Exhaust fan 1 Rooftop Family change room - - - - 1/3 hp 79% Exhaust fan 1 Rooftop Mech room - - - - ¼ hp 79% Exhaust fan 1 Rooftop Men & Women change rooms - - - - 1½ hp 79% Exhaust fan 1 Rooftop Main flr - - - - ¼ hp 79% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 7: Air handling unit (AHU) (left) and rooftop exhaust fans (right) 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Hot water is supplied to the building by two tankless water heaters, delivering hot water as required. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Tankless water heater 1 Mech room Bldg A.O. Smith JWT- 540H-N 169002055 - 199 MBH 93% Tankless water heater 1 Mech room Bldg NAVIEN NPE- 240S2 - - 199 MBH 96% Figure 8: Instantaneous water heaters Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 2.4. Other The building contained other equipment that consumed electricity including an elevator and the pool heating system. The pool water is heated via a heat exchanger connected to two (2) natural gas fired boilers with associated pool pumps for the pool and whirlpool. Boilers and circulation pumps are tied and controlled via the BAS. Table 10: Other mechanical equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Rating Efficiency Boiler 2 Mech room Pool loops Lochinvar CHN0992 A15H00273704 990 MBH 85% Main pool pump 1 Pool mech room Pool loops NEMA DY88 - 20 hp ~80% Recirc pool pump (CP1) 1 Pool mech room Pool loops Hayward C48K2N143B3 01121CH 1 hp ~80% Recirc pool pump (CP2) 1 Pool mech room Pool loops Techtop JMA0052Fp - 5 hp ~80% Circ pumps (P - 6/7) 2 Pool mech room Pool loops 2 hp ~80% Circ pumps (P – 1/2) 2 Pool mech room Pool loops ½ hp ~80% Elevator 1 Elevator room Elevator - - - ~15 HP ~80% Figure 9: Pool boiler (left), pool pump (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 2.5. Lighting The building's lighting technology consists entirely of LED fixtures, except for two fluorescent tubes that still need to be upgraded to more efficient LED lighting. The most common fixture observed was a strip type in various mounting style. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 10: Example lighting fixtures 2.6. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 11: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate L1 - Women’s change rm Showerhead 3 2.5 Gpm L1 - Women’s change rm Showerhead 1 1.5 Gpm L1 - Women’s change rm Toilet 2 1.6 Gpf L1 - Women’s change rm Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.2 Gpm L1 - Women’s change rm Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm L1 - Men’s change rm Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 Gpm L1 - Men’s change rm Toilet 2 1.6 Gpf L1 - Men’s change rm Urinal 1 1.0 Gpf L1 - Men’s change rm Showerhead 3 2.5 Gpm L1 - Men’s change rm Showerhead 1 1.5 Gpm L1 - Family change rm Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm L1 - Family change rm Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm L1 - Family change rm Toilet 2 1.6 Gpf L1 - Family change rm Showerhead 4 2.5 Gpm L1 - Family change rm Showerhead 2 1.5 Gpm L1 - Whirlpool area Showerhead 1 1.5 Gpm L1 - Accessible washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate L1 - Accessible washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.2 Gpm L2 - Maintenance room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.5 Gpm L2 - Maintenance room Clothes washer, residential, standard, top- loading 1 37.8 G/cycle L2 - Women’s washroom Toilet 3 1.6 Gpf L2 - Women’s washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm L2 - Men’s washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm L2 - Men’s washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf L2 - Men’s washroom Urinal 1 1.0 Gpf Figure 11: Example water fixtures 2.7. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 12: Utility Meter Information Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole building Electricity 96004805-05 Electrical Room Whole building Natural gas 91 00 62 32518 1 Building Exterior Building Water 488891000 Unknown Pool (submeter) Water (15753521) Pool Filtration Room Sprinkler (submeter) Water (0060815351) Sprinkler Room Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 2.8. Building Automation System The Building Automation System (BAS) controls and monitors the HVAC systems, including rooftop units (RTUs), exhaust fans, boilers, and pumps. It manages temperature settings, ventilation, and heating for different areas of the building. Figure 12: Example BAS Photos Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility Data Source Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills Elexicon Energy April 2022 to March 2024 - Natural gas Monthly utility bills Enbridge Gas April 2022 to February 2024 - Water Monthly utility bills Druham Region April 2022 to February 2024 - 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside f igures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity A comparison of data from April to December 2022 with the same period in 2023 shows a slight 5% decrease in consumption. Additionally, the first three months of 2024 show a 4% increase in consumption compared to the same period in 2023. Consumption seems t o vary year to year with dips in the shoulder months where heating and cooling loads are minimal. Figure 13: Electricity consumption over time Natural gas When comparing data from April to December 2022 with the same period in 2023, there is a 5% reduction in consumption. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Consumption values for March 2024 were provided but excluded from analysis due to likely billing anomaly or correction rather than reflective of actual usage. Figure 14: Natural gas consumption over time Water An 18% rise in consumption is observed when comparing data from April to December 2023 with the same period in 2022. However, missing data for the first three months of 2022 and the lack of consumption data for 2024—where the monthly costs for the first two months are available but not the consumption figures—make it challenging to identify any seasonal or recurring trends. Additional utility data would be required to confirm whether this is a recurring trend. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Figure 15: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 350,170 kWh/yr. 1,261 $55,926 10.5 Natural gas 4,222 GJ/yr. 4,222 $67,597 210.0 Water 3,009 m³/yr. $3,009 0.1 Total 5,483 $126,532 220.6 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission Factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural gas 49.729 kg CO₂e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kg CO₂e/m³ Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate is typically used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate represents only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission, distribution, or delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity, the marginal and fixed utility rate were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Utility Rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12 month average Electricity - - $0.16/kwh Natural gas $89.56/yr. $14.06/GJ Water $12,606.93/yr. $0.44/m³ 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric and the associated benchmarks, where available. Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre's performance during the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and GHGI for an Entertainment/Public Assembly-type building. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 3.67 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 147.75 50.70 ECI ($/m2) 82.73 N/A WUI (m3/m2) 2.02 N/A 3.4. End Uses End uses were identified, and energy or water consumption was allocated to each end use. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most electricity. Figure 16: Electricity end uses Pool 27% Ventilation 21% Space Heating 18% Plug Loads 13% Cooling Equipment 12% Lighting 7%Mechanical 2%Domestic Hot Water 0% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. There are only two natural gas-powered systems in the building, with the space heating system being the largest consumer. Figure 17: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, taking into account building occupancy as well as baseload and variable consumption. Usage durations were sourced from the LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. In this aquatic and fitness building, the pool accounts for the majority of water consumption. Pool 71% Space Heating 21% Domestic Hot Water 8% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Figure 18: Water end uses 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Pool 49% Showerhead 45% Toilet 2% Faucet, lavatory 2% Clothes washer, residential 1% Urinal 1% Faucet, kitchen 0% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.3. Electrification – Boilers (Pool) In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching the pool boilers from natural gas to electric boilers. Project Cost: $192,793 Annual Electricity Savings: -789,653 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 3,008 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 165 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$117,933 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 125.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 3,148 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$2,530,692 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 85% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.4. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal contact between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic pool loop at Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre. Project Cost: $4,950 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 241 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 241 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,382 Simple Payback: 1.4 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 12.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 96 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $24,537 Internal Rate of Return: 80% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 4 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.5. Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Typically, building automation systems (BAS) modulate heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment operation based on solely indoor temperature and schedules. Advancements in sensor and computing technology have led to opportunities for more nuanced controls. These new technologies enable BAS optimization that incorporates a building's unique thermal mass. Thermal mass is a building's ability to store thermal energy and resist temperature fluctuations based on its structure, occupancy and equipment. To take advantage of a building's thermal mass, optimization involves a continuous adjustment to setpoint temperatures based on indoor and exterior temperatures, 5-day weather forecasts and a small acceptable indoor temperature range. This method of automation considers long-term energy demands, for example ensuring that heating and cooling do not occur simultaneously. Thermal mass BAS optimization involves preliminary assessment, design, and implementation phases. Commissioning requires minimal time on site and can be achieved remotely for the most part. This ECM explores adding a thermal mass BAS optimization suite to the existing BAS control system. Project Cost: $169,179 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 704 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $9,895 Simple Payback: 11.6 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 35.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 525 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$14,421 Internal Rate of Return: 4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings were estimated based on case study results from Ecopilot for the “other” category of buildings, which demonstrated 18% heating savings and 0% cooling savings. • The cost is similarly an estimate based on Ecopilot case studies, and includes software, licencing, new materials such as thermostats and temperature sensors, and system integration. • A more rigorous investigation would be required to determine the applicability of this technology to the building, and to better estimate the project savings and cost. This process would be free of charge and involves supplying Ecopilot with basic information about the building, supplying available mechanical drawings, and allowing temporary access to the BAS. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Contact Ecopilot for an actionable quote 4.6. Low Flow Water Fixtures Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $29,104 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 69 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 449 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,168 Simple Payback: 16.1 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 86 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$2,065 Internal Rate of Return: 4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 11 toilets, 2 urinals, 10 showerheads, and 1 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. • Combining low-flow water fixtures with boiler electrification reduces both water heating demand and operational costs, maximizing energy conservation. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 4.7. Liquid Pool Covers Liquid pool covers are chemical additives that form a layer on a pool's surface to prevent heat loss from the water to the surrounding air. Pool covers also reduce water loss via evaporation, and thereby reduce condensation on the interior envelope, mitigating bacterial growth. This ECM explores adding a liquid pool cover to the pool at Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre, which to our knowledge, does not already have a cover, since no physical cover or bottles of additive were observed on site. The pool is heated by natural gas boilers, so reducing heat loss from the pool's surface would decrease natural gas consumption. Project Cost: $3,195 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 80 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 6 m³/yr. Total Energy Savings: 80 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,132 Simple Payback: 2.4 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 40 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $9,064 Internal Rate of Return: 43% Savings and Cost Assumptions • To calculate fuel savings, we assumed the existing heat loss from the pool's surface would be decreased by 50% by adding the liquid cover. • The project cost represents the cost for 14 gallon of additive, which would be enough additive for a year. Maintenance costs were not considered, since the additive can be applied by facility staff fairly quickly on a regular basis. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure the liquid pool cover additive is compatible with the existing pool water treatment system, including chlorine or other sanitizers, to prevent any adverse reactions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 4.8. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $242,082 Annual Electricity Savings: 102,811 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $20,860 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$2,200 Simple Payback: 10.3 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 77 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $161,366 Internal Rate of Return: 10% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 22% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 90 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.10. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Alan Strike Aquatic & Squash Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the building’s stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherw ise indicated. Costs are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 19: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.2. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the decision-making workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e decision-making workshop the Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.3. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.4. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 20: ECM Summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers – Electrification (Pool) -789,653 3,008 125.9 -$117,933 $192,793 Never -$2,530,692 2 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 241 12.0 $3,382 $4,950 1.4 $24,537 3 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 69 3.4 $1,168 $29,104 16.1 -$2,065 4 Liquid Pool Cover 0 80 4.0 $1,132 $3,195 2.4 $9,064 5 Thermal Mass BAS Optimization 0 704 35.0 $9,895 $169,179 11.6 -$14,421 6 Rooftop Solar PV 102,811 0 3.1 $20,860 $242,082 10.3 $161,366 7 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) - - 27.9 - $502 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 60.1 - $1,082 - - Carbon offsets were used in both Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section . Table 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 $502 27.9 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $1,082 60.1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 5.4.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 3.67 0.68 2.65 28% 2.40 35% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.86 0.54 38% 0.06 93% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 147.75 50.70 56.53 62% 29.54 80% ECI ($/m²) $82.73 N/A $114.69 -39% $100.72 -22% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2034) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Boilers - Electrification (Pool) $192,793 Hydronic Heating Additive $4,950 Liquid Pool Cover $3,195 Low Flow Water Fixtures $29,104 Rooftop Solar PV $242,082 Thermal Mass BAS Optimization $169,179 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $502 Total ($) $29,104 $8,145 0 0 0 $192,793 0 0 0 $169,179 0 0 0 $242,082 0 0 0 0 0 $502 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 220.5 236.1 215.0 220.3 216.1 213.9 137.2 136.0 131.8 126.3 84.4 82.3 80.6 79.3 75.7 74.5 74.0 73.4 73.1 72.6 44.1 Baseline GHGs 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 10-yr target (-50%)110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 20-yr target (-80%)44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.4.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 3.67 0.68 2.40 35% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.86 0.06 93% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 147.75 50.70 29.54 80% ECI ($/m²) $82.73 N/A $100.72 -22% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Boilers - Electrification (Pool) $192,793 Hydronic Heating Additive $4,950 Liquid Pool Cover $3,195 Low Flow Water Fixtures $29,104 Rooftop Solar PV $242,082 Thermal Mass BAS Optimization $169,179 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $1,082 Total ($) $448,510 $192,793 $- $- $1,082 Figure 20: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 220.5 176.4 106.1 116.1 108.3 44.1 Baseline GHGs 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 5-yr target (-80%)44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5.4.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 306,861 - 306,861 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 3,008 3,008 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 176 176 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.118 0.118 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 641,805 $642,385 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $1,526 $1,529 Net present value ($) -$905,988 -$906,568 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Figure 21: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $372.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $29.1K $8.1K $0 $0 $0 $192.8 $0 $0 $0 $169.2 $0 $0 $0 $242.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $502 Pathway 2 $448.5 $192.8 $0 $0 $1.1K $0 $50.0K $100.0K $150.0K $200.0K $250.0K $300.0K $350.0K $400.0K $450.0K $500.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Figure 22: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 220.5 236.1 215.0 220.3 216.1 213.9 137.2 136.0 131.8 126.3 84.4 82.3 80.6 79.3 75.7 74.5 74.0 73.4 73.1 72.6 44.1 Pathway 2 220.5 176.4 106.1 116.1 108.3 44.1 Grid Decarbonization 220.5 239.5 234.4 239.7 235.5 233.3 229.3 228.7 226.7 224.2 221.0 220.0 219.3 218.7 218.2 217.5 217.2 216.9 216.7 216.5 216.2 Baseline GHGs 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 220.5 10-yr target (-50%)110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.1 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 5.4.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Rooftop Solar PV $242,082 N/A $242,082 Boilers - Electrification (Pool) $192,793 $372,755 -$179,962 Thermal Mass BAS Optimization $169,179 N/A $169,179 Low Flow Water Fixtures $29,104 N/A $29,104 Hydronic Heating Additive $4,950 N/A $4,950 Liquid Pool Cover $3,195 N/A $3,195 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $502 N/A $502 Total Pathway 1 $641,805 $372,755 $269,050 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $1082 N/A $1082 Total Pathway 2 $642,385 $372,755 $269,629 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 306,861 - 306,861 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 3,008 3,008 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 176 176 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.118 0.118 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $269,050 $269,629 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $1,526 $1,529 Incremental Net present value ($) -$533,233 -$533,813 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 41% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 5.4.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV, low flow water fixtures, and equipment electrification contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of equipment electrification and ensuring electrical service capacity, integrating solar PV systems, and other efficiency upgrades can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV, installing low flow water fixtures, and managing electrical service for equipment electrification projects may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: The installation of solar PV and electrification of the pool heating system may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or equipment electrification, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or equipment electrification over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the ti me of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reducti on pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 Womens CR 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 12 L1 Womens CR 1L-2ft-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 L1 Mens CR 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 11 L1 Mens CR 1L-2ft-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 11 L1 Family CR 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 13 L1 Family CR - washrooms 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Troffer-Rcs 3 L1 Family CR 1L-2ft-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 L1 Accessible washroom 1L-8in-LED-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 L1 Swimming pool 1L-4ft-LED-50W-Strip-Hang 22 L1 Whirlpool area 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 4 L1 Sauna 1L-8in-LED-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 L1 Squash court #1 1L-4ft-LED-50W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 6 L1 Squash court #2 1L-4ft-LED-50W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 6 L1 Hallway 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Troffer-Rcs 11 L1 Main foyer 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Troffer-Rcs 12 L1 Customer service 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Troffer-Rcs 4 L1 Customer service 1L-6in-LED-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 L1 Lifeguard office 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 3 L1 Foyer accessible washroom 1L-1x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 1 L2 Maintenance room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 L2 Mechanical room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 L2 Squash court viewing area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 L2 Squash court viewing area 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 1 L2 Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 7 L2 Program room 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Troffer-Rcs 8 L2 Womens washroom 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Troffer-Rcs 5 L2 Mens washroom 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Troffer-Rcs 4 L2 Program storage room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 L2 Hallway 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Troffer-Rcs 6 Stairwell Stairwell 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 3 L1 Maintenace room 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 1 Stairwell Stairwell 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Troffer-Rcs 1 Stairwell Stairwell 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 L2 Elevator/mechanical room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 L1 Sprinkler room 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 1 L1 Storage room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 L1 Storage room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 L1 Filter room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 11 L1 Vestibule 1L-8in-LED-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 Exterior Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 8 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 59 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Exterior Exterior 1L-Large-LED-60W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 5 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electrical utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $4,847 30,606 $6,025 35,298 February $4,516 28,516 $5,257 30,794 March $5,449 34,413 $5,328 31,215 April $4,315 27,728 $4,115 25,978 May $4,555 29,274 $4,019 25,369 June $4,662 29,964 $4,157 26,242 July $4,829 31,037 $3,386 21,362 August $5,004 32,164 $4,043 25,518 September $4,518 29,038 $4,442 28,044 October $4,564 29,358 $4,655 29,327 November $4,408 29,185 $4,965 29,539 December $4,399 28,996 $5,392 31,374 Total $41,256 266,745 $53,986 336,289 $16,610 97,307 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $10,607 544 $6,712 548 February $9,827 523 $5,606 455 March $9,959 588 $11,006* 2,978* April $4,365 359 $5,767 343 May $3,241 255 $4,903 287 June $2,589 179 $3,110 187 July $3,240 171 $1,974 143 August $3,443 171 $1,776 136 September $1,068 50 $1,633 126 October $4,545 223 $3,089 245 November $8,073 408 $4,998 406 December $11,591 593 $5,090 417 Total $42,155 2,409 $62,732 3,944 $23,324 3,981 *Data Omitted Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 60 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $1,183 330 February $1,125 299 March $1,083 288 April $810 202 $897 219 May $881 225 $861 209 June $855 219 $1,110 294 July $980 263 $1,163 313 August $994 268 $1,147 309 September $160 43 $1,190 321 October $1,027 292 $1,399 413 November $1,179 335 $1,455 431 December $1,293 361 $1,553 97 Total $8,179 2,208 $14,166 3,522 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Animal Shelter 33 Lake Road, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.7. Other .......................................................................................................................................... 19 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 24 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 24 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 27 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 27 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 29 4.3. High Efficiency MUA .................................................................................................................. 31 4.4. Rooftop Solar PV ........................................................................................................................ 32 4.5. DHW Upgrade - Electrification .................................................................................................. 33 4.6. Unit Heater - Electrification ....................................................................................................... 34 4.7. Heat Pumps – Furnaces (F1&F2) / AC Unit (CU1/CU2).............................................................. 35 4.8. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 36 4.9. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 37 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 39 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 39 5.1.1. Identifying measures ............................................................................................................. 39 5.1.2. Estimating cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 39 5.1.3. Selecting measures and assigning implementation timing ................................................... 41 5.1.4. Comparing pathways ............................................................................................................. 41 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 42 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 43 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 45 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 46 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 49 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 50 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 52 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 52 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 54 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 54 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 55 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Animal Shelter. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 205% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 72,360 kWh/yr. 260 $11,168 2.2 Natural Gas 1,163 GJ/yr. 1,163 $20,162 57.8 Water 884 m³/yr. $884 0.0 Total 1,423 $32,214 60.0 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 60.0 63.9 42.8 42.9 41.4 40.6 39.2 39.0 38.3 34.4 29.8 29.4 29.0 28.8 28.6 28.3 28.2 28.1 28.0 27.9 11.8 Pathway 2 60.0 49.6 48.6 47.4 39.0 11.8 Grid Decarbonization 60.0 63.9 62.9 64.0 63.1 62.7 61.8 61.7 61.3 60.8 60.1 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.5 59.4 59.3 59.3 59.2 59.2 59.1 Baseline GHGs 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 10-yr target (-50%)30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Five ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 1 and 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.63 0.86 1.89 28% 1.89 28% TEDI (GJ/m2) 2.14 1.58 26% 1.58 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 110.77 32.90 54.98 50% 22.14 80% ECI ($/m²) $57.80 N/A $58.67 -2% $58.67 -2% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 2.63 0.86 1.89 28% TEDI (GJ/m2) 2.14 1.58 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 110.77 32.90 21.77 80% ECI ($/m²) $57.80 N/A $58.67 -2% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 High Efficiency MUA Upgrade 0 66 3.3 $1,081 $68,604 32.4 -$43,473 2 DHW Upgrade - Electrification -19,012 77 3.3 -$1,873 $20,514 Never -$43,549 3 Unit Heater (UH1) - Electrification -57,442 233 9.9 -$5,654 $10,943 Never -$80,450 4 Heat Pumps - Furnaces (F1&F2) / AC Unit (CU1/CU2) -19,732 279 13.3 $1,303 $41,600 18.5 -$20,273 5 Solar PV 25,661 0 0.8 $4,224 $59,446 12.1 $21,615 6 Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 - - 16.0 - $288 - - Pathway 2 ECM(s) 7 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 - - 23.0 - $414 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Animal Shelter. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to February 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of June 2022 to February 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The animal services building is a two-storey, 542 m2 facility located at 33 Lake Road in Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1997. The building is used to provide animal fostering and impounding services. The mechanical heating equipment is located in the furnace room and mechanical cooling equipment is in the cooling room. The building is occupied by approximately five people daily. General occupied hours are 8am-4pm on Monday- Saturday. Figure 2: Animal Services Building’s exterior from the west (left), and an aerial view (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building envelope The exterior walls are constructed of concrete block walls. No deficiencies or damage were observed. The exterior doors vary in size and design, but doors with frequent use generally consist of a metal frame with glazing. Other doors include metal exit doors and a metal overhead door for shipping and receiving. The windows are mostly uniform in size and are aluminum framed double glazed. The roof is a typical flat-roof construction. The roof condition could not be verified due to lack of access. Figure 3: Example envelope components; door (left), and window (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Two natural gas non-condensing furnaces heat the building; one located in the furnace room heats the top floor and the other in the crawl space heats the ground floor. Additional heat is provided via a makeup air unit (MUA) unit located in the mechanical room. Supplemental heating is provided by three wall heaters and one unit heater. There is no building automation system (BAS). Occupants can adjust temperature by adjusting the corresponding manual and digital thermostats. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Furnace 1 Furnace Room Top Floor Goodman GMS81155CN CB 90987855 1 2008 /2029 115 MBH 80% Furnace 1 Crawl Space Ground Floor Keeprite - - - 100 MBH ~80% MUA 1 Mech. Room Building Greenheck PVF350H - 2013 350 MBH Wall heater 1 Shed Entrance Shed Chromalox - - - 3 kW 100% Wall heater 1 Main Entrance Main Entrance Stelpro - - - 3 kW 100% Unit heater 1 Back Storage Room Back Storage Room Modine PD 150AA0111 05011020 498-7443 - 150 MBH - Wall heater 1 Ground Floor Hallway Ground Floor Hallway Chromalox - - - 3 kW - Figure 5: Natural gas furnace (left) and wall heater (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 6: Digital thermostat (left) and manual thermostat (right) Space Cooling Two condensers tied to the building’s furnaces located along the building exterior provide space cooling to the building. Three (3) unit coolers service the cooler room, controlled with a digital thermostat. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Condensers 2 Exterior Building York - 3 Ton 3.28 COP Unit cooler 3 Cooler Cooler Keeprite KLP106LE- S2A 0.27 kW - Unit cooler – drain pan 1 Cooler Cooler Keeprite KLP106LE- S2A 0.25 kW - Unit cooler – fan motor 1 Cooler Cooler Keeprite KLP106LE- S2A 1/20 hp - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 7: Cooling unit (left), condensing units (right) Ventilation Ventilation is primarily provided via the two furnaces and a MUA. Exhaust ventilation is provided via ceiling exhaust fans and inline cabinet fans located throughout the building. Ventilation equipment seemed to be in good condition. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency MUA – supply fan 1 Mezzanine Level Building Greenheck IGX-1124-H22- HZ 13073883 2012 1.5 hp 80% Inline Cabinet Fan 1 Lower Floor Lower Floor Greenheck BSQ-100-10 - - 1 hp ~80% Inline Cabinet Fan 1 Electrical Room Electrical Room Greenheck CSP-A110 - - 1 hp ~80% Recessed Exhaust Fan 1 Upper Floor Washroom Upper Floor Washroom Broan - - - 1/8 hp ~80% Recessed Exhaust Fan 1 Lower Floor Washroom Lower Floor Washroom Broan - - - 1/8 hp ~80% Furnace – blower motor 1 Furnace Room Top Floor Goodman GMS81155CNCB - 2009 ½ hp ~80% Furnace – blower motor 1 Crawl Space Ground Floor Keeprite - - - ½ hp ~80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 8: Exhaust fan (left) and inline cabinet exhaust fan (right). 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One electric domestic hot water (DHW) tank is located in the electrical room and provides hot water to the lower floor plumbing fixtures with one natural gas fired DHW tank located on the mezzanine level serves the rest of the water fixtures. One circulator pump tied to the natural gas DHW loop is used for the building. Equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW Equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency DHW heater 1 Electrical room Lower Floor Washrooms Bradford White M240S8DS- 1NCPP MH36689671 2015 3 kW ~80% DHW heater 1 Mezzanine level Fixtures John Wood JW880S40N- AV 400 17061 2017 40 MBH ~80% Circulator pump 1 Mezzanine level Fixtures US Motors S55JXPE8293 - - 1/3 hp ~90% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 9: DHW heater (left) and circulator pump (right). 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building includes mostly fluorescent strip lights, troffers, and sconces. The most common fixture observed inside the building was a strip light. Exterior lighting includes wall packs. Control types include switches for inter ior lighting and a daylight sensor for the exterior wall packs. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 10: Example of interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, pre-rinse spray valves, and a clothes washer. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Electrical Room Faucet 1 2.2 gpm Washroom Toilet 1 3.5 gpm Washroom Faucet 1 2.2 gpm Laundry Pre-rinse spray valve 2 2.6 gpm Medical Room Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 gpm Upstairs Washroom Toilet 2 3.5 gpm Upstairs Washroom Faucet 2 2.2 gpm Laundry Clothes washer 1 18.8 Gal/cycle Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Figure 11: Example water fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventor. Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 03053906-06 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65243 0 Exterior Whole Building Water 4932810000 Unknown 2.7. Other Other systems in the building are catalogued in the table below. Table 12: Other equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Commercial clothes washer 1 Main level Building Wascomat W630co Commercial clothes dryer 1 Main level Building Wascomat TD30 Figure 12: Clothes washer (left) and clothes dryer (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham June 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports form the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 - February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period. Electricity consumption appears to follow a consisten t pattern year after year. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Figure 13: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 - December 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend , with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water heater , and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 14: Natural gas consumption over time 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Water Water consumption data was collected and analyzed from June 2022 - February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from this period. The water consumption is relatively steady all year round compared to the other utilities. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and the clothes washer. Figure 15: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 72,360 kWh/yr. 260 $11,168 2.2 Natural Gas 1,163 GJ/yr. 1,163 $20,162 57.8 Water 884 m³/yr. $884 0.0 Total 1,423 $32,214 60.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity a marginal and fixed utility rate were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed, marginal and 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.16/kWh Natural Gas $331.39/yr. $16.31/GJ - Water $138.39/yr. $3.28/m3 - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's Animal Shelter’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 2.63 0.86 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 110.77 32.90 ECI ($/m2) 57.80 WUI (m3/m2) 1.63 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity in the building. Plug loads and cooling equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, while space he ating, DHW, and ventilation consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Figure 16: Electricity end uses Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas in the building, while DHW consumes a small amount of natural gas. Figure 17: Natural gas end uses Lighting 33% Plug Loads 22% Cooling Equipment 18% Ventilation 13% Space Heating 10% Domestic Hot Water 4% Space Heating 93% Domestic Hot Water 7% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The pre-rinse spray valve constitutes most of the water consumption in the building to care for the dogs. Other appliances collectively consume only 17% of the total water use. Figure 18: Water end uses Pre-rinse spray valve 83% Toilet 8% Clothes washer, residential 6% Faucet, lavatory 3% Faucet, kitchen <1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utility rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.3. High Efficiency MUA This ECM explores replacing the existing MUA with a high-efficiency model to reduce natural gas consumption. Project Cost: $68,604 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 66 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,081 Simple Payback: 32.4 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 82 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$43,473 Internal Rate of Return: -2% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated natural gas savings are based on the difference in the thermal efficiency between the existing and new models. The existing model has an estimated efficiency of 80%, while the proposed model is 91% efficient. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new MUA. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new MUA unit is properly sized for the building’s ventilation requirements • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.4. Rooftop Solar PV A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Animal Shelter building is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM expl ores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $59,446 Annual Electricity Savings: 25,661 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,224 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$489 Simple Payback: 12.1 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 19 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $21,615 Internal Rate of Return: 8% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 20 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.5. DHW Upgrade - Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from a natural gas to electric DHW heater. Project Cost: $20,514 Annual Electricity Savings: -19,012 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 77 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 9 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$1,873 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 49 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$43,549 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric DHW heater of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forw ard with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.6. Unit Heater - Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from a natural gas to electric unit heater. Project Cost: $10,943 Annual Electricity Savings: -57,442 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 233 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 26 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$5,654 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 9.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 148 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$80,450 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric unit heater of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.7. Heat Pumps – Furnaces (F1&F2) / AC Unit (CU1/CU2) Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's two furnaces currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with condensing units. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance. Project Cost: $41,600 Annual Electricity Savings: -19,732 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 279 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 208 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,303 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$438 Simple Payback: 18.5 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 13.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 199 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$20,273 Internal Rate of Return: -3% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 80%-81% for both furnces while the proposed heating COP is 2.8. The estimated existing cooling COP is 3.28, while the proposed cooling COP is 4.1. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.8. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.9. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Animal Shelter. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 19: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting measures and assigning implementation timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, the pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. To reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option t o achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. Carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the pathway, with the intent that for Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 20: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 High Efficiency MUA Upgrade 0 66 3.3 $1,081 $68,604 32.4 -$43,473 2 DHW Upgrade - Electrification -19,012 77 3.3 -$1,873 $20,514 Never -$43,549 3 Unit Heater (UH1) - Electrification -57,442 233 9.9 -$5,654 $10,943 Never -$80,450 4 Heat Pumps - Furnaces (F1&F2) / AC Unit (CU1/CU2) -19,732 279 13.3 $1,303 $41,600 18.5 -$20,273 5 Solar PV 25,661 0 0.8 $4,224 $59,446 12.1 $21,615 6 Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 - - 16.0 - $288 - - Pathway 2 ECM(s) 7 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 - - 23.0 - $414 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 to reach the 50% and 80% reduction goal respectively. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower th an the overall abatement rate for the project but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Table 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 $288 16 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $414 23 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 22: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.63 0.86 1.89 28% 1.89 28% TEDI (GJ/m2) 2.14 1.58 26% 1.58 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 110.77 32.90 54.98 50% 22.14 80% ECI ($/m²) $57.80 N/A $58.67 -2% $58.67 -2% Table 23: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028- 2032 2033 2034 2035- 2043 2044 DHW Heater – Electrification $20,514 Heat Pumps – Furnaces $41,600 High Efficiency MUA $68,604 Rooftop Solar $59,446 Unit Heater - Electrification $10,943 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $288 Total ($) $- $52,543 $59,446 $- $20,514 $68,604 $- $288 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 60.0 63.9 42.8 42.9 41.4 40.6 39.2 39.0 38.3 34.4 29.8 29.4 29.0 28.8 28.6 28.3 28.2 28.1 28.0 27.9 11.8 Baseline GHGs 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 10-yr target (-50%)30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 20-yr target (-80%)12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 24: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 2.63 0.86 1.89 28% TEDI (GJ/m2) 2.14 1.58 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 110.77 32.90 21.77 80% ECI ($/m²) $57.80 N/A $58.67 -2% Table 25: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 DHW Heater – Electrification $20,514 Heat Pumps – Furnaces (F1&F2) $41,600 High Efficiency MUA $68,604 Rooftop Solar $59,446 Unit Heater - Electrification $10,943 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $414 Total ($) $101,046 $0 $20,514 $10,943 $69,018 Figure 20: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 60.0 49.6 48.6 47.4 39.0 11.8 Baseline GHGs 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 5-yr target (-80%)12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 26: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 6 6 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 70,525 - 70,525 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 655 655 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 48 48 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.089 0.089 Total yr 0 cost ($) $201,395 $201,521 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $3,503 $3,506 Net present value ($) -$205,412 -$205,538 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 21: Pathway Capital Expenditure Comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $4.5K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.7K $19.3K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $52.5K $59.4K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20.5K $68.6K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $288 Pathway 2 $101.0 $0 $20.5K $10.9K $69.0K $0 $20.0K $40.0K $60.0K $80.0K $100.0K $120.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Figure 22: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 60.0 63.9 42.8 42.9 41.4 40.6 39.2 39.0 38.3 34.4 29.8 29.4 29.0 28.8 28.6 28.3 28.2 28.1 28.0 27.9 11.8 Pathway 2 60.0 49.6 48.6 47.4 39.0 11.8 Grid Decarbonization 60.0 63.9 62.9 64.0 63.1 62.7 61.8 61.7 61.3 60.8 60.1 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.5 59.4 59.3 59.3 59.2 59.2 59.1 Baseline GHGs 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 10-yr target (-50%)30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 27: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) High Efficiency MUA $68,604 $19,256 $49,348 Rooftop Solar PV $59,446 N/A $59,446 Heat Pumps $41,600 N/A $41,600 DHW Heater – Electrification $20,514 $8,698 $11,816 Unit Heater (UH1) – Electrification $10,943 $4,472 $6,471 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $288 N/A $288 Total Pathway 1 $201,395 $32,425 $168,970 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $414 N/A $414 Total Pathway 2 $201,521 $32,425 $169,096 Table 28: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 6 6 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) -70,525 - 70,525 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 655 655 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 48 48 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.089 0.089 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $168,970 $169,096 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 3,503 $ 3,506 Incremental Net present value ($) -$172,987 -$ 173,113 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 16% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Energy Independence: Installing a rooftop PV system reduces reliance on grid electricity, offering long-term energy cost savings. Improved Safety: Replacing natural gas unit heaters with electric units will eliminate combustion risks associated with gas-fired systems, enhancing overall safety for building occupants and maintenance staff. Dual Functionality: Heat pumps provide both heating and cooling, allowing for year -round climate control, improved comfort, and enhanced indoor air quality for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers, tenants, or investors. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing the MUA, installing heat pumps, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading MUAs and installing heat pumps may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and tenant activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Increased Electrical Demand: Electrifying domestic hot water systems significantly raises the overall electrical load, which may necessitate costly upgrades to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Opportunities Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward- thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting tenants and customers who value sustainability. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Increased Property Value: Sustainable upgrades, such as solar PV and energy-efficient HVAC systems, can increase the building’s market value and appeal to a growing segment of eco- conscious buyers or investors. Compliance Advantage: High-efficiency MUA systems can help buildings meet or exceed stricter ventilation codes and standards, positioning the property as forward -thinking and regulation-compliant Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequen ced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 29: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Offices Main Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 11 Offices Main office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs-Wrap 2 Offices Main Office 1L-A19-LED-14W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 1 Offices Electrical Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 Offices Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Offices Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Offices Vestibule 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 2 Offices Stairwell 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 2 Upstairs Lunch Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 8 Upstairs Lunch Room 1L-A19-CFL-13W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc-Circ 4 Upstairs Furnace Room 1L-A19-CFL-13W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc-Circ 1 Main Area Back Rooms 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 6 Main Area Main Foyer 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 5 Main Area Vestibule 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Main Area Adoption Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 3 Main Area Cat Adoption Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 3 Main Area North Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 2 Main Area North Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 4 Main Area Adoption Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 3 Main Area Adoption Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 3 Main Area Main Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 8 Main Area Laundry 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Main Area Laundry 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 4 Main Area Quarantine Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 2 Main Area Storage Corner 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Wrap 2 Main Area Medical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Main Area Garage Bay 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 11 Main Area Garage Bay 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-HPS-150W-Wall Pack 8 Exterior Exterior 1L-Mini-HPS-70W-Wall Pack 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 30: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January 885.73 5,840 1,096.86 6,880 February 911.33 6,000 1,484.84 9,280 March 780.39 5,200 809.41 5,280 April 851.40 5,680 859.61 5,600 May 811.65 5,360 780.67 5,040 June 1,024.83 6,640 917.61 5,760 July 1,167.35 7,520 1,082.76 6,897 August 1,130.13 7,440 1,034.64 6,623 September 926.66 6,000 932.10 5,920 October 791.62 5,200 770.71 4,960 November 783.74 5,440 869.76 5,440 December 780.05 5,360 851.93 5,360 Total 9,047.81 59,840 10,676.26 68,720 2,581.70 16,160 Natural gas Table 31: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January 3,638.10 184.07 February 2,835.54 148.66 March 2,139.29 178.18 2,852.85 168.80 April 1,241.78 94.39 1,565.01 87.67 May 570.52 37.73 860.12 45.03 June 211.34 9.96 261.47 10.30 July 169.32 4.18 152.22 4.94 August 286.32 9.96 214.29 9.69 September 767.52 34.05 384.46 22.95 October 1,088.95 52.06 1,015.68 74.75 November 2,811.91 137.67 1,841.88 144.44 December 3,340.91 167.12 2,059.26 162.34 Total $12,628 725 $17,681 1,064 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 Water Table 32: Water utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January 189.88 51.5 316.88 92 February 189.88 51.5 316.88 92 March 247.39 70.8 April 247.39 70.8 May 247.39 70.8 June 229.08 69.0 249.28 73.2 July 229.08 69.0 249.28 73.2 August 229.08 69.0 249.28 73.2 September $250.14 76.3 287.28 85.5 October $250.14 76.3 287.28 85.5 November $250.14 76.3 287.28 85.5 December $189.88 51.5 316.88 92 Total $1,628 488 $3,048 884 $634 184 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) GHG Reduction Pathway Bowmanville Operations Depot 33 Lake Road, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.Building and Systems ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Building Envelope ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3.Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 20 4.Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 23 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Unit Heater - Electrification ....................................................................................................... 27 4.4. Heat Pump – Furnace ................................................................................................................ 28 4.5. LED Lighting Controls (Additional Consideration) ..................................................................... 29 4.6. Rooftop Solar (Additional Consideration) ................................................................................. 30 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 31 4.8. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 32 5.GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 34 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 34 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 34 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 34 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 36 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 37 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 37 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 40 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 43 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 43 6.Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 46 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 46 7.Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 48 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 48 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 48 8.References .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Bowmanville Operations Depot. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 39% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 5,218 kWh/yr. 19 1,052.00 0.2 Natural gas 126 GJ/yr. 126 3,320.00 6.3 Water 11 m³/yr. - 11.00 0.0 Total 145 4,382.00 6.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 3.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pathway 2 6.4 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.9 1.1 Grid Decarbonization 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Baseline GHGs 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 10-yr target (-50%)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. Installation of the same ECMs allows us to hit both pathway targets. Two ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.19 0.86 0.77 36% 0.77 36% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.06 0.63 40% 0.63 40% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 52.97 32.90 10.81 80% 8.23 84% ECI ($/m²) $36.13 N/A $31.59 13% $31.59 13% Table 3: Pathway 2 Results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.19 0.86 0.77 36% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.06 0.63 40% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 52.97 32.90 9.08 83% ECI ($/m²) $36.13 N/A $31.59 13% The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 & 2 ECM 1 Unit Heater - Electrification -12,504 51 2.2 -$1,111 $3,963 Never -$17,481 2 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement -4,801 63 3.0 $337 $14,110 25.3 -$9,452 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to conduct an energy investigation at the Bowmanville Building Operations Depot as part of the broader GHG reduction pathway report. The purpose of this audit is to assess energy consumption. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022, to February 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of June 2022 to February 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 2. Building and Systems The Bowmanville Operations Depot is a one-storey, 121 m2 public service building located at 33 Lake Road in Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 2014. Th e building has three full time employees that occupy the it for eights hours a day, Monday to Friday. Two buildings are located at the Operations Depot: one being the main building and other a workshop. The main building is heated with a furnace located in the furnace room and the shop is heated with a unit heater. Figure 2: Bowmanville Operations Depot exterior 2.1. Building Envelope The main building has a flat roof, but due to lack of access the condition and construction could not be verified. The workshop has a sloped roof, with asphalt shingles. The exterior walls of the main building and the workshop are constructed of concrete block walls. The exterior door on the main building is metal with glazing and the exterior door of the workshop is metal with no glazing. The windows are double glazed with a mix of aluminum and vinyl frames. Figure 3: Example envelope components Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance. This can be seen in the first set of thermal images. There is increased heat loss from the window in the door system. In the second set of thermal images, the door is mostly green and yellow, indicating it is not a great source of heat loss. Overall, no major areas of concern were identified when reviewing the thermal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Primary space heating to the building is provided via a condensing natural gas furnace located in the furnace room. It is controlled by a digital thermostat with no set schedule. The shop is heated with a unit heater controlled with a thermostat. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Unit heater 1 Shop Shop Enerco Group Mr Heater – Big Maxx - ~2014 50 MBH ~80% Furnace 1 Furnace Room Offices Keeprite N9MSb0401410C 2622WA35348 2018 40 MBH 93% Figure 5: Natural gas condensing furnace (left) and natural gas unit heater (right) Figure 6: Digital thermostat for heating equipment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Space Cooling One air conditioner tied to the furnace provides space cooling the main office building. Cooling equipment is catalogued below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Condenser 1 Exterior Offices Wolf Steel CT13A018- 1 2622WA35348 ~2018 1.5 Tons 13 SEER Figure 7: Condensing unit Ventilation Primary ventilation is provided via the furnace. Additional ventilation to the workshop is provided via a shop air filter unit. It was observed to be in working condition. The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency (%) Air Filter 1 Workshop Workshop Craftex 82255 E019413 2010 ~0.25 kW ~80% Furnace 1 Furnace room Building Keeprite - - 2018 0.25 kW 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 8: Air filter in workshop 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One DHW tank is located in the kitchen to service the kitchen and bathroom facilities in the main building. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency DHW heater 1 kitchen Kitchen/bathroom Rheem XE10P06PU15Co CN Q211401629 2014 1.5 kW 80% Figure 9: Electric DHW tank Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building includes strip and troffer lights, and LED bulbs. All interior lighting is controlled with a switch. The exterior lighting includes wall packs, controlled with daylight sensors. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 10: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical fixtures such as toilets and faucets. The fixtures were observed to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Kitchen Faucet 1 0.5 gpm Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Washroom Toilet 1 1.5 gpm Storage room Faucet 1 1.5 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 11: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 97031110-00 Unknown Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 67 01114 0 Exterior Whole Building Water (Well) N/A N/A Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 to February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 to December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham June 2022 to February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from March 2022-February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent p attern year after year. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 12: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 - December 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water heaters, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 13: Natural gas consumption over time 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 5 10 15 20 25 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Water Water consumption data was collected and analyzed from June 2022 -February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from this data period. The water consumption is relatively steady all year arou nd compared to the other utilities. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets. Figure 14: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 5,218 kWh/yr. 19 1,052.00 0.2 Natural gas 126 GJ/yr. 126 3,320.00 6.3 Water 11 m³/yr. 11.00 0.0 Total 145 4,382.00 6.4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.03 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water (2008), tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For water, a marginal and fixed utility rate were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity $246.23/yr. $0.16 /kWh - Natural Gas $949.93/yr. $ 17.58 /GJ - Water - - $32.90/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Bowmanville Operations Depot’s performance over the billing period worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for pu blic service buildings. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.19 0.86 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 52.97 32.90 ECI ($/m2) 36.13 WUI (m3/m2) 0.09 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity in the building. Plug loads and cooling equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, DHW, and ventilation consume rela tively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Figure 15: Electricity end uses Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes all the natural gas in the building. Figure 16: Natural gas end uses Lighting 43% Plug Loads 24% Cooling Equipment 14% Domestic Hot Water 11% Ventilation 8% Space Heating 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The toilet is the largest consumer of water, at 67%, while the lavatory and kitchen faucet combined consumes 33%. Figure 17: Water end uses Toilet 67% Faucet, lavatory 31% Faucet, kitchen 2% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Unit Heater - Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric unit heater. Project Cost: $3,963 Annual Electricity Savings: -12,504 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 51 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 6 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$1,111 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 32 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$17,481 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of one electric unit heater of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.4. Heat Pump – Furnace Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of furnaces, heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's furnace currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a condensing unit. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance . Project Cost: $14,110 Annual Electricity Savings: -4,801 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 63 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 46 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $337 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$168 Simple Payback: 25.3 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 45 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$9,452 Internal Rate of Return: -7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 92.5% for all while the proposed heating COP is 2.9. The estimated existing cooling COP is 3.28, while the proposed cooling COP is 4.1. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.5. LED Lighting Controls (Additional Consideration) Installing advanced lighting controls, like occupancy sensors and dimmer switches, reduces electricity consumption by either reducing the amount of time lights are switched on, or reducing the power that the light fixtures consume. This ECM explores instal ling advanced lighting controls at the Bowmanville Operations Depot. This is an additional ECM as GHG savings are negligible. Project Cost: $1,915 Annual Electricity Savings: 391 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $63 Simple Payback: 20.6 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,066 Internal Rate of Return: -5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated were calculated by reducing the estimated annual hours of operation of light fixtures to be fitted with occupancy sensors, and reducing the percentage of time lights are using full power for light fixtures to be fitted with dimmers. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure the existing fixtures and ballasts are compatible with the chosen control systems (some dimming systems may not work with certain types) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.6. Rooftop Solar (Additional Consideration) A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Bowmanville Operations Depot is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. This is considered additional as pathway targets can be met by other ECMs. Project Cost: $16,329 Annual Electricity Savings: 5,132 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $824 Simple Payback: 14.8 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 4 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $828 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 4 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs con sidered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Bowmanville Operations Depot. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the building’s stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff h ad the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post the Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 & 2 ECM 1 Unit Heater - Electrification -12,504 51 2.2 -$1,111 $3,963 Never -$17,481 2 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement -4,801 63 3.0 $337 $14,110 25.3 -$9,452 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 20: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.19 0.86 0.77 36% 0.77 36% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.06 0.63 40% 0.63 40% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 52.97 32.90 10.81 80% 8.23 84% ECI ($/m²) $36.13 N/A $31.59 13% $31.59 13% Table 21: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024-2032 2033 20234 2035-2044 Unit Heater - Electrification $3,963 Heat Pump Furnace Upgrade $14,110 Total cost ($) $14,110 $3,963 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 426.0 505.2 483.8 506.0 488.5 479.5 462.6 460.1 246.7 121.1 94.0 85.7 79.1 74.1 69.6 64.0 61.6 58.9 57.4 55.4 15.7 Baseline GHGs 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 10-yr target (-50%)213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 20-yr target (-80%)85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 22: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.19 0.86 0.77 36% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.06 0.63 40% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 52.97 32.90 9.08 83% ECI ($/m²) $36.13 N/A $31.59 13% Table 23: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Unit Heater - Electrification $3,963 Heat Pump Furnace Upgrade $14,110 Total cost ($) $14,110 $- $- $- $3,962 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 6.4 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.9 1.1 Baseline GHGs 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 5-yr target (-80%)1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 24: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 2 2 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 17,305 -17,305 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 114 114 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 5 5 GHG Emission reduction (%) 85% 83% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.045 0.044 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 18,073 $18,073 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 2,818 $ 2,873 Net present value ($) -$29,491 -$29,491 Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 20: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.8K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14.1K $4.0K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $14.1K $0 $0 $0 $4.0K $0 $2.0K $4.0K $6.0K $8.0K $10.0K $12.0K $14.0K $16.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 21: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 3.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pathway 2 6.4 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.9 1.1 Grid Decarbonization 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Baseline GHGs 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 10-yr target (-50%)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 25: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement $14,110 N/A $14,110 Unit Heater - Electrification $3,963 $2,778 $1,185 Total Pathways $18,073 $2,778 $15,295 Table 26: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 2 2 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 17,305 - 17,305 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 114 114 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 5 5 GHG Emission reduction (%) 85% 83% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.045 0.044 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 15,295 $15,295 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 2,818 $ 2,873 Incremental Net present value ($) -$26,713 -$ 26,713 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 9% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: The addition of a heat pump units will provide enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Increased Control: Electric heating systems offer precise temperature control, enhancing comfort and operational efficiency in various environments. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Electric heating systems generally have fewer mechanical components and moving parts than traditional combustion-based systems. This leads to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Safety: Electric unit heaters and heat pumps eliminate the risk of carbon monoxide leaks or gas explosions, providing a safer heating option for occupants Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of upgrading to a heat pump can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Dependency on Grid: Increased reliance on electricity for space heating may pose a challenge during power outages unless backup systems are in place. Higher Electrical Demand: Electrification may require upgrading electrical infrastructure to handle the increased load, leading to additional costs and potential service disruptions. Limited Retrofitting Compatibility: Existing ductwork or heating distribution systems may not be fully compatible with electric unit heaters or heat pumps, requiring significant modifications to ensure proper performance. Opportunities Enhanced Energy Monitoring: Modern electric systems often come with smart controls and monitoring capabilities, allowing for better energy management and optimization. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Scalability for Future Upgrades: Electric systems can be easily integrated with future technologies, such as battery storage or advanced energy management systems, for even greater efficiency and autonomy. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of heat pump systems over traditional options. Regulatory Changes: Changes in energy policies or building codes could introduce new compliance challenges or costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 27: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-25W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 3 Interior Storage Space 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Interior Storage Space 1L-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Interior Workshop 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 10 Interior Washroom 1L-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Interior Furnace Room 1L-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Interior Office 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Interior Kitchen 1L-2x4ft-LED-40W-Troffer-Rcs 2 Interior Workshop 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-48W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 28: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January 108.16 568 112.94 563 February 124.99 678 117.54 588 March 92.04 491 105.02 561 April 92.03 475 96.84 489 May 75.28 368 71.95 329 June 73.99 340 87.03 402 July 61.70 272 104.12 516 August 51.96 224 91.07 434 September 55.23 226 84.60 392 October 63.95 310 86.95 419 November 59.61 354 103.37 513 December 77.93 398 104.92 525 Total 703.72 3,458 1,169.03 5826 230.48 1,151 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Natural Gas Table 29: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January 538.83 22 February 381.06 15 March 344.13 21 399.51 18 April 196.29 9 222.44 8 May 170.47 6 171.06 4 June 84.28 0 89.50 0 July 90.80 0 94.13 0 August 86.96 0 90.64 0 September 130.36 2 91.13 0 October 149.91 5 190.71 8 November 471.37 18 270.46 14 December 471.37 18 316.03 17 Total 2,195.93 79 2,855.50 106 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January 28.92 0.83 31.92 1.17 February 28.92 0.83 31.92 1.17 March 32.88 1.00 April 32.88 1.00 May 32.88 1.00 June 29.33 0.83 29.59 0.83 July 29.33 0.83 29.59 0.83 August 29.33 0.83 29.59 0.83 September 29.18 0.50 31.73 0.83 October 29.18 0.50 31.73 0.83 November 29.18 0.50 31.73 0.83 December 28.92 0.83 31.92 1.17 Total $204 5 $372 11 $64 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) GHG Reduction Pathway Community Resource Centre 132 Church Street, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 23 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Electrification - Boiler ................................................................................................................ 27 4.4. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 28 4.5. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 30 4.6. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 31 4.7. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) .................................................................................... 32 4.8. Low Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) ........................................................................ 33 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 34 4.10. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 35 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 37 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 37 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 37 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 37 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 39 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 40 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 40 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 41 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 43 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 44 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 47 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 48 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 50 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 50 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 52 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 52 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 53 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 55 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Community Resource Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 17% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 107,073 kWh/yr. 385 $16,291 3.2 Natural gas 727 GJ/yr. 727 $13,510 36.2 Water 340 m3/yr. - $340 0.0 Total 1,112 $30,141 39.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathway 202 4 202 5 202 6 202 7 202 8 202 9 203 0 203 1 203 2 203 3 203 4 203 5 203 6 203 7 203 8 203 9 204 0 204 1 204 2 204 3 204 4 Pathway 1 39.4 45.2 43.6 45.3 44.0 43.3 16.3 15.8 14.1 12.0 9.3 8.5 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.3 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.2 Pathway 2 39.4 35.2 14.7 17.9 15.4 8.0 Grid Decarbonization 39.4 45.2 43.6 45.3 44.0 43.3 42.1 41.9 41.3 40.5 39.6 39.3 39.0 38.8 38.7 38.5 38.4 38.3 38.2 38.2 38.1 Baseline GHGs 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 10-yr target (-50%)19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Four ECMs were identified, with one being used in both GHG pathways, with the addition of the other three along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performanc e metric Baseline performance Benchmar k Performanc e at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performanc e at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.80 0.68 0.76 4% 0.76 4% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.61 0.58 6% 0.58 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.26 37.20 6.67 76% 3.73 87% ECI ($/m²) $21.38 N/A $31.44 -47% $31.44 -47% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.80 0.68 0.54 32% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.61 0.46 25% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.26 37.20 5.60 80% ECI ($/m²) $21.38 N/A $22.45 -5% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boiler – Electrification -188,738 728 30.5 -$16,148 $154,886 Never -$462,332 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Existing Building Commissioning 7,388 80 4.2 $2,390 $8,437 3.1 $3,745 3 Rooftop Solar PV 29,321 0 0.9 $4,346 $79,658 15.2 $2,208 4 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 58 2.9 $946 $7,275 6.0 $817 5 Carbon Offsets - - 6.1 - $110 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Community Resource Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of March 2022 to December 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a comprehensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Community Resource Centre is a two-storey, 1,394 m2 facility located at 132 Church Street in Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1967. The Community Resource Centre houses the Firehouse Youth Centre, the John Howard Society of Durham Region, and the Autism Home Base organization. The mechanical heating equipment is located primarily in the mechanical room with a packaged unit located outside. The building is occupied by approximately 150 people daily. General occupied hours are 8am-8pm on Monday-Saturday. Figure 2: Community resource centre exterior from west (left), and aerial view (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are red brick masonry. The main entrance doors are aluminum framed window doors and the secondary doors are metal. The windows are aluminum framed double glazed windows of varying sizes. The roof includes flat - and low slope roof construction with sections of modified bitumen and gravel ballast finishes. Figure 3: Example envelope components; doors (left), and windows (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Two natural gas boilers, located in the mechanical room, provide heat to the building via baseboard radiators, wall radiators and heating coils in the two air handling units located in the mechanical room. No building automation system (BAS) is used in th is facility. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency Boilers 2 Mech Room Building Lochinvar CHN751 2006 / 2015 750 MBH 84% Primary Pump 1 Mech Room Hydronic Loop Bell & Gossett - 2015 1/4 hp 80% Secondary Pump 1 Mech Room Hydronic Loop Armstrong - 2015 3/4 hp 80% HHW Circ. Pump 1 Mech Room Hydronic Loop FHP C6T17FC201 - 1/2 hp 72% HHW Circ. Pump – AHU 1 Mech Room AHU Armstrong 116637-061 - 1/6 hp 100% Figure 5: Natural gas boiler (left) and baseboard radiator (right) Space Cooling Cooling is provided to the building via exterior condensing units connected to coils in the AHUs, and an additional Lennox packaged unit located outside the building. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Year Efficiency Packaged Air Handler (RTU1) 1 Outside Building Lennox LCA120HN1Y 10 Ton 2014 3.9 COP Condensing Unit 1 Outside AHU - 2 Trane TTA240E300AA 20 Ton 2014 2.93 COP Condensing Unit 1 Outside AHU - 1 Trane 4TTA3060D 5 Ton 2014 3.9 COP Figure 6: Packaged unit (left) and condensing units (right) Ventilation Two indoor air handling units (AHUs) in the mechanical room provide ventilation to various areas in the building. Additional ventilation is provided via the packaged unit located outside the building. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency Packaged Air Handler (RTU1) 1 Outside Building Lennox LCA120HN1Y 2014 ~3 hp ~80% AHU-1 – SF 1 Mech Room Various ThermoPlus - - ~3 hp ~80% AHU-2 - SF 1 Mech Room Various Trane - - ~3 hp 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 7: AHU2 (left) and AHU1 (right). 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One DHW tank and the associated recirculation pump are located in the mechanical room to supply the building fixtures. DHW equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Mech Room Building John Wood E50TE- 30240 250 2021 3 kW 92% DHW Circ Pump 1 Mech Room Building Armstrong 116591-061 - 1/12 hp 90% Figure 8: DHW heater Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is a combination of older, fluorescent, and incandescent, as well as newer LED technology. Fixtures included strip lights, troffers, and sconces. The most common fixture seen inside the building was an LED four-foot troffer. Interior lights are controlled by switches. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 9: Example of interior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, pre-rinse spray valves, and a clothes washer. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate L2 Washroom Faucet 1 0.5 gpm L2 Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf L2 Washroom Faucet 1 0.5 gpm L2 Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Social Room 2 Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Washroom – Orange Faucet 2 1.5 gpm Washroom – Orange Toilet 2 1.6 gpf Washroom – Purple Faucet 2 1.5 gpm Washroom - Purple Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 Washroom Faucet 1 1.5 gpm L1 Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Janitorial Faucet, kitchen 1 2.5 gpm Washroom Faucet 1 0.5 gpm Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Basement Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Basement Washrooms Faucet 2 0.5 gpm Basement Washrooms Toilet 2 1.6 gpf Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Basement Washrooms Urinal 1 1.0 gpf Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Meter Number Location Whole Building Electricity 9600304-04 Not located Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65168 6 Exterior Whole Building Water 9778910000 Not located Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge March 2022 – December 2023 Consumption data is missing for May 2022, July 2022, and July 2023. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham March 2022 – February 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption during the period of available data. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from the available data. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The small amount of baseload consumption is attributed to minimum heating in summer months, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the fall, winter, and spring. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption during the period of available data. Only September to December appear to have a consistent consumption between the two years. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, typically attri butable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets. Months of higher consumption could be due to additional visitor traffic to the building. Figure 13: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 107,073 kWh/yr. 385 $16,291 3.2 Natural gas 727 GJ/yr. 727 $13,510 36.2 Water 340 m³/yr. $340 0.0 Total 1,112 $30,141 39.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $626.72/yr $0.15/kWh Natural Gas $876.52/yr $16.24/GJ Water $3,294.97/yr $1.69/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. The Community Resource Centre building performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 0.80 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 28.26 37.20 ECI ($/m2) 21.38 WUI (m3/m2) 0.24 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The cooling and ventilation consume the most electricity. Plug loads and lighting also consume a large fraction of electricity, while domestic hot water and spa ce heating consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The mechanical category includes sump pumps. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 14: Electricity end uses Natural Gas Natural gas is only used in this building for space heating via the two Lochinvar boilers. Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The majority of water use was through the use of the washroom fixtures, with toilets using about 51% of the total, faucets using about 25% of the total, and urinals using about 18% of the total. Finally, the kitchen style faucets, such as used in the janitor sink and at the kitchen sink consumed about 6% of the total water use. Figure 15: Water end uses Cooling Equipment 27% Ventilation 25% Plug Loads 25% Lighting 14% Space Heating 5% Domestic Hot Water…Mechanical 1% Toilet 51% Faucet, lavatory 25% Urinal 18% Faucet, kitchen 6% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Electrification - Boiler In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers. Project Cost: $154,886 Annual Electricity Savings: -188,738 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 728 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 49 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$16,148 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 30.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 763 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$462,332 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 84 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.4. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interactions and run times. Project Cost: $8,437 Annual Electricity Savings: 7,388 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 80 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 106 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,390 Simple Payback: 3.1 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 21 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $3,745 Internal Rate of Return: 19% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for medium office-type buildings with an average size of 74,190 ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.31/ft 2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6% and 12%, respectively. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.5. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Community Resource Centre could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its available area of flat roof and low slope roof space with minimal obstru ctions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $79,658 Annual Electricity Savings: 29,321 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,346 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: - $611 Simple Payback: 12.8 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 22 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $19,432 Internal Rate of Return: 7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 7° and 15° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a (total) 25 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.6. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal cont act between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the space heating hydronic loop at Community Resource Centre. Project Cost: $7,275 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 58 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 58 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $946 Simple Payback: 6.0 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 23 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $817 Internal Rate of Return: 8% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 6 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.7. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $11,960 Annual Electricity Savings: 3,009 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $446 Simple Payback: 18.7 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$5,928 Internal Rate of Return: -3% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.8. Low Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. This ECM was determined to be additional as it provides negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $24,118 Annual Electricity Savings: 309 kWh/yr. Annual Water Savings: 72 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $167 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$22,564 Internal Rate of Return: -30% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 10 toilets, 1 urinal, and 3 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.10. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Community Resource Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-Making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-Making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Paybac k (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boiler – Electrification -188,738 728 30.5 -$16,148 $154,886 Never -$462,332 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Existing Building Commissioning 7,388 80 4.2 $2,390 $8,437 3.1 $3,745 3 Rooftop Solar PV 29,321 0 0.9 $4,346 $79,658 15.2 $2,208 4 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 58 2.9 $946 $7,275 6.0 $817 5 Carbon Offsets - - 6.1 - $110 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $110 6.1 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.80 0.68 0.76 4% 0.76 4% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.61 0.58 6% 0.58 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.26 37.20 6.67 76% 3.73 87% ECI ($/m²) $21.38 N/A $31.44 -47% $31.44 -47% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024-2029 2030 2031 - 2044 Boilers - Electrification $154,886 Total cost ($) $0 $154,886 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 39.4 45.2 43.6 45.3 44.0 43.3 16.3 15.8 14.1 12.0 9.3 8.5 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.3 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.2 Baseline GHGs 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 10-yr target (-50%)19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 20-yr target (-80%)7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.80 0.68 0.54 32% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.61 0.46 25% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.26 37.20 5.60 80% ECI ($/m²) $21.38 N/A $22.45 -5% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Boilers - Electrification $154,886 Existing Building Commissioning $8,437 Rooftop Solar PV $79,658 Hydronic Heating Additive $7,275 Carbon Offsets $110 Total ($) $95,370 $154,886 $0 $0 $110 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 39.4 35.2 14.7 17.9 15.4 8.0 Baseline GHGs 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 5-yr target (-80%)7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 188,738 - 104,121 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 728 728 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 34 31 GHG Emission reduction (%) 87% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.025 0.023 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 154,886 $250,366 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $605 $3,696 Net present value ($) -$408,411 -$294,347 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Figure 18: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $134.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $95.4K $154.9 $0 $0 $110 $0 $20.0K $40.0K $60.0K $80.0K $100.0K $120.0K $140.0K $160.0K $180.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Figure 19: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 39.4 45.2 43.6 45.3 44.0 43.3 16.3 15.8 14.1 12.0 9.3 8.5 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.3 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.2 Pathway 2 39.4 35.2 14.7 17.9 15.4 8.0 Grid Decarbonization 39.4 45.2 43.6 45.3 44.0 43.3 42.1 41.9 41.3 40.5 39.6 39.3 39.0 38.8 38.7 38.5 38.4 38.3 38.2 38.2 38.1 Baseline GHGs 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 10-yr target (-50%)19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Town of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification $154,886 $134,193 $20,694 Total Pathway 1 $154,886 $134,193 $20,694 Rooftop Solar PV $79,658 N/A $79,658 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $8,437 N/A $8,437 Hydronic heating additive $7,275 N/A $7,275 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $110 N/A $110 Total Pathway 2 $250,366 $134,193 $116,173 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 188,738 - 104,121 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 728 728 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 34 31 GHG Emission reduction (%) 87% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.025 0.023 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $20,694 $116,173 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 605 $3,696 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 274,222 -$160,144 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 33% and 46% reduction in NPV in Pathways 1 and 2 respectively, when compared to absolute year zero project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing and electrifying boilers and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and undertaking boiler switch outs may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: The installation of new boilers or solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or electrified systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or electrification over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Basement - FYC Social Room 1L-8ft-LED-40W-Strip-Hang 14 Basement - FYC Social Room 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 1 Basement - FYC Boiler Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Basement - FYC Utility Hall 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Basement - FYC AHU Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 Basement - FYC AHU Room 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 L2 - John Howard Big Office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 8 L2 - John Howard Washroom 2L-A19-Inc-40W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 1 L2 - John Howard Big Office 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 L2 - John Howard Small Office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 4 L2 - John Howard Hallway 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 L2 - John Howard Hallway 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 L2 - Autism Hallway 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 L2 - Autism Hallway 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 L2 - Autism Small Office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 4 L2 - Autism Small Office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 6 L2 - Autism Washroom 2L-A19-Inc-40W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 1 L2 - Autism Social Room 1 1L-2x4ft-LED-40W-Panel-Rcs 16 L2 - Autism Social Room 2 1L-2x4ft-LED-40W-Panel-Rcs 9 L2 - Autism Washroom (o) 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 1 L2 - Autism Washroom (p) 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 1 L2 - Autism Lobby 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 L2 - Autism Stairway 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 4 L1 - Main Lobby/Entrance Vestibule 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 12 L1 - John Howard Lobby 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 19 L1 - John Howard Washroom 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 1 L1 - John Howard Washroom 2L-A19-Inc-40W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 1 L1 - John Howard Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 L1 - John Howard Housing Services 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 L1 - John Howard Interview Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 L1 - John Howard Holding Cell Storage Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 3 L1 - John Howard Other Storage 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 1 L1 - John Howard Janitorial 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - John Howard Hallway 2L-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - John Howard Hallway 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - John Howard Empty office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 L1 - John Howard No Access Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 L1 - John Howard Step Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 L1 - John Howard Board Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 9 L1 - John Howard Washroom 2L-A19-Inc-40W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 1 L1 - John Howard Back Stairwell 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 6 Basement – FYC Kitchen 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 12 Basement - FYC Kitchen 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Basement - FYC Washrooms 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $1,439 9,597 February $1,505 10,018 March $1,089 7,312 $1,187 7,805 April $1,117 7,508 $1,424 9,355 May $1,060 7,041 $1,211 7,936 June $1,365 8,799 $1,403 8,854 July $1,448 9,360 $1,415 9,139 August $1,692 11,160 $1,611 10,376 September $1,299 8,521 $1,415 9,139 October $1,375 8,939 $1,300 8,280 November $1,381 9,647 $1,202 7,860 December $1,327 9,245 $1,373 8,640 Total $13,153 87,532 $16,485 106,999 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Natural Gas Table 30 : Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $2,326 113 February $2,153 109 March $1,182 92 $1,660 93 April $923 66 $940 49 May $85 0 $106 1 June $128 4 $158 4 July $85 0 $88 0 August $172 4 $143 4 September $259 8 $144 4 October $939 42 $720 49 November $2,122 100 $1,320 99 December $2,613 127 $1,533 116 Total $8,509 444 $11,291 641 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $323 40 February $323 40 March $302 18 $324 33 April $302 18 $324 33 May $301 25 $376 53 June $301 25 $376 53 July $307 15 $338 35 August $307 15 $338 35 September $158 20 $300 23 October $158 20 $300 23 November $158 20 $328 20 December $158 20 $328 20 Total $2,452 195 $3,978 405 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Courtice Community Complex 2950 Courtice Road, Courtice, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Key Contacts .............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 19 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 20 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 22 2.7. Other (Pool) ............................................................................................................................... 23 2.8. Building Automation System ..................................................................................................... 24 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 25 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 28 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 28 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 31 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 31 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 33 4.3. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 34 4.4. High-Efficiency MUA .................................................................................................................. 36 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 37 4.6. Low Flow Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................... 38 4.7. Variable Frequency Drives on Pool and Waterslide Pumps ...................................................... 39 4.8. Heat Pump RTUs ........................................................................................................................ 40 4.9. Electrification – Boiler (DHW) .................................................................................................... 41 4.10. Electrification – Boilers (Space Heating) .................................................................................... 42 4.11. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 43 4.12. Liquid Pool Covers ..................................................................................................................... 44 4.13. Variable Frequency Drives on MUA Supply Fans (Additional Consideration) ........................... 45 4.14. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 46 4.15. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 47 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 49 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 49 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 49 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 49 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 51 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 51 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 52 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 55 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 56 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 60 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 61 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 63 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 63 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 65 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 65 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 68 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 69 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Courtice Community Complex. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 91% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 858,633 kWh/yr. 3,091 $138,150 25.8 Natural gas 3,305 GJ/yr. 3,305 $54,914 164.4 Water 12,744 m3/yr. - $12,744 0.5 Total 6,396 $205,808 190.6 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 190.1 236.8 197.4 160.2 124.0 118.0 106.8 105.2 83.4 76.8 68.6 66.0 64.0 62.5 61.1 59.4 58.6 57.8 55.3 54.6 37.8 Pathway 2 190.1 196.8 169.3 135.4 100.8 38.4 Grid Decarbonization 190.1 236.8 224.2 237.3 227.0 221.6 211.7 210.2 205.5 199.3 191.5 189.1 187.2 185.7 184.4 182.8 182.1 181.4 180.9 180.3 179.6 Baseline GHGs 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 10-yr target (-50%)95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered. For both Pathway 1 and 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Nine ECMs were identified and used, along with carbon offsets, within the GHG reduction Pathway 1. One additional ECM was identified and used for Pathway 2, along with greater carbon offsets. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.68 1.00 23% 0.82 37% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.74 0.52 30% 0.51 31% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 38.71 37.20 13.92 64% 7.68 80% ECI ($/m²) $39.21 N/A $43.00 -10% $34.62 12% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.68 0.77 41% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.74 0.47 37% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 38.71 37.20 7.80 80% ECI ($/m²) $39.21 N/A $32.06 18% The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Existing Building Commissioning 50,429 322 17.5 $13,843 $48,574 3.1 $20,935 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 2 High-Efficiency MUA 0 43 2.1 $666 $131,197 >50 -$115,656 3 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 86 4.3 $1,346 $7,275 4.4 $4,296 4 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 262 13.1 $10,133 $70,786 5.9 $28,745 5 VFD-Pumps (Main Pool/Waterslide) 21,572 0 0.6 $3,764 $14,552 3.6 $20,031 6 Heat Pump RTUs (2,3,5,6) -54,810 599 28.1 -$192 $1,230,001 Never -$1,223,326 7 Boilers – Electrification (DHW) -208,500 834 35.2 -$23,326 $117,502 Never -$570,368 8 Boilers – Electrification (Heating) -267,750 1,071 45.2 -$29,954 $235,004 Never -$816,562 9 Rooftop Solar PV 176,142 0 5.3 $30,737 $413,152 11.7 $179,035 10 Carbon Offsets - - 16.0 - $288 - - Pathway 2 ECM(s) 11 Liquid Pool Cover 0 208 10.3 $3,268 $1,825 <1 $33,017 12 Carbon Offsets - - 55.1 - $992 N/A N/A Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Courtice Community Complex. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2. Building and Systems The Courtice Community Complex is a single-level, 4,924 m2 facility located at 2950 Courtice Road in Courtice, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1997, with some later additions in 2001. The Courtice Community Complex provides recreational services, including gymnasium and recreation program spaces, as well as swimming pool and hot tub amenities, to the community. The building also houses the Clarington Library Museums and Archives. The majority of HVAC processes are supplied by rooftop units, with the remainder of mechanical equipment in a dedicated mechanical room inside the building. General occupied hours are 5am-11pm seven days a week. Figure 2: Courtice community complex exterior from east (left), and aerial view (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are a mix of concrete and brick masonry with sections of stucco type finished panels. Exterior doors vary in size and design, but public access doors are generally sliding glazed doors or glazed metal frame swing doors. There are metal doors located at secondary exits. Many of the windows provide a daylighting function and are a combination of single section or multi-section aluminum framed double glazed assemblies, with other smaller aluminum framed double glazed windows. Architectural glass block windows are located throughout. The roof is made of multiple sections with some sections of typical flat, built -up roofing construction with gravel finish and other sections with metal panel finish. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 3: Example envelope components; sliding door (left), and windows (right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The various building spaces are heated primarily by several individual rooftop HVAC units with natural gas heating. The hot water for hydronic heating is supplied by two natural gas non - condensing boilers located in the mechanical room. The boilers are controlled via a Tekmar unit with individual thermostats for individual spaces. The hydronic system ties to building wide radiators, fan coils and the dehumidifier unit. Further supplemental heating is provided by ten electric unit heaters located throughout the building. A building automation system (BAS) with web enabled access is used in this facility to control HVAC operation. Operators can make building temperature adjustments, but occupants cannot. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficienc y Boilers 2 Mechanic Buildings Teledyne LAARS HH1430IN11 K1C C96I077 06 1997 1,430 MBH 81% Boiler Pumps (P1-2) 2 Mech Room Hydronic Loop Armstron g - - - 5 hp 88% Boiler Pump (P3) 1 Mech Room Hydronic Loop Armstron g - - - 5 hp 82% Boiler Pump (P4) 1 Mech Room Hydronic Loop Techtop - - - 1 hp 82% Hot Water Recirc. (P6) 1 Mech Room Hydronic Loop Armstron g - - - 3 hp 82% Electric Unit Heaters 10 Mech Room Building - - - - 1/10 hp 100% Unit Heater Fan Coils 3 Mech Room Basement - - - - 1/3 hp 80% Heat Recirc. Pump (P7) 1 Mech Room Dectron - - - - 2 hp 80% RTU - 10 1 Rooftop Main Gym West Trane YSCO92HWE HA29D001 224911 268L 2023 200 MBH 80% RTU - 9 1 Rooftop Main Gym East Trane YSJ120AWS0 H02D 231613 150L 2023 240 MBH 81% RTU - 8 1 Rooftop Program Room Trane YSC060GWE HB27D000 221611 115L 2022 150 MBH 81% RTU - 7 1 Rooftop Studio Trane GBC060AWE MB090 215124 37PA 2022 115 MBH 80% RTU - 6 1 Rooftop 55+ Active Adults Lennox KGA180H4M M1J 5618M0 1478 2019 360 MBH 80% RTU - 5 1 Rooftop Main Foyer Intertek/L ennox KGA092H4M H3J 5618M0 0649 2019 240 MBH 80% RTU - 4 1 Rooftop Computer Lab Carrier 48FCEA05A2 A1A0B0A0 5121C1 0377 2022 110 MBH 80% RTU - 3 1 Rooftop Library East Trane YHD180GWR XA04P0VC0C 163610 440D 2016 250 MBH 81% RTU - 2 1 Rooftop Library West Trane YHD180GWR XA04P0VC0C 163610 443D 2016 250 MBH 81% RTU - 1 1 Rooftop Library Office Carrier 48FCEA05A2 A1A0B0A0 4521C0 6876 2022 110 MBH 80% MUA - 2 1 Rooftop Gym Changeroo m Daikin DPS015AHH G5DW-6 FBOU18 010123 4 2018 400 MBH 80% MUA - 1 1 Rooftop Pool Changeroo m AAON RN-011-4-0- EB09-3G9 201607- ANGZ54 034 2016 292 MBH 80.1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 5: Natural gas boiler (left) and RTU with heating, typical (right) Figure 6: Digital return air CO2 sensor and temperature sensor (left) and manual thermostat (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Space Cooling Cooling to the building is supplied almost exclusively via direct expansion cooling in the rooftop units, which house the associated compressors and condensers. The pool area dehumidifier uses refrigeration-based cooling a part of its dehumidification process and then reheats the process air as required. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency RTU - 10 1 Rooftop Main Gym West Trane YSCO92HWE HA29D001 2249112 68L 202 3 7.5 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 9 1 Rooftop Main Gym East Trane YSJ120AWS0 H02D 2316131 50L 202 3 15 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 8 1 Rooftop Program Room Trane YSC060GWE HB27D000 2216111 15L 202 2 5 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 7 1 Rooftop Studio Trane GBC060AWE MB090 2151243 7PA 202 2 5 Ton 3.52 COP RTU - 6 1 Rooftop 55+ Active Adults Lennox KGA180H4M M1J 5618M0 1478 201 9 15 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 5 1 Rooftop Main Foyer Intertek /Lennox KGA092H4M H3J 5618M0 0649 201 9 7.5 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 4 1 Rooftop Computer Lab Carrier 48FCEA05A2 A1A0B0A0 5121C1 0377 202 2 4 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 3 1 Rooftop Library East Trane YHD180GWR XA04P0VC0C 1636104 40D 201 6 15 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 2 1 Rooftop Library West Trane YHD180GWR XA04P0VC0C 1636104 43D 201 6 15 Ton 4.1 COP RTU - 1 1 Rooftop Library Office Carrier 48FCEA05A2 A1A0B0A0 4521C0 6876 202 2 5 Ton 4.1 COP MUA - 2 1 Rooftop Gym Changero om Daikin DPS015AHH G5DW-6 FBOU18 0101234 201 8 15 Ton 3.52 COP MUA - 1 1 Rooftop Pool Changero om AAON RN-011-4-0- EB09-3G9 201607- ANGZ54 034 201 6 15 Ton 3.52 COP Dehumidifier s 2 Mech Room Pool Deck Dectron DSF-182-8 - 201 0 21 kW 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 7: Rooftop units with integrated direct expansion cooling, typical (left, right) Ventilation Ventilation to the various building spaces is via the multiple rooftop HVAC units. The dehumidifier servicing the pool deck has an integrated fan to draw in the air from the space for the dehumidification process. Exhaust ventilation is provided via exhaust fans located throughout building washrooms, service rooms and plant rooms. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Locatio n Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency RTU – 10 SF 1 Rooftop Main Gym West Trane YSCO92HWEH A29D001 224911268L 2023 3 hp ~80% RTU – 9 SF 1 Rooftop Main Gym East Trane YSJ120AWS0H 02D 231613150L 2023 3 hp ~80% RTU – 8 SF 1 Rooftop Program Room Trane YSC060GWEH B27D000 221611115L 2022 2 hp ~80% RTU – 7 SF 1 Rooftop Studio Trane GBC060AWEM B090 21512437PA 2022 2 hp ~80% RTU – 6 SF 1 Rooftop 55+ Active Adults Lennox KGA180H4MM 1J 5618M01478 2019 5 hp ~80% RTU – 5 SF 1 Rooftop Main Foyer Intertek /Lennox KGA092H4MH 3J 5618M00649 2019 3 hp ~80% RTU – 4 SF 1 Rooftop Computer Lab Carrier 48FCEA05A2A 1A0B0A0 5121C10377 2022 2 hp ~80% RTU – 3 SF 1 Rooftop Library East Trane YHD180GWRX A04P0VC0C 163610440D 2016 3 hp ~80% RTU – 2 SF 1 Rooftop Library West Trane YHD180GWRX A04P0VC0C 163610443D 2016 3 hp ~80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Equipment Qty (#) Locatio n Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency RTU – 10 SF 1 Rooftop Main Gym West Trane YSCO92HWEH A29D001 224911268L 2023 3 hp ~80% RTU – 1 SF 1 Rooftop Library Office Carrier 48FCEA05A2A 1A0B0A0 4521C06876 2022 2 hp ~80% Exhaust Fans 17 Building Building - - - - ½ hp ~80% MUA – 2 SF 1 Rooftop Gym Changeroom Daikin DPS015AHHG5 DW-6 FBOU180101 234 2018 5-1/2 hp ~80% MUA – 1 SF 1 Rooftop Pool Changeroom AAON RN-011-4-0- EB09-3G9 201607- ANGZ54034 2016 5 hp ~80% Dehumidifier - Blower 2 Mech Room Pool Deck Dectron DSF-182-8 - 2010 15 hp 100% Figure 8: Ceiling diffuser (left) and exhaust fan (right). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Domestic hot water is supplied to the building plumbing fixtures via the dedicated Teledyne Laars natural gas boiler located in the mechanical room. The system is connected via a heat exchanger and is circulated via two circulation pumps. DHW equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency DHW Boiler 1 Mech Room Building Teledyne Laars HH1430IN11K1CCX - 1997 1,430 MBH 81% Boiler Pump (P5) 1 Mech Room DHW Loop Series -E Marathon - - - 1 hp 82% DHW Pump (P8) 1 Mech Room DHW Loop - - - - ½ hp 90% DHW Pump (P9) 1 Mech Room DHW Loop Grundfos - - - 87 W 90% Figure 9: Boiler B-3 used for domestic hot water (left) and a circulator pump (right). 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is primarily LED, and includes strip lights, troffers, sconces, and pot lights. The most common fixture seen inside the building are LED panels. Exterior lighting includes LED wall packs. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Figure 10: Example of interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, pre-rinse spray valves, and a clothes washer. Other water loads not included in this list include pool & hot tub fills and irrigation. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate L1 - Library - Family WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 gpm L1 - Library - Family WR Toilet 1 1.6 gpf L1 - Library - Mwr Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Library - Mwr Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 - Library - Mwr Urinal 1 1.0 gpf L1 - Library - WWR (No Access) Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Library - WWR (No Access) Toilet 3 1.6 gp L1 - Library - Staff Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate L1 - Library - Staff WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 gpm L1 - Library - Staff WR Toilet 1 1.6 gpf L1 - Library - Janitorial Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - WRS Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - WRS Toilet 2 1.5 gpf L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - Janitorial Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - MWR Faucet, lavatory, public 3 1.5 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - MWR Toilet 3 1.6 gpf L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - MWR Urinal 2 1.0 gpf L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - WWR (No Access) Faucet, lavatory, public 3 1.5 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - WWR (No Access) Toilet 3 1.6 gpf L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - Coffee Lounge Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 4 2.2 gpm L1 - Lobby & Actviity Rooms - Kitchen Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 gpm L1 - Pool - Lifeguard Office Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm L1 - Pool - Wrs Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Wrs Showerhead 2 2.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Wrs Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 - Pool - Mens Change Room Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Mens Change Room Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 - Pool - Mens Change Room Showerhead 4 2.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Family Change Room Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Family Change Room Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 - Pool - Family Change Room Showerhead 4 2.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Womens Change Room (No Access) Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Pool - Womens Change Room (No Access) Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 - Pool - Womens Change Room (No Access) Showerhead 4 2.5 gpm L1 - Fitness - Mens Change Room Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 gpm L1 - Fitness - Mens Change Room Toilet 2 1.6 gpf L1 - Fitness - Mens Change Room Urinal 2 1.0 gpf L1 - Fitness - Mens Change Room Showerhead 10 2.5 gpm L1 - Fitness - Janitorial Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm L1 - Fitness - Gym Janitorial Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm L1 - Fitness - Gym Janitorial Clothes washer, compact, front-loading 1 18.8 g/cycle Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 11: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724289 Exterior Library (Submeter) Electricity - Electrical Room Daycare (Submeter) Electricity - Electrical Room Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65247 5 Exterior Whole Building Water 6597610000 Sprinkler Room Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 2.7. Other (Pool) Other equipment includes pool pumps and sauna heaters, as catalogued below. Each of the main pool, whirlpool, and tot pool have their own heat exchanger which is supplied hot water by the Teledyne Laars boilers. Site records show the main pool heat exchanger was installed in 1997, the tot pool heat exchanger was also installed in 1997, and the whirlpool heat exchanger was installed in 2009. Table 12: Other equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Main Pool Pump 1 Pool Mech. Main Pool Bell & Gosset - 25 hp 82% Spa Pool Pump 1 Pool Mech. Spa Pool Weg - 5 hp 89% Whirlpool Pump 1 Pool Mech. Whirlpool US motors #DT18 5 hp 86% Water Slide Pump 1 Pool Mech. Waterslide Magnetek - 10 hp 87% Sauna Heaters 3 Pool Mech. Sauna - - 12 kW 80% Filter Pump 1 Pool Mech. Pool Filtration Weg - 5kW 80% Chlorine Pumps 3 Pool Mech. Chlorine System - - 0.3 kW 80% Figure 12: Example pool pump (whirlpool) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 2.8. Building Automation System The Building Automation System (BAS) controls and monitors the HVAC systems, including MUAs and rooftop units (RTUs). It manages temperature settings, ventilation, and heating for different areas of the building. Figure 13: Example BAS photos Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One March 2022 – December 2023 March 2023 is missing data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas, and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports form the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from the period of available data. Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent pattern year after year, with peaks appearing in June, July, August, and December. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as increased maintenance activities for the pool, and to other areas as summer cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Figure 14: Electricity consumption over time 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Natural Gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption using the available data. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumptio n is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers and swimming pool heating, with the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 15: Natural gas consumption over time Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption during the period of available data. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and the clothes washer. The reason for the consistent peaks in March over the two years is unknown, but may be due to annual major pool maintenance and refilling. Figure 16: Water consumption over time 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 858,633 kWh/yr. 3,091 $138,150 25.8 Natural gas 3,305 GJ/yr. 3,305 $54,914 164.4 Water 12,744 m³/yr. $12,744 0.5 Total 6,396 $205,808 190.6 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity and natural gas, the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal (water) and average (electricity, natural gas) utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Table 16: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.17/kWh Natural Gas - - $15.66/GJ Water $1,421.65/yr. $3.34/m3 - 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's Courtice Community Complex performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.30 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 38.71 37.20 ECI ($/m2) 39.21 WUI (m3/m2) 2.59 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The cooling system consumes the most electricity in the building at 27% of total load with ventilation close behind at 23%. Pool loads are estimated at 17%, with plug loads, space heating, and lighting each estimated at 11% of total consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Figure 17: Electricity end uses Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas in the building and includes pool heating, while DHW consumes a smaller portion of natural gas. Figure 18: Natural gas end uses Cooling Equipment 27% Ventilation 23% Pool 17% Plug Loads 11% Space Heating 11% Lighting 11% Domestic Hot Water 0% Space Heating 75% Domestic Hot Water 25% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The pool section includes consumption for all pools whereas the “other” category includes items such as the soccer field irrigation and splash area. Figure 19: Water end uses Pool 40% Showerhead 27% Toilet 8%Other 8%Faucet, lavatory 6% Hot Tub 5% Urinal 3% Pre-rinse spray valve 2% Clothes washer, residential 1% Faucet, kitchen 0% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the net present value, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. 4.3. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interactions and run times. Project Cost: $48,574 Annual Electricity Savings: 50,429 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 322 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 504 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $13,843 Simple Payback: 3.1 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 17.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 88 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $20,935 Internal Rate of Return: 19% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for recreation-type buildings with an average size of 115,914 ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.50/ft 2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6% and 10%, respectively. • EBCx ensures HVAC, lighting, and other mechanical components are functioning optimally. Implementing this alongside upgraded heat pump RTUs allows the new units to be calibrated and integrated more effectively, maximizing their energy-saving potential and ensuring compatibility with existing systems. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 4.4. High-Efficiency MUA This ECM explores replacing two existing MUAs with high-efficiency models to reduce natural gas consumption. MUA-1 has reached its end of useful service life (>15 yrs old), so this ECM can be implemented in alignment with capital replacement plans. Project Cost: $131,197 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 43 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $666 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 53 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$115,656 Internal Rate of Return: -9% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated natural gas savings are based on the difference in the thermal efficiency between the existing and new models. The existing models have an efficiency of 81%, while the proposed model is 91% efficient • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new MUAs. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new MUA unit is properly sized for the building’s ventilation requirements • Ensure compatibility with the existing Building Automation System (BAS) • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal cont act between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at Courtice Community Complex. Project Cost: $7,275 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 86 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 86 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,346 Simple Payback: 4.4 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 34 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $4,296 Internal Rate of Return: 17% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 6 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 4.6. Low Flow Water Fixtures Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $70,786 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 262 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 1,807 m³/yr. Total Energy Savings: 262 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $10,133 Simple Payback: 5.9 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 13.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 131 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $28,745 Internal Rate of Return: 12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 25 toilets, 5 urinals, 24 showerheads, and 11 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 4.7. Variable Frequency Drives on Pool and Waterslide Pumps For many circumstances where the load on a motor varies, energy consumption can be reduced by using a variable frequency drive (VFD) to reduce motor speed when appropriate. The VFD adjusts the motor speed, typically based on the instantaneous motor load. Typically, energy savings can range anywhere from 10 to 50 percent depending on the application. This ECM explores adding VFDs to MP-1-Main Pool Pump and WS-1-Water Slide Pump, to allow variable speed pumping. Project Cost: $14,552 Annual Electricity Savings: 21,572 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,764 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$90 Simple Payback: 3.6 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 6 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $20,031 Internal Rate of Return: 26% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Currently, MP-1-Main Pool Pump operates an estimated 4,320 hours per year, and WS- 1-Water Slide Pump operates an estimated 1,440 hours per year, each at a constant 65% load factor. A low-speed variable motor profile was used to simulate pump/motor operation with the proposed VFDs, with an equivalent savings rate of 30%. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans, and includes labour and materials for adding the VFDs. • VFD pumps adjust motor speed based on demand, improving efficiency in water circulation systems. Combining this with low-flow water fixtures reduces water usage and the pumping energy required, amplifying the savings in both energy and water consumption. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • This ECM will require a design phase to confirm system suitability. For example, we will need to confirm that two-way zone valves are present. • Confirm VFD compatibility with the existing motors and system controls Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 4.8. Heat Pump RTUs Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. Existing RTUs heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing four existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance. Project Cost: $1,230,001 Annual Electricity Savings: -54,810 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 599 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 401 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$192 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$928 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 28.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 563 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,223,326 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated fuel savings are based on the difference in efficiency between the existing and proposed units. The existing gas burning efficiency for all RTUs is 80% while the proposed heating COP is 2.6. The estimated existing cooling efficiency is 410%, the proposed cooling efficiency is 351%. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.9. Electrification – Boiler (DHW) In an effort to reduce GHG and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from a natural gas to electric boiler for domestic hot water. Project Cost: $117,502 Annual Electricity Savings: -208,500 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 834 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 83 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$23,326 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 35.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 880 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$570,368 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 81 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric boiler of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 4.10. Electrification – Boilers (Space Heating) In an effort to reduce GHG and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers for space heating. Project Cost: $235,004 Annual Electricity Savings: -267,750 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 1,071 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 107 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$29,954 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 45.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1,131 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$816,562 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 81 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 4.11. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Courtice Community Complex building could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southeastern exposure and areas of minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $413,152 Annual Electricity Savings: 176,142 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $30,737 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$3,398 Simple Payback: 11.7 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 5.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 132 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $179,035 Internal Rate of Return: 8% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 15% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 139 kW DC total system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 4.12. Liquid Pool Covers Liquid pool covers are chemical additives that form a layer on a pool's surface to prevent heat loss from the water to the surrounding air. Pool covers also reduce water loss via evaporation, and thereby reduce condensation on the interior envelope, mitigating bacterial growth. This ECM explores adding a liquid pool cover to the pool at Courtice Community Complex, which to our knowledge, does not already have a cover, since no physical cover or bottles of additive were observed on site. The pool is heated by natural gas boilers, so reducing heat loss from the pool's surface would decrease natural gas consumption . Project Cost: $1,825 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 208 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 3 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,268 Simple Payback: <1 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 10.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 103 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $33,017 Internal Rate of Return: 200% Savings and Cost Assumptions • To calculate fuel savings, we assumed the existing heat loss from the pool's surface would be decreased by 50% by adding the liquid cover. • The project cost represents the cost for 8 gallon of additive, which would be enough additive for a year. Maintenance costs were not considered, since the additive can be applied by facility staff fairly quickly on a regular basis. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure the liquid pool cover additive is compatible with the existing pool water treatment system, including chlorine or other sanitizers, to prevent any adverse reactions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 4.13. Variable Frequency Drives on MUA Supply Fans (Additional Consideration) For many circumstances where the load on a motor varies, energy consumption can be reduced by using a variable frequency drive (VFD) to reduce motor speed when appropriate. The VFD adjusts the motor speed, typically based on the instantaneous motor load. Typically, energy savings can range anywhere from 10 to 50 percent depending on the application. This ECM explores adding VFDs to MUA-1 and MUA-2 supply fans. ECM was considered additional due to negligible GHG reductions. Project Cost: $25,111 Annual Electricity Savings: 5,153 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $899 Simple Payback: 19.3 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$16,684 Internal Rate of Return: -12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Currently, MUA-1 and MUA-2 supply fans operate an estimated 5,400 hours per year each at a constant 65% load factor. A low-speed variable motor profile was used to simulate motor operation with the proposed VFDs, with an equivalent savings rate of 15%. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans, and includes labour and materials for adding the VFDs. While it is possible to add a VFD to most pump systems without replacing the existing pump and motor, it is common to replace these components to ensure compatibility. The estimated cost does not include re-piping or integration with the building automation system. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • This ECM will require a design phase to confirm system suitability. • Confirm VFD compatibility with the existing motors and system controls Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 4.14. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.15. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Courtice Community Complex. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 19: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 20: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHG s (t CO₂e ) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Existing Building Commissioning 50,429 322 17.5 $13,843 $48,574 3.1 $20,935 2 High-Efficiency MUA 0 43 2.1 $666 $131,197 >50 -$115,656 3 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 86 4.3 $1,346 $7,275 4.4 $4,296 4 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 262 13.1 $10,133 $70,786 5.9 $28,745 5 VFD-Pumps (Main Pool/Waterslide) 21,572 0 0.6 $3,764 $14,552 3.6 $20,031 6 Heat Pump RTUs (2,3,5,6) -54,810 599 28.1 -$192 $1,230,001 Never -$1,223,326 7 Boilers – Electrification (DHW) -208,500 834 35.2 -$23,326 $117,502 Never -$570,368 8 Boilers – Electrification (Heating) -267,750 1,071 45.2 -$29,954 $235,004 Never -$816,562 9 Rooftop Solar PV 176,142 0 5.3 $30,737 $413,152 11.7 $179,035 10 Carbon Offsets - - 16.0 - $288 - - Pathway 2 ECM(s) 11 Liquid Pool Cover 0 208 10.3 $3,268 $1,825 <1 $33,017 12 Carbon Offsets - - 55.1 - $992 N/A N/A Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section . Table 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 $288 16.0 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $992 55.1 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 22: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.68 1.00 23% 0.82 37% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.74 0.52 30% 0.51 31% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 38.71 37.20 13.92 64% 7.68 80% ECI ($/m²) $39.21 N/A $43.00 -10% $34.62 12% Table 23: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029- 2031 2032 2033- 2041 2042 2043 2044 Existing Building Commissioning $48,574 High-Efficiency MUA $131,197 Hydronic Heating Additive $7,275 Low Flow Water Fixtures $70,786 VFD – Pumps (Main Pool/WS) $14,552 Heat Pump RTUs $1,230,001 Boilers – Electrification (DHW) $117,502 Boilers – Electrification (Heating) $235,004 Rooftop Solar PV $413,152 Carbon Offsets $288 Total cost ($) $0 $498,491 $352,506 $55,849 $0 $1,230,001 $0 $131,197 $0 $288 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Figure 20: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 190.1 236.8 197.4 160.2 124.0 118.0 106.8 105.2 83.4 76.8 68.6 66.0 64.0 62.5 61.1 59.4 58.6 57.8 55.3 54.6 37.8 Baseline GHGs 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 10-yr target (-50%)95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 20-yr target (-80%)38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 24: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.68 0.77 41% TEDI (GJ/m²) 0.74 0.47 37% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 38.71 37.20 7.80 80% ECI ($/m²) $39.21 N/A $32.06 18% Table 25: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Existing Building Commissioning $48,574 High-Efficiency MUA $131,197 Hydronic Heating Additive $7,275 Low Flow Water Fixtures $70,786 VFD – Pumps (Main Pool/WS) $14,552 Heat Pump RTUs $1,230,001 Boilers – Electrification (DHW) $117,502 Boilers – Electrification (Heating) $235,004 Rooftop Solar PV $413,152 Liquid Pool Cover $1,825 Carbon Offsets $992 Total cost ($) $500,316 $1,230,001 $352,506 $55,849 $132,188 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 Figure 21: GHG reduction pathway 2 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 26: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 10 11 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 50,161 22,087 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 2,547 2,547 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 152 152 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.031 0.031 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 2,268,331 $2,270,860 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $12,788 $12,855 Net present value ($) -$1,692,976 -$ 1,477,312 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 190.1 196.8 169.3 135.4 100.8 38.4 Baseline GHGs 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 5-yr target (-80%)38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggres sive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 Figure 22: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $93.7K $0 $0 $0 $0 $115.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111.4 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $498.5 $352.5 $55.8K $0 $0 $0 $1,230 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131.2 $0 $288 Pathway 2 $500.3 $1,230 $352.5 $55.8K $132.2 $0 $200.0K $400.0K $600.0K $800.0K $1,000.0K $1,200.0K $1,400.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 59 Figure 23: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 190.1 236.8 197.4 160.2 124.0 118.0 106.8 105.2 83.4 76.8 68.6 66.0 64.0 62.5 61.1 59.4 58.6 57.8 55.3 54.6 37.8 Pathway 2 190.1 196.8 169.3 135.4 100.8 38.4 Grid Decarbonization 190.1 236.8 224.2 237.3 227.0 221.6 211.7 210.2 205.5 199.3 191.5 189.1 187.2 185.7 184.4 182.8 182.1 181.4 180.9 180.3 179.6 Baseline GHGs 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.1 10-yr target (-50%)95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 60 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 27: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU - 2,3,5,6) $1,230,001 $115,453 $1,114,548 Rooftop Solar PV $413,152 N/A $413,152 Boilers - Electrification (Heating) $235,004 $62,500 $172,504 High-efficiency MUA (MUA 1 & 2) $131,197 $111,362 $19,835 Boilers - Electrification (DHW) $117,502 $31,250 $86,252 Low flow water fixtures $70,786 N/A $70,786 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $48,574 N/A $48,574 VFD-Pumps (Main Pool / Water Slide) $14,552 N/A $14,552 Hydronic heating additive $7,275 N/A $7,275 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $288 N/A $288 Total Pathway 1 $2,268,331 $320,565 $1,947,766 Liquid pool cover $1,825 N/A $1,825 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $992 N/A $992 Total Pathway 2 $2,270,860 $320,565 $1,950,295 Table 28: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 10 11 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 50,161 22,087 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 2,547 2,547 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 152 152 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.031 0.031 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $1,947,766 $1,950,295 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $12,788 $12,855 Incremental Net present value ($) -$1,372,410.09 -$ 1,156,746.55 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 61 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 19% and 22% reduction in NPV in Pathways 1 and 2 respectively, when compared to absolute year zero project costs. 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing existing RTUs with heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, electrifying natural gas-fueled equipment, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading RTUs may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and tenant activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight hours, which may lead to variability in energy generation. Transition Period: The installation of heat pump RTUs and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: More reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer and employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of customers and employees. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 62 Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for provincial or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could impact its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 63 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report subm ission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 64 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 65 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 29: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Library Main Library Space 1L-4pin PL-LED-10W 44 L1 - Library Main Library Space 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 33 L1 - Library Main Library Space 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 16 L1 - Library Main Library Space 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 40 L1 - Library Main Library Space 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 34 L1 - Library Family WR 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Library The Great Room 1L-4pin PL-LED-10W 2 L1 - Library The Great Room 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 2 L1 - Library The Great Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 9 L1 - Library Book Return Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Library Suite A/B 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Library The Studio 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 3 L1 - Library No Access Closet 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Library Interior Book Return Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Library Makers Space 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 6 L1 - Library Mwr 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 4 L1 - Library WWR (No Access) 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 4 L1 - Library Staff Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 8 L1 - Library Individual Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 4 L1 - Library Staff WR 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Library Back Entrance 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 4 L1 - Library Janitorial 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Lobby Wwr 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Lobby Aquatics Office 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 1 L1 - Lobby Aquatics Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Aquatics Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 1 L1 - Lobby Janitorial 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Lobby Accessible WR 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Main Lobby 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 44 L1 - Lobby Main Lobby 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Main Lobby 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 16 L1 - Lobby Reception 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 5 L1 - Lobby Reception 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 1 L1 - Lobby Hallway 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 9 L1 - Lobby Activity Hall Vestibule 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 12 L1 - Lobby Mwr 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Mwr 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 3 L1 - Lobby WWR (No Access) 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 66 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Lobby WWR (No Access) 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 3 L1 - Lobby Coffee Lounge 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 10 L1 - Lobby Adult Activity Centre Staff Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Adult Activity Centre Staff Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Activity Room 1/2 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 30 L1 - Lobby Activity Room 1/2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 32 L1 - Lobby Utility Hall 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Reception Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 1 L1 - Lobby Reception Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Lobby Electrical Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 2 L1 - Lobby Sprinkler Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 3 L1 - Lobby Kitchen 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 7 L1 - Lobby Workshop 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 4 L1 - Pool Lifeguard Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Pool Lifeguard Wrs 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 6 L1 - Pool Lifeguard Viewing Office 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 5 L1 - Pool Lifeguard Viewing Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Pool Pool Deck 1L-LED-100W-High Bay-Hang 15 L1 - Pool Pool Deck 1L-LED-15W-Sconce-Wall Sfc 12 L1 - Pool Pool Deck 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Pool Pool Deck 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 5 L1 - Pool Change Room Hall 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 5 L1 - Pool Mens Change Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 12 L1 - Pool Lights Hall 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 3 L1 - Pool Family Change Room 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 14 L1 - Pool Womens Change Room (No Access) 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 12 L1 - Fitness Centre Mens Change Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 17 L1 - Fitness Centre Mens Change Room 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 10 L1 - Fitness Centre Mens Change Room 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 5 L1 - Fitness Centre Mens Shower Room And Saunas 1L-A19-LED-15W 17 L1 - Fitness Centre Janitorial 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 1 L1 - Fitness Centre Womens Change Room (No Access) 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 17 L1 - Fitness Centre Womens Change Room (No Access) 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 10 L1 - Fitness Centre Womens Change Room (No Access) 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 5 L1 - Fitness Centre Womens Change Room (No Access) 1L-A19-LED-15W 17 L1 - Fitness Centre Lobby 1L-A19-LED-15W 11 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 67 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Fitness Centre Board Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Fitness Centre Board Room 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 3 L1 - Fitness Centre Staff Office 1L-A19-LED-15W 6 L1 - Fitness Centre Main Fitness Area 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 13 L1 - Fitness Centre Main Fitness Area 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 26 L1 - Fitness Centre Main Fitness Area 1L-LED-20W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 9 L1 - Fitness Centre Assessment Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 4 L1 - Fitness Centre Assessment Room 1L-A19-LED-15W 4 L1 - Fitness Centre Janitorial Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 4 L1 - Fitness Centre Fitness Studio [1] 1L-LED-60W-High Bay-Hang 16 L1 - Fitness Centre Storage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 1 L1 - Fitness Centre Wrs 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 1 L1 - Fitness Centre Fitness Studio [2] 1L-LED-60W-High Bay-Hang 16 L1 - Fitness Centre Hallway 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 14 L1 - Fitness Centre Hallway 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 6 L1 - Pool Storage Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 5 L1 - Pool Water Storage Area Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 5 L1 - Pool Water Storage Area Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 1 L1 - Pool Chlorine Storage Shed 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 1 L1 - Pool Pool Utility Hall 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 1 L1 - Pool Pool Utility Hall 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 3 Basement Boiler Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 8 Basement Air Exchanger Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 20 Basement Utility Hall 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Strip 12 L1 - Pool Other Change Room Hallway 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-16W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Pool Other Change Room Hallway 1L-LED-20W-Pot Light 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-40W-Sconce-Wall Sfc 8 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-50W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 6 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-30W-Pot Light-Rcs-Circ 9 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 14 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-60W-Flood-Wall Sfc 1 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Linear 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Circ 12 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 68 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 30: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $8,508 67,951 February $10,707 68,792 March $1,550 64,000 No Data No Data April $9,796 70,796 $11,972 71,237 May $13,013 73,619 $13,128 71,749 June $17,030 81,670 $17,818 81,520 July $21,050 90,165 $15,393 75,562 August $17,362 80,521 $11,967 72,092 September $10,362 66,017 $10,500 61,027 October $7,937 71,773 $11,522 68,605 November $9,100 64,165 $10,964 63,204 December $13,162 79,084 $12,695 72,977 Total $120,361 741,810 $135,173 774,715 Natural Gas Table 31: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $8,257 422 February $7,016 374 March $4,868 418 $6,298 378 April $3,415 275 $4,201 244 May $2,246 173 $3,798 220 June $1,579 104 $1,710 101 July $2,871 141 $1,764 135 August $2,079 101 $1,555 118 September $3,417 169 $1,538 116 October $3,688 181 $2,874 227 November $7,976 400 $4,032 326 December $8,437 428 $5,025 409 Total $40,576 2,389 $48,067 3,070 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 69 Water Table 32: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $3,618 1,026 February $3,618 1,026 March $6,952 1,995 $9,386 2,770 April $2,534 743 $3,034 878 May $2,534 743 $3,034 878 June $2,534 743 $3,034 878 July $4,579 1,404 $3,573 1,137 August $4,579 1,404 $3,573 1,137 September $1,859 537 $3,323 909 October $1,859 537 $3,323 909 November $1,859 537 $4,733 1,354 December $1,859 537 $4,733 1,354 Total $31,148 9,180 $48,981 $14,256 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Darlington Sports Centre 2276 Taunton Road, Hampton, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.7. Other (Ice Rink) .......................................................................................................................... 16 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.3. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 23 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Heat Pump Upgrade (MUA 1&2) ............................................................................................... 27 4.4. DHW Heater – Electrification – DHW Boiler/Zamboni DHW Heaters ....................................... 28 4.5. Tube Heaters - Electrification .................................................................................................... 29 4.6. BAS ............................................................................................................................................. 30 4.7. Solar PV ...................................................................................................................................... 31 4.8. Unit Heaters - Electrification ..................................................................................................... 32 4.9. LED Lighting – Fixture Upgrade (Additional Consideration) ...................................................... 33 4.10. High Efficiency MUA (Additional Consideration) ....................................................................... 34 4.11. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 35 4.12. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 36 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 38 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 38 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 38 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 38 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 40 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 40 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 41 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 44 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 45 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 48 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 49 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 51 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 51 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 53 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 53 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 55 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Darlington Sports Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 88% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 533,657 kWh/yr. 1,921 $104,287 16.0 Natural gas 1,987 GJ/yr. 1,987 $35,532 98.8 Total 3,909 $139,819 114.8 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 114.8 143.9 136.0 144.1 87.6 83.7 76.2 75.2 55.5 50.2 43.4 41.3 39.7 23.2 21.9 20.3 19.7 18.9 18.5 17.9 17.1 Pathway 2 114.8 122.5 116.6 110.4 46.8 23.0 Grid Decarbonization 114.8 143.9 136.0 144.1 137.7 134.4 128.2 127.3 124.4 120.5 115.7 114.2 113.0 112.1 111.3 110.3 109.9 109.4 109.1 108.7 108.3 Baseline GHGs 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 10-yr target (-50%)57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Seven ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.28 0.68 1.01 21% 1.00 22% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.29 47% 0.28 48% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 37.57 37.20 14.20 62% 5.59 85% ECI ($/m²) $45.74 N/A $46.25 -1% $50.48 -10% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.28 0.68 0.84 34% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.16 70% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 37.57 37.20 7.52 80% ECI ($/m²) $45.74 N/A $42.80 6% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natur al Gas (GJ/yr. ) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTUs - (MUA 1 & 2) -105,443 1,162 54.6 -$5,653 $799,337 Never -$880,500 2 DHW Heater - Electrification - DHW Boiler / Zamboni DHW Heaters -104,868 425 18.0 -$14,249 $63,190 Never -$242,697 3 Tube Heaters - Electrification -93,117 353 14.8 -$12,932 $79,042 Never -$293,883 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 BAS 47,229 199 11.3 $11,020 $32,142 2.7 $117,632 5 Unit Heater - Electrification -11,852 48 2.0 -$1,610 $3,963 Never -$35,613 6 Solar PV 89,252 0 2.7 $16,393 $178,596 9.8 $138,690 7 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 2 - - 19.9 - $358 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Darlington Sports Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to December 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Ice rink 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Darlington Sports Centre is a single-storey, 3057 m2 entertainment and public assembly building located at 2276 Taunton Road in Hampton, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1975. Inside the building there is an ice rink and a heated viewing area. Mechanical equipment is spread out through the building. Generally, the heating equipment is located in the Mechanical Room and the equipment used to operate the skating rink is in the Compressor Room. The building consists of two full time employees and up to 200 visitors during normal operating hours. These hours include 9 hours on weekdays and 18 hours on weekends. Figure 2: Darlington Sports Centre exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a flat roof, but due to lack of access the condition and construction could not be verified. The exterior walls are finished with metal panel cladding and painted concrete blocks. The main entrance doors are automatic sensor sliding doors with glazing. The building also includes metal swing doors at secondary entrances. The window assemblies are metal framed and double glazed. On the exterior of the building there is an overhead door used for shipping and receiving. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; entrance door (top left), exit door (top right), and window (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance. This can be seen in the figures of the thermal images below. In the first set of images, there is increased heat loss from the exit door in comparison to the wall indicated by the red. In the second photo set there is increased heat loss from the window compared to the walls. Overall, no major areas of concern were identified when reviewing the thermal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Two (2) make up air units (MUA) provide primary space heating for the Darlington Sports Centre. Other supplemental equipment that is used for space heating are electric heaters, wall heaters, space heaters, and infrared tube heaters. No building automation system (BAS) is used in this facility. Some equipment such as the boiler is controlled with manual controls whiles other like the electric heaters are controlled with a thermostat. Heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency MUA 1 MUA Room Offices Engineered Air DJE-40 324 MBH 81% MUA 1 Mechanical Room Arena Rooms Air Wise Inc. TBA-500/HV 625 MBH 80% Electric Heater 1 Compressor Room Compressor Room Ouellet - 4 kW 100% Electric Heater 2 Old Zamboni Room Old Zamboni Room Caloritech OKH713C781 3.8 kW 100% NG Space Heater 1 Well Pump Room Well Pump Room Modine - 50 MBH 80% Electric Wall Heater 3 Entrances Entrances Ouellet - 4 kW 100% Cabinet Unit Heaters 3 Entrances Entrances - - 4 kW 100% Infrared Tube Heaters 3 New Zamboni Room New Zamboni Room Re-Verber- Ray DX3-20-50N 50 MBH 80% Infrared Tube Heaters 2 Arena Stands Arena Stands Schwank - 100 MBH 80% Figure 5: MUA (left), Electric Heater (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Space Cooling The Darlington Sports Centre does not have any space cooling equipment. Ventilation One MUA provides tempered air to the arena rooms and a second MUA serves the offices. Dehumidification and ventilation is provided the to arena via a dehumidifier unit. Additional exhaust ventilation is provided via exhaust fans located throughout the building. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency MUA 1 Mechanical Room Arena Rooms Air Wise Inc. TBA- 500/HV 5 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Compressor Room Compressor Room - - 1/2 hp 80% Dehumidifier 1 Arena Arena Cimco - 5 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Washrooms Washrooms Carnes VIEK12 1/4 hp 80% MUA 1 MUA Room Offices Engineered Air DJE-40 7.5 hp 91% Exhaust Fan 1 Exterior Canteena Carnes YWDK10 1/20 hp 80% Figure 6: MUA 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Cold water is provided to the building via a well system. The well system is circulated via four (4) well pumps located in the well pump room. Water is then heated via a DHW boiler to service building washrooms and showers. This loop is services via a prim ary and secondary pump. Additional natural gas DHW heaters are used for the Zamboni ice resurfacing. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Table 8: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial numbe r Year Rating Efficiency (%) Circ Pump 2 Well Pump Room Building Weg - - - 3 hp 80 Circ Pump 2 Well Pump Room Building Grundfos - - - 0.077 kW 80 Boiler 1 Mechanical Room Washroo m and Showers RBI Dominat or Series DW300 313641 06 2010 299 MBH 80 Primary pump 1 Mechanical Room Hydronic Loop Grundfos - - - 0.179kW ~80 Secondary Pump 1 Mechanical Room Hydronic Loop Grundfos - - - 0.179 kW ~80 DHW Heater 2 Zamboni Machine Building Rheem GHE100E S-200A A45140 7111 2014 199 MBH 95 Figure 7: DHW tanks(left) and circ pumps (right) 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building includes mostly pot lights, high bays, and strip lights. The most common fixture seen inside the building were pot lights in the entrance vestibule. Other abundant light fixtures include high bay lights for the ice rink, and strip lights in the hallways. Exterior lighting includes LED wall packs. Most interior lighting is controlled with a switch. Some lighting, such as those in the washrooms, are controlled with an occupancy sensor. Exterior lights are equipped with a daylight sensor. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 8: Pot lights in entrance vestibule (left), high bay lights (middle), and exterior LED wall pack (right) 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9: Water fixture inventory Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Washrooms / Changerooms Toilet 14 1.6 gpf Washrooms / Changerooms Urinal 7 1.1 gpf Washrooms / Changerooms Faucet, lavatory 12 1.5 gpm Kitchens Faucet, kitchen 2 2.2 gpm Changerooms Showerhead 9 2.9 gpm 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 10: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724164 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65351 2 Exterior Whole Building Water (Well System) N/A N/A 2.7. Other (Ice Rink) The Darlington Sports Centre has an ice rink that requires various mechanical equipment. Ice rink includes compressors and cooling tower along associated circulation pumps connected to under slab piping that help keep the ice cool. The system is controlled via a Cimco Control panel and runs usually from September to March. This equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Table 11: Mechanical equipment utilized for skating rink Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency (%) Compressor 1 1 Compressor Room Ammonia Loop Cimco C5- W06A 2010 50 hp 80 Compressor 2 1 Compressor Room Ammonia Loop Cimco C5- W06A 2010 30 hp 87 Condenser Pump 1 Compressor Room Ammonia Loop Weg - 2010 3 hp 87 Glycol Pump 1 Compressor Room Rink Loop Weg - 2010 25 hp 91.7 Evaporator Condenser 1 Exterior Ammonia Loop Cimco LSCB 90 2010 5 hp 80 Compressor Jacket Pump 1 Compressor Room Ammonia Loop Armstron g - 2010 1 hp 80 Figure 9: Compressor (left) and glycol system (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3. Performance The building’s energy performance was evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One April 2022 to December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas April 2022 to February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One and Enbridge Gas supply the electricity and natural gas, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - December 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period. Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent pattern year after year. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting and the ice rink in the winter. Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected from April 2022 – February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 11: Natural gas consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 533,657 kWh/yr. 1,921 $104,287 16.0 Natural gas 1,987 GJ/yr. 1,987 $35,532 98.8 Total 3,909 $139,819 114.8 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6National Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $9,800/yr. $0.18/kWh Natural Gas $3.422/yr. $11.80/GJ 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. The Darlington Sports Centre’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.28 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 37.57 37.20 ECI ($/m2) 45.74 N/A . 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The ice rink system consumes the most electricity in the building at 71%. The lighting, space heating, ventilation, and plug loads each consume the same amount of in the building, The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Figure 12: Electricity end uses Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas in the building, while DHW consumes a small amount of natural gas. The ‘other’ category in this pie chart consists of the natural gas required used by the Zamboni machine. Rink 71% Lighting 8% Ventilation 6% Domestic Cold Water 6% Space Heating 6% Plug Loads 3% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 13: Natural gas end uses Space Heating 78% Other 13% Domestic Hot Water 9% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals . A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Heat Pump Upgrade (MUA 1&2) Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's two make up air units currently heat air using a gas-fired burner. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance. Project Cost: $799,337 Annual Electricity Savings: -105,443 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 1,162 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 782 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$5,653 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$648 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 54.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1,366 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$880,500 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 80% for both MUAs while the proposed heating COP is 4.3. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.4. DHW Heater – Electrification – DHW Boiler/Zamboni DHW Heaters In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric DHW heater. Project Cost: $63,190 Annual Electricity Savings: -104,868 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 425 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 47 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$14,249 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 18.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 270 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$242,697 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric DHW Boiler and 2 DHW heaters for the Zamboni, of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.5. Tube Heaters - Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric radiant tube heaters. Project Cost: $79,042 Annual Electricity Savings: -93,117 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 353 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 18 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$12,932 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$310 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 14.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 296 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$293,883 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 5 electric tube heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forw ard with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.6. BAS The building’s HVAC system is currently controlled by manually adjusting simple thermostats and activating switches. A more advanced control system, such as a building automation system (BAS) might incorporate feedback from additional sensors, include additional on/off controls, and provide easy management of HVAC parameters through cloud-access software. Generally, a BAS facilitates centralized access to and control of equipment operation, a high level of coordination between different pieces of equipment, and automated adjustment of system parameters in response to external conditions. This ECM explores installing a BAS to promote more efficient use of HVAC equipment and ultimately save energy. Project Cost: $32,142 Annual Electricity Savings: 47,229 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 199 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 369 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $11,020 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$485 Simple Payback: 2.7 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 11.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 170 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $117,632 Internal Rate of Return: 39% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 10% savings were applied to the building's natural gas consumption for the boiler and MUA. 10% savings were applied to the building's electricity consumption from other space heating equipment. This is a conservative estimate based on the building’s HVAC configuration and age. Actual savings will depend on effective use of the installed system. • The cost includes material and labour for the installation and commissioning of new controls, sensors, thermostats, and management software. Pricing was sourced from SensorSuite, a company specializing in automation systems for multi -unit residential buildings. • A BAS can optimize heat pump performance by implementing smart scheduling, temperature setbacks, and demand-side management. Also this system can enhance the efficiency of an electrified DHW system by optimizing heating schedules and minimizing peak demand. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Assess the existing HVAC system to ensure compatibility with BAS components (sensors, controllers, actuators). Verify if any upgrades or retrofits are required. • Evaluate the building's IT infrastructure, including network security, cloud connectivity, and integration with existing control systems. 4.7. Solar PV A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Darlington Sports Centre is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $178,596 Annual Electricity Savings: 89,252 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $16,393 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$1,711 Simple Payback: 9.8 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 67 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $138,690 Internal Rate of Return: 11% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 12% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 70 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.8. Unit Heaters - Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric unit heaters. Project Cost: $3,963 Annual Electricity Savings: -11,852 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 48 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 5 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$1,610 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 51 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$35,613 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric unit heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to mov ing forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.9. LED Lighting – Fixture Upgrade (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 9.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory . This was included as additional consideration due to the negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $15,229 Annual Electricity Savings: 9,928 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,824 Simple Payback: 7.2 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 4 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $9,390 Internal Rate of Return: 12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.10. High Efficiency MUA (Additional Consideration) This ECM explores replacing the existing MUAs with high-efficiency models to reduce natural gas consumption. The existing MUA(s) are reaching their end of useful service life (>15 yrs old), so this ECM can be implemented in alignment with capital replacement plans. This is included as an additional consideration as a Heat Pump ECM was recommended for this existing equipment. Project Cost: $157,166 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 136 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,604 Simple Payback: 43.1 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 6.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 169 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$118,406 Internal Rate of Return: -5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated natural gas savings are based on the difference in the thermal efficiency between the existing and new models. The existing model has an estimated efficiency of 80%, while the proposed model is 91% efficient. Since the efficiency of the current model was estimated based on its age, we recommend determining the rated efficiency before moving forward with this project to confirm there is a potential for energy savings. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new MUAs. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new MUA unit is properly sized for the building’s ventilation requirements • Ensure compatibility with the existing Building Automation System (BAS) • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.11. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.12. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Darlington Sports Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the building’s stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff h ad the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 18: ECM Summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natur al Gas (GJ/yr. ) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTUs - (MUA 1 & 2) -105,443 1,162 54.6 -$5,653 $799,337 Never -$880,500 2 DHW Heater - Electrification - DHW Boiler / Zamboni DHW Heaters -104,868 425 18.0 -$14,249 $63,190 Never -$242,697 3 Tube Heaters - Electrification -93,117 353 14.8 -$12,932 $79,042 Never -$293,883 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 BAS 47,229 199 11.3 $11,020 $32,142 2.7 $117,632 5 Unit Heater - Electrification -11,852 48 2.0 -$1,610 $3,963 Never -$35,613 6 Solar PV 89,252 0 2.7 $16,393 $178,596 9.8 $138,690 7 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 2 - - 19.9 - $358 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 in order to reach the 50% and 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offsets to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section . Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Table 19: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $358 19.9 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 20: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.28 0.68 1.01 21% 1.00 22% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.29 47% 0.28 48% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 37.57 37.20 14.20 62% 5.59 85% ECI ($/m²) $45.74 N/A $46.25 -1% $50.48 -10% Table 21: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 - 2027 2028 2029 - 2031 2032 2033- 2036 2037 2038 - 2044 DHW Heater - Electrification (DHW Boiler / Zamboni DHW Heaters) $62,190 Heat Pump Upgrade (MUA 1 & 2) $779,337 Tube Heater - Electrification $79,042 Total ($) $0 $779,337 $0 $62,190 $0 $79,042 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Figure 14: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 114.8 143.9 136.0 144.1 87.6 83.7 76.2 75.2 55.5 50.2 43.4 41.3 39.7 23.2 21.9 20.3 19.7 18.9 18.5 17.9 17.1 Baseline GHGs 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 10-yr target (-50%)57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 20-yr target (-80%)23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 22: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.28 0.68 0.84 34% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.16 70% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 37.57 37.20 7.52 80% ECI ($/m²) $45.74 N/A $42.80 6% Table 23: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 BAS Install $32,142 DHW Heater - Electrification (DHW Boiler / Zamboni DHW Heaters) $63,190 Heat Pump Upgrade (MUA 1 & 2) $799,337 Rooftop Solar PV $178,596 Tube Heater - Electrification $79,042 Unit Heater - Electrification $3,963 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $358 Total cost ($) $210,739 $- $63,190 $882,342 $358 Figure 15: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 114.8 122.5 116.6 110.4 46.8 23.0 Baseline GHGs 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 5-yr target (-80%)23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 24: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 3 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) -303,428 -109,798 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 1,940 1,988 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 98 92 GHG Emission reduction (%) 85% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.032 0.030 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 941,569 $ 1,156,629 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 7,440 $ 10,222 Net present value ($) -$1,451,389 -$ 1,066,846 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. In addition, since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Figure 16: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $114.1 $0 $0 $0 $61.7K $0 $0 $0 $0 $41.8K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $799.3 $0 $0 $0 $63.2K $0 $0 $0 $0 $79.0K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $210.7 $0 $63.2K $882.3 $358 $0 $100.0K $200.0K $300.0K $400.0K $500.0K $600.0K $700.0K $800.0K $900.0K $1,000.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 17: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 114.8 143.9 136.0 144.1 87.6 83.7 76.2 75.2 55.5 50.2 43.4 41.3 39.7 23.2 21.9 20.3 19.7 18.9 18.5 17.9 17.1 Pathway 2 114.8 122.5 116.6 110.4 46.8 23.0 Grid Decarbonization 114.8 143.9 136.0 144.1 137.7 134.4 128.2 127.3 124.4 120.5 115.7 114.2 113.0 112.1 111.3 110.3 109.9 109.4 109.1 108.7 108.3 Baseline GHGs 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 10-yr target (-50%)57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 25: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Tube Heater - Electrification $79,042 $41,790 $37,252 DHW Heater - Electrification (DHW Boiler / Zamboni DHW Heaters) $63,190 $61,710 $1,480 Heat Pump Upgrade (MUA 1 & 2) $799,337 $111,362 $687,975 Total Pathway 1 $941,569 $214,862 $726,707 Rooftop Solar PV $178,596 N/A $178,596 BAS Install $32,142 N/A $32,142 Unit Heater - Electrification $3,963 $2,778 $1,185 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $358 N/A $358 Total Pathway 2 $1,156,629 $217,640 $938,989 Table 26: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 3 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 303,428 - 109,798 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 1,940 1,988 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 98 92 GHG Emission reduction (%) 85% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.032 0.030 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $726,707 $938,989 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $7,440 $10,222 Incremental Net present value ($) -$1,236,527 -$ 849,206 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 a 15% and 20% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Precise Heating: Electric tube heaters are designed to provide targeted, efficient heating for large or segmented spaces, ensuring that energy is not wasted heating unused areas, which is particularly advantageous in warehouse or industrial settings. Operational Efficiency: A BAS provides centralized control over critical systems such as HVAC, lighting, and energy monitoring, optimizing performance and minimizing energy waste by automatically adjusting settings to match real-time needs and conditions. Improved Indoor Comfort: High-efficiency make-up air (MUA) systems provide consistent and effective ventilation, ensuring optimal indoor air quality by delivering fresh, filtered air while maintaining comfortable indoor temperatures, even in challenging conditions. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of rooftop solar panels demonstrates a strong commitment to renewable energy and environmental responsibility, significantly reducing the facility’s carbon footprint and enhancing its reputation as a sustainable and forward -thinking organization. Weaknesses Variable Energy Production: Since solar PV systems depend on sunlight for energy generation, their output can be highly variable, particularly in regions with unpredictable weather patterns or during shorter winter days, which may necessitate supplementary energy sources. Upfront Capital Investment: Despite the long-term savings, the installation of rooftop solar requires a significant initial investment in equipment, labor, and permitting, which can pose financial challenges, especially for organizations with constrained budgets. Implementation Complexity: Installing high-efficiency MUA systems and integrating a BAS can be logistically challenging, requiring careful coordination among multiple contractors and suppliers to ensure proper installation while minimizing disruptions to ongoing operations. Capacity Challenges: Without proper sizing or the addition of supplemental storage, electric water heaters may struggle to meet peak demand periods, potentially impacting service delivery during high-usage times. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: More reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: Energy conservation measures like rooftop solar and advanced automation systems can serve as educational tools, allowing the organization to engage with the community by demonstrating the benefits of sustainability and energy efficiency to local schools, businesses, and visitors. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: The long-term performance of rooftop solar systems may be compromised by external factors such as shading from nearby structures, environmental degradation, or changes in policy support for renewable energy initiatives, reducing their overall effectiveness. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 27: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground Floor Entrance Vestibule 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 41 Ground Floor Entrance Vestibule 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground Floor Janitor Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 2 Ground Floor Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Ground Floor Lobby 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 7 Ground Floor Operator’s Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Ground Floor Lobby 1L-2in-MR16-LED-10W-Pot Light-B4.5-Rcs 2 Ground Floor Kitchen 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Ground Floor Ice Rink Exit 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 2 Ground Floor Ice Rink Exit 1L-A19-LED-10W-Marine-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground Floor Ice Rink Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Ground Floor Ice Rink Sitting Area 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 24 Ground Floor Ice Rink 1L-LED-40W-High Bay-x-Hang 36 Ground Floor Ice Rink Exit 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 2 Ground Floor Olympia Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 11 Ground Floor Boiler Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 8 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-60W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Half CO 9 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-80W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 7 Exterior Exterior 1L-8in-LED-25W-Pot Light-Rcs 5 Ground Team Stand 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 Basement Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 16 Basement Hallway 1L-A19-LED-10W-Marine-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 Basement Boiler Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 3 Basement Compressor Room 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Basement Compressor Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 4 Basement Room R 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 Basement Room R 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 2 Basement Room R 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Basement Room 3 1L-FL-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 1 Basement Janitor Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 3 Basement Hallway 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 1 Basement Stairs to Sitting Area 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 7 Basement Room 1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 9 Basement Room 1 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 1 Basement Room 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Basement Room 3 and 4 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 9 Basement Room 3 and 5 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 1 Basement Room 3 and 6 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Basement Water Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 4 Basement Girls Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 Ground Floor AHU Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 4 Basement AHU Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 5 Basement Women Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 4 Basement Women Washroom 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 5 Basement Men Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-4in-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 28: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $9,401.56 55,741 February $11,715.25 63,097 March $8,334.57 32,799 April $3,004.71 16,398 $5,523.71 24,389 May $2,352.26 9,641 $2,726.37 11,741 June $2,812.30 10,762 $2,855.37 10,674 July $2,950.03 10,140 $2,724.09 10,605 August $8,000.57 27,239 $7,476.31 27,760 September $10,311.61 61,178 $11,058.00 61,021 October $9,271.81 72,517 $12,668.43 69,397 November $9,416.58 53,936 $32,754.86 169,239 December $11,465.63 56,409 $12,299.44 60,997 Total $59,585.50 $318,220.70 $119,537.96 $597,457.27 Natural gas Table 29: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $6,764.69 343.72 $4,546.09 366.29 February $6,581.85 357.26 $3,587.60 285.49 March $2,114.87 120.44 April $2,203.79 172.59 $2,676.35 152.67 May $77.88 13.99 $970.26 62.66 June $77.88 13.99 $568.56 28.94 July $307.87 10.82 $378.84 18.20 August $655.17 27.98 $392.40 23.13 September $658.77 27.98 $382.65 22.38 October $2,109.01 103.47 $1,859.46 143.23 November $9,990.33 504.15 $4,991.21 407.32 December $7,052.23 356.10 $3,620.27 289.75 Total $23,132.93 1,231.05 $31,301.41 1,969.70 $8,133.69 651.78 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 GHG Reduction Pathway Diane Hamre Recreation Centre 150 King Avenue West, Newcastle, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Key Contacts .............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 17 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.7. Other .......................................................................................................................................... 20 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 24 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 25 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 27 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 27 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 29 4.3. Rooftop Solar PV ........................................................................................................................ 31 4.4. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 32 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 34 4.6. Liquid Pool Cover ....................................................................................................................... 35 4.7. Heat Pump RTUs ........................................................................................................................ 36 4.8. Boiler Electrification .................................................................................................................. 37 4.9. LED Lighting – Remaining Fixtures ............................................................................................. 38 4.10. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 39 4.11. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 40 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 42 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 42 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 42 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 42 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 44 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 44 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 45 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 46 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 48 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 49 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 52 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 53 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 55 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 55 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 57 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 57 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 60 7.3. Appendix C – Water Fixtures ..................................................................................................... 61 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 62 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Diane Hamre Recreation Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 231% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 1,455,813 kWh/yr. 5,241 $277,174 43.7 Natural gas 7,689 GJ/yr. 7,689 $116,589 382.4 Water 20,583 m³/yr. $20,583 0.8 Total 12,930 $414,346 426.8 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 426.0 505.2 483.8 506.0 488.5 479.5 462.6 460.1 246.7 121.1 94.0 85.7 79.1 74.1 69.6 64.0 61.6 58.9 57.4 55.4 15.7 Pathway 2 426.0 440.0 261.3 208.3 178.9 85.4 Grid Decarbonization 426.0 505.2 483.8 506.0 488.5 479.5 462.6 460.1 452.1 441.6 428.4 424.3 421.1 418.6 416.4 413.7 412.5 411.2 410.5 409.4 408.1 Baseline GHGs 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 10-yr target (-50%)213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Seven ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20- yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.25 0.68 1.86 17% 1.86 17% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.50 1.11 26% 1.11 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 74.22 37.20 16.34 78% 2.73 96% ECI ($/m²) $68.47 N/A $91.29 -33% $91.29 -33% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.25 0.68 1.58 30% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.50 0.71 52% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 74.22 37.20 14.85 80% ECI ($/m²) $68.47 N/A $84.42 -23% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payba ck (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades -179,986 2,270 107.5 -$6,249 $1,683,589 Never -$1,721,021 2 Boiler - Electrification -1,337,811 5,418 229.3 -$175,261 $335,700 Never -$3,772,390 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 3 Solar PV 102,546 0 3.1 $18,106 $188,286 10.6 $125,027 4 Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx) 37,923 396 20.8 $11,149 $56,732 4.3 $327 5 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 16,910 - 0.5 $2,986 $20,658 6.1 $19,665 6 Hydronic Heating Additive - 433 21.6 $4,876 $14,831 2.5 $29,154 7 Liquid Pool Cover - 683 33.9 $7,679 $8,178 1.1 -$186 8 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 - - 78.3 - $1,409 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Diane Hamre Recreation Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 o Water consumption data for the period of November 2022 to December 2023 o Building Automation System (BAS) This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities o Pools and Spas 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2. Building and Systems The Diane Hamre Recreation Centre is a one-storey, 5751 m2 recreation facility located at 1780 Rudell Road, Newcastle, ON. The building was constructed in 2007. The Diane Hamre Recreation Centre is used for entertainment and general assembly with indoor and outdoor activities. Within the building there are pools, a full size gym, community rooms and more. The building has 14 full time employees and up to 350 visitors at one time. The building is occupied between 6 am and 10 pm every day of the week. The mechanical equipment used by the pool is located in the pool basement. The boiler and components related to the hydronic system is located in the boiler room. Other space heating and ventilation equipment is located on the roof. Figure 2: Diane Hamre Recreation Centre exterior (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are finished with brick masonry and metal panel siding. The roof has multiple sections either finished a gravel ballast or metal paneling. The main entrance doors are glazed sliders operated by a sensor. Secondary entrances include metal swing doors. Metal framed, double glazed windows and window assemblies of differing sizes are located around the building exterior. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), door (top right), and main entrance door (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and r ed colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance like windows and doors. The first set of photos below show the heat loss from a large window on the side of the building. No red spots or areas of poor performance can be seen in these photos. The second photo set shows the heat loss at one metal exterior doors. The door itself seems to provide adequate thermal performance, but there is yellow around the seams between the door and the wall. This is an indication there may be some heighted heat loss at this location. Overall, no major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Primary space heating is provided by two (2) boilers located in the boiler room tied to perimeter heating, hydronic unit heaters, DHW loop, pool loops, and the pool dehumidifier. The hydronic heating system is circulated via primary and secondary pumps as well as glycol and heat water pumps. All larger circulation pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs). The boilers glycol loop also heats each pool hot water loop via individual heat exchangers. Heat is provided to other sections of the building via rooftop units (RTUs) tied to VAV boxes located throughout the building. The boiler and RTUs are connected to a building automation system (BAS) and the unit heaters are controlled by thermostats. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency Boiler 2 Boiler Room Building RTUs/Pool Heat Unilux ZF-300W 2007 3,000 MBH 80% Return Pumps 2 Boiler Room Hydronic Loop Weg - 2008 5 hp 87.5% Primary Pumps 2 Boiler Room Hydronic Loop Weg - 2008 10 hp 89.5% Glycol Circ Pump 1 Pool Baseme nt Hydronic Loop Weg 00518OT3 H184JM-S 2008 5 hp 89.5% Glycol Circ Pump 1 Pool Baseme nt Hydronic Loop MaxMoti on JMPP-22 2008 5 hp 89.5% Heating Water Pump 2 Pool Baseme nt Hydronic Loop Weg 00518OT3 H184JM-S 2008 5 hp 89.5% Hydronic Unit Heaters 7 Service Rooms Service Rooms Sigma - - 1/12 hp 80% RTU 1 Rooftop Lower Lobby AAON RM-025- 4-0-AB02- 2D4 2008 4,800 MBH 81 % RTU 1 Rooftop Gym AAON RM-025- 4-0-AB02- 2D4 2008 8,100 MBH 84.44% RTU 1 Rooftop Offices/Mai n Lobby AAON RM-025- 4-0-AB02- 14A 2008 137 MBH 80% RTU 1 Rooftop Change Rooms AAON RM-016- 4-0-AB02- 369 2008 390 MBH 81% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 5: Boiler (left) and RTU (right) Space Cooling The building is primarily cooled by RTUs located on the roof and controlled by the BAS. Minisplit units with exterior condensing units provide localized cooling to select service rooms controlled with a thermostat. The building includes a cooling tower tied to cooling coils in the pool’s dehumidification unit. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Rooftop Lower Lobby AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-2D4 2008 24.9 ton 3.1 COP RTU 1 Rooftop Gym AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-2D4 2008 24.9 ton 3.1 COP RTU 1 Rooftop Offices/Main Lobby AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-14A 2008 24.9 ton 3.1 COP RTU 1 Rooftop Changerooms AAON RM-016-4-0- AB02-369 2008 15.4 ton 3.5 COP Condensing Unit 1 Rooftop Boiler Room Rheem RAND-04JAZ 2008 3.5 ton 3.1 COP Condensing Unit 1 Electrical Room Electrical Room McQuay LAH005ADH 2008 3.5 kW 3.1 COP Cooling Tower 1 Rooftop Dehumidifier (Pool) Kool-Air - - 60 ton ~2.98 COP Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 6: Cooling tower (left) condensing unit (right) Ventilation Ventilation is primarily provided via the RTU supply and return fans tied to VAV boxes located throughout the building. Ventilation to the pool is provided via the dehumidification unit located in the pool basement. Several exhaust fans and supply fans located throughout the building to provide supplemental ventilation. All ventilation equipment is tied to the BAS. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency RTU 1 – Supply Fan 1 Rooftop Lower Lobby AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-2D4 2008 10 hp 80% RTU 1– Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Lower Lobby AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-2D4 2008 3 hp 80% RTU 2 – Supply Fan 1 Rooftop Gym AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-2D4 2008 10 hp 80% RTU 2– Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Gym AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-2D4 2008 5 hp 80% RTU 3– Supply Fan 1 Rooftop Offices/ Main Lobby AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-14A 2008 7.5 hp 80% RTU 3– Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Offices/ Main Lobby AAON RM-025-4-0- AB02-14A 2008 3 hp 80% RTU 4– Supply Fan 1 Rooftop Change rooms AAON RM-016-4-0- AB02-369 2008 10 hp 80% RTU 4– Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Change rooms AAON RM-016-4-0- AB02-369 2008 3 80% Dehumidifier / AHU – SF 1 Pool Basement Pool Seresco NE-060-PW- A6PWT22932G 2008 40 hp 80% Dehumidifier / AHU – RF 1 Pool Basement Pool Seresco NE-060-PW- A6PWT22932G 2008 25 hp 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency AC Unit 1 Pool Basement Pool Basement McQuay LAH005ADH 2008 w hp 80% Supply Fan 1 Pool Basement Boiler Room Century H941L 2008 ¼ hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Male/Female Washroom Cook 120ACE120CZB 2008 1/6 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop H Washroom Cook 120ACE120CZB 2008 1/6 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Food Concession Pantry Cook 120ACE120CZB 2008 1/6 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Electrical Room Cook 120ACE120CZB 2008 1/6 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop North Electric/ Network room Cook 120ACE120CZB 2008 1/6 hp 80% Figure 7: Exhaust fans located on rooftop(left) and RTU (right) 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Domestic cold water is heated by the boiler loop and transferred to the hot water loop via heat exchanger. Hot water is stored in DHW storage tanks and the circulated to building wide plumbing fixtures via several recirculation pumps. A catalogue of DHW equipment can be found in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency (%) DHW Tank 2 Pool Basement Pool/Plumbing (connected to boilers) - - 2008 - 90% Recirc Pump 1 Pool Basement DHW Loop Magnetek 8-152255-02 2008 1 hp 80% Recirc Pump 1 Pool Basement DHW Loop Weg 1UTOICQNXX00 1040 2008 1 hp 74% Recirc Pump 1 Pool Basement DHW Loop Bell & Gossett PL-36B 2008 0.214 kW 80% Figure 8: DHW tanks 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building includes mostly LED strip lights and troffers. The most common fixture seen inside the building was a strip light. Exterior lighting includes high bays and strip lights. Several control types are used for the interior lighting including switches, occupancy sensors, and the BAS system. Exterior lights are on a timer. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixtures identified on site are listed in a table in Appendix C. Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 10: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 200033441931 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 84 51 01 36999 3 Exterior Whole Building Water 434910000 Basement Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 2.7. Other Other mechanical equipment utilized in the building are for the three pools located in the building. Pool water for each pool is heated via heat exchangers tied to the boilers. This equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 11: Other equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency Recirc Pump 2 Pool Basement Leisure Pool Baldor VM3714T-5 2008 10 hp 89.5% Recirc Pump 1 Pool Basement Therapy Pool Baldor VM2513T- 5NRC 2008 15 hp 91.7% Hydro Massage Pump 1 Pool Basement Therapy Pool Weg W01 TEOIC0X0N 2008 5 hp 89.5% Air Bubble Pump 1 Pool Basement Leisure Pool RTA - 2008 4.5 hp 80% Water Feature Pump 1 Pool Basement Leisure Pool Baldor VM3157T- 5NRC 2008 2 hp 84% Recirc Pump 1 Pool Basement Lane Pool Baldor VM3157T- 5NRC 2008 20 hp 91% Recirc Pump 1 Pool Basement Lane Pool Baldor CM2334T-5 2008 20 hp 91% Water Slide Pump 1 Pool Basement Leisure Pool Armstrong 4300TC 2008 25 hp 80% Water Tunnel Pump 1 Pool Basement Leisure Pool Baldor VM3257-5NRC 2008 2 hp 84% Figure 11: Hydro massage pump (left) and lane pool pump (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One April 2022 to February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas April 2022 to February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham November 2022 to December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside f igures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent pattern year after year. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Figure 12: Electricity consumption over time 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - February 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 13: Natural gas consumption over time Water Water consumption data was collected and analyzed from November 2022 – December 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from this data period. The water consumption is relatively steady all year around compared to the other utilities for the exception of July and August 2022. It is possible that this increased water consumption was used to fill up a pool or other similar circumstance. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, and faucets. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Figure 14: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 1,455,813 kWh/yr. 5,241 277,174 43.7 Natural gas 7,689 GJ/yr. 7,589 116,589 382.4 Water 20,583 m³/yr. 20,583 0.8 Total 12,930 414,346 426.8 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water (2008), tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For water, a marginal and fixed utility rate were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity $24,617.60/yr. $0.18 /kWh - Natural Gas $14,018.18/yr. $11.25/GJ - Water $38,815.04/yr. - $1.83/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Diane Hamre Recreation Centre’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 2.25 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 74.22 37.20 ECI ($/m2) 68.47 WUI (m3/m2) 3.58 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The ventilation system consumes the most electricity in the building ay 44%. Electrical equipment utilized by the pool consumes 23% of the electricity in the bu ilding. Plug loads and cooling equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, while space heating, DHW, and ventilation consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Figure 15: Electricity end uses Ventilation 44% Pool 23% Cooling Equipment 11% Plug Loads 9% Space Heating 7% Lighting 5% Domestic Hot Water 1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The boiler system consumes 70% of the natural gas in the building and RTUs consume 30%. Figure 16: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Wate r Use Reduction Calculator. The pool constitutes most of the water consumption in the building. Other appliances collectively consume only 2% of the total water use. Figure 17: Water end uses Boilers 70% RTUs 30% Pool 98% Toilet 1%Urinal 1% Faucet, lavatory <1% Showerhead <1%Faucet, kitchen <1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating intera ctive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utility rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.3. Rooftop Solar PV A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Diane Hamre Recreation Centre is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $188,286 Annual Electricity Savings: 102,546 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $18,106 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$4,522 Simple Payback: 10.6 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 77 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $125,027 Internal Rate of Return: 10% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 15% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 70 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.4. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves Project Cost: $56,732 Annual Electricity Savings: 37,923 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 396 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 532 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $11,149 Simple Payback: 4.3 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 20.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 104 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $327 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for recreation-type buildings with an average size of 115,914 ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.50/ft2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6.1% and 10.3%, respectively. • EBCx can fine-tune the performance of newly installed heat pump RTUs by optimizing control sequences, improving system integration, and identifying inefficiencies. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal cont act between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at the Diane Hamre Recreation Centre. Project Cost: $14,831 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 433 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 433 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,876 Simple Payback: 2.5 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 21.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 172 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $29,154 Internal Rate of Return: 39% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boiler(s). Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 12 gallons of additive an inhibitor which may be required for the heating additive to work effectively. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.6. Liquid Pool Cover Liquid pool covers are chemical additives that form a layer on a pool's surface to prevent heat loss from the water to the surrounding air. Pool covers also reduce water loss via evaporation, and thereby reduce condensation on the interior envelope, mitigating bacterial growth. This ECM explores adding a liquid pool cover to the pool at the Diane Hamre Recreation Centre which to our knowledge, does not already have a cover, since no physical cover or bottles of additive were observed on site. The pool is heated by natural gas boilers, so reducing heat loss from the pool's surface would decrease natural gas consumption. Project Cost: $8,178 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 683 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 683 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $7,679 Simple Payback: 1.1 yrs. Measure Life: 1 yrs. Annual GHGs: 33.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 34 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$186 Internal Rate of Return: 3% Savings and Cost Assumptions • To calculate fuel savings, we assumed the existing heat loss from the pool's surface would be decreased by 50% by adding the liquid cover. • The project cost represents the cost for 26 gallon of additive, which would be enough additive for a year. Maintenance costs were not considered, since the additive can be applied by facility staff fairly quickly on a regular basis. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure the liquid pool cover additive is compatible with the existing pool water treatment system, including chlorine or other sanitizers, to prevent any adverse reactions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 4.7. Heat Pump RTUs Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's four RTUs currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance. Project Cost: $1,683,589 Annual Electricity Savings: -179,986 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 2,270 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 1,622 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$6,249 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$928 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 107.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2,149 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,721,021 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 80%-84% for all RTUs while the proposed heating COP is 2.631. The estimated existing cooling COP is 3.05, while the proposed cooling COP is 3.28. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.8. Boiler Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from a natural gas to electric boiler. Project Cost: $335,700 Annual Electricity Savings: -1,337,811 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 5,418 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 602 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$175,261 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 229.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 5,732 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$3,772,390 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. 4.9. LED Lighting – Remaining Fixtures Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 9.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory This ECM is for the remaining non-LED fixtures. Project Cost: $20,658 Annual Electricity Savings: 16,910 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,986 Simple Payback: 6.1 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 8 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $19,665 Internal Rate of Return: 16% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 4.10. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.11. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections within the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Diane Hamre Recreation Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined in the BCAs. BCAs are included in Appendix C. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to sprea d costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in Appendix E. Post the Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with the Appendix D document and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payba ck (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades -179,986 2,270 107.5 -$6,249 $1,683,589 Never -$1,721,021 2 Boiler - Electrification -1,337,811 5,418 229.3 -$175,261 $335,700 Never -$3,772,390 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 3 Solar PV 102,546 0 3.1 $18,106 $188,286 10.6 $125,027 4 Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx) 37,923 396 20.8 $11,149 $56,732 4.3 $327 5 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 16,910 - 0.5 $2,986 $20,658 6.1 $19,665 6 Hydronic Heating Additive - 433 21.6 $4,876 $14,831 2.5 $29,154 7 Liquid Pool Cover - 683 33.9 $7,679 $8,178 1.1 -$186 8 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 - - 78.3 - $1,409 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $1,409 78.2 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 Results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20- yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.25 0.68 1.86 17% 1.86 17% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.50 1.11 26% 1.11 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 74.22 37.20 16.34 78% 2.73 96% ECI ($/m²) $68.47 N/A $91.29 -33% $91.29 -33% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024- 2031 2032 2033 2035 - 2044 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades $1,683,589 Boilers - Electrification $335,700 Total cost ($) $335,700 $1,683,589 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 426.0 505.2 483.8 506.0 488.5 479.5 462.6 460.1 246.7 121.1 94.0 85.7 79.1 74.1 69.6 64.0 61.6 58.9 57.4 55.4 15.7 Baseline GHGs 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 10-yr target (-50%)213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 20-yr target (-80%)85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.25 0.68 1.58 30% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.50 0.71 52% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 74.22 37.20 14.85 80% ECI ($/m²) $68.47 N/A $84.42 -23% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) $1,683,589 Boilers – Electrification $335,700 Rooftop Solar PV $188,286 Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx) $56,732 LED Upgrade- Remaining Fixtures $20,658 Hydronic Heating Additive $14,831 Liquid Pool Cover $8,178 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $900 Total ($) $288,685 $335,700 $1,683,589 $900 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 426.0 440.0 261.3 208.3 178.9 85.4 Baseline GHGs 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 5-yr target (-80%)85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 2 8 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 1,517,797 - 997,497 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 7,688 7,688 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 410 341 GHG Emission reduction (%) 96% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.071 0.059 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 2,019,289 $2,309,383 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 3,629 $5,223 Net present value ($) -$4,841,648 -$ 3,649,929 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. For example, since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Figure 20: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130.0 $400.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $335.7 $1,683 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $288.7 $335.7 $1,683 $0 $1.4K $0 $200.0K $400.0K $600.0K $800.0K $1,000.0K $1,200.0K $1,400.0K $1,600.0K $1,800.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Figure 21: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 426.0 505.2 483.8 506.0 488.5 479.5 462.6 460.1 246.7 121.1 94.0 85.7 79.1 74.1 69.6 64.0 61.6 58.9 57.4 55.4 15.7 Pathway 2 426.0 440.0 261.3 208.3 178.9 85.4 Grid Decarbonization 426.0 505.2 483.8 506.0 488.5 479.5 462.6 460.1 452.1 441.6 428.4 424.3 421.1 418.6 416.4 413.7 412.5 411.2 410.5 409.4 408.1 Baseline GHGs 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 426.0 10-yr target (-50%)213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 213.0 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) $1,683,589 $400,001 $1,283,588 Boilers - Electrification $335,700 $129,963 $205,737 Total Pathway 1 $2,019,289 $529,964 $1,489,325 Rooftop Solar PV $188,286 N/A $188,286 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $56,732 N/A $56,732 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $20,658 N/A $20,658 Hydronic Heating Additive $14,831 N/A $14,831 Liquid Pool Cover $8,178 N/A $8,178 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $1,409 N/A $1,409 Total Pathway 2 $2,309,383 $529,964 $1,779,419 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 2 8 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 1,517,797 -997,497 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 7,688 7,688 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 410 341 GHG Emission reduction (%) 96% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.071 0.059 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $1,489,325 $ 1,779,419 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $3,629 $5,223 Incremental Net present value ($) -$4,311,684 -$3,119,965 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 11% and 15% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Operational Efficiency: Commissioning ensures that existing systems are running as designed, often uncovering opportunities for energy savings and better performance without significant capital investments. Compact and Quiet: Electric boiler systems typically require less space than traditional boilers and operate more quietly, making them ideal for a variety of building applications. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading RTUs and lighting may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Dependent on Proper Maintenance: The effectiveness of hydronic heating additives relies on proper system maintenance and periodic checks, which may require additional effort from facility staff. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Rapid Payback: Low-cost improvements identified during commissioning can quickly pay for themselves through operational savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Effectiveness Limitations: If not carefully implemented or maintained, hydronic heating additive and the liquid pool cover may not deliver the expected savings or performance improvements, leading to reduced confidence in their value. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground floor Kitchen 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 Ground floor Kitchen 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Ground floor Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 6 Ground floor Cabin 1 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Cabin 2 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Cabin 3 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Operator's cabin 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 Ground floor Reception 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 6 Ground floor Reception office 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Electrical room 1 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 10 Ground floor Janitor supply 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 1 Ground floor Electrical panel room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 1 Ground floor Fire alarm control room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 1 Ground floor Hallway 1L-Retrofit Kit-LED-45W-High Bay-E39-Hang 16 Ground floor Accesible washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 2 Ground floor Family change room 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 14 Ground floor Family change room 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 9 Ground floor Family wrm 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor Accesible wrm & sower 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Basement Boiler room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 5 Basement Duct room 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-28W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Basement Pool mech room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 25 Basement Electrical room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 5 Basement Basement mech room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 18 Basement Basement stairwell 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-28W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Basement Telephone room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 2 Ground floor Pool 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 4 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 Ground floor Pool 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 12 Ground floor Women pool change room 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 6 Ground floor Women pool change room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 8 Ground floor Women pool change room 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 Ground floor Accessible change room 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 2 Ground floor Pool storage room 1L-4ft-x-LED-15W-Troffer-Rcs 2 Ground floor Pool staff room 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 Ground floor Pool staff room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 4 Ground floor Pool office 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Staff women change room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 3 Ground floor Staff women change room 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor Staff women change room 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 Ground floor Viewing area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 19 Ground floor Entrance vestibule 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 3 Ground floor Lobby 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 19 Ground floor Reception 1L-A19-LED-20W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 14 Ground floor Program room 3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 6 Ground floor Program room 3 1L-A19-LED-20W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 3 Ground floor Gym change room 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Full CO 2 Ground floor Gym change room 1 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 5 Ground floor Gym change room 1 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor Gym change room 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Ground floor Gym change room 2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Full CO 2 Ground floor Gym change room 2 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 5 Ground floor Gym change room 2 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor Gym change room 2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Ground floor Men's pool change room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Ground floor Men's pool change room 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 Ground floor Men's pool change room 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 7 Ground floor Reception 3L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-High Bay-Hang-Half CO 7 Ground floor Basketball court 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Rcs 18 Ground floor Sitting area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Cage 37 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 59 Ground floor Sitting area 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor Program room 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 2 Ground floor Program room 1 1L-2in-x-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 8 Ground floor Program room 1 wrm 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 1 Ground floor Equipment storage room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 2 Ground floor Program room 1 office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 2 Ground floor Program room 2 1L-2in-x-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 13 Ground floor Program room 2 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 2 Ground floor Janitor room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 1 Ground floor Electrical room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs-Full CO 1 Ground floor General wrm women 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 8 Ground floor Sitting area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 2 Ground floor Office 2L-11in-x-FL-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 4 Ground floor Office 1L-A19-LED-20W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 4 Ground floor Unused office 1L-A19-LED-20W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 12 Ground floor Unused office 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Unused office 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor Staff men change room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 3 Ground floor Staff men change room 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-30W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 Ground floor Staff men change room 1L-11in-BR40-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs-Wrap 1 Ground floor General men wrms 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 5 Exterior Exterior 1L-8ft-LED-20W-Strip-Rcs 9 Exterior Exterior 1L-4pin PL-LED-25W-High Bay-Hang 10 Exterior Exterior - parkade 1L-4pin PL-LED-25W-High Bay-Hang 12 Exterior Exterior 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 6 Ground floor Sitting area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 60 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $14,931.91 98,211 $19,334.55 101,541 February $18,523.50 110,934 $22,781.59 117,874 March $21,023.66 110,752 April $20,969.92 119,209 $21,089.46 103,314 May $25,788.44 149,406 $27,905.10 134,964 June $32,906.31 148,334 $34,704.00 151,703 July $34,335.81 154,941 $27,980.02 156,553 August $31,856.87 156,293 $24,796.73 151,986 September $15,891.25 116,485 $23,170.50 130,626 October $15,719.84 108,351 $21,185.14 110,590 November $17,083.42 93,913 $19,687.58 98,537 December $19,590.34 65,939 $22,068.26 110,420 Total $214, 142.20 1,112,871 $277, 065.86 1,468,589 $42,116.14 219,414 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $17,409.60 921.58 $11,396.04 966.99 February $12,163.37 692.59 $9,089.50 766.54 March $12,537.21 779.04 April $7,990.78 679.78 $9,488.80 578.93 May $7,461.37 607.01 $8,204.79 498.29 June $6,376.35 412.38 $6,094.72 410.36 July $7,626.83 396.68 $5,271.95 437.91 August $9,678.10 506.35 $4,681.00 386.88 September $8,474.82 439.85 $5,349.35 445.13 October $10,370.53 536.71 $6,852.43 577.18 November $14,542.73 758.48 $9,575.64 815.97 December $12,977.55 678.38 $9,619.45 817.15 Total $85, 499.06 5,016 $107,248,31 7,361 $20,485.54 1,734 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 61 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $2,704.64 769.0 February $2,704.64 769.0 March $3,200.64 926.0 April $3,200.64 926.0 May $2,929.23 815.8 June $2,929.23 815.8 July $3,016.15 5,820.0 August $3,016.15 5,820.0 September $3,274.22 963.3 October $3,274.22 963.3 November $2,810.03 815.5 $4,006.29 1,179.8 December $2,810.03 815.5 $4,006.29 1,179.8 Total $5,620.05 1,631 $38,262.30 20,948 7.3. Appendix C – Water Fixtures Table 32: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Accessible Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Accessible Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Family change room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Family change room Showerhead 4 1.8 Gpm Accessible Washroom & showerhead Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Accessible Washroom & showerhead Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Family Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Family Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Women pool washroom Showerhead 6 1.8 Gpm Women pool washroom Toilet 3 1.6 Gpf Women pool washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 2 0.5 Gpm Staff women change room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Staff women change room Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Staff women change room Showerhead 1 2.5 Gpm Program room 3 Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Gym change room 1 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Gym change room 2 Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Gym change room 3 Showerhead 1 2.5 Gpm Program 1 Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Program 1 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Program 1 Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 62 Program room 2 Faucet, kitchen 2 2.2 Gpm Janitor room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Public washroom women Faucet, lavatory, public 2 0.5 Gpm Public washroom women Toilet 3 1.6 Gpf Ground floor - office Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Ground floor - Unused office Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Men's pool change room Faucet, lavatory, public 2 0.5 Gpm Men's pool change room Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Men's pool change room Urinal 2 1.0 Gpf Men's pool change room Showerhead 6 2.5 Gpm General washroom men Faucet, lavatory, public 2 0.5 Gpm General washroom men Urinal 1 1.0 Gpf General washroom men Toilet 2 1.6 Gpf Staff men change room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 Gpm Staff men change room Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Staff men change room Showerhead 1 2.5 Gpm Ground floor - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Pool Pool 1 - 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 GHG Reduction Pathway Fire Station #1 2430 Highway 2, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 25 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 27 4.3. LED Lighting – Remaining Fixtures ............................................................................................. 29 4.4. Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement ............................................................................................ 30 4.5. Solar Carports ............................................................................................................................ 31 4.6. Electrification – DHW Heater .................................................................................................... 32 4.7. Electrification – Unit Heaters .................................................................................................... 33 4.8. Heat Pump RTUs ........................................................................................................................ 34 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 35 4.10. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 36 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 38 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 38 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 38 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 38 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 40 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 40 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 41 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 44 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 45 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 48 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 49 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 51 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 51 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 49 7.1 Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 49 7.1. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 50 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #1. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 96% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 129,492 kWh/yr. 466 $26,276 3.9 Natural gas 975 GJ/yr. 975 $17,594 48.5 Water 1,251 m3/yr. - $1,251 0.0 Total 1,441 $45,121 52.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 52.4 57.3 54.1 55.8 54.5 53.8 52.6 49.9 49.2 48.3 26.4 25.9 25.5 25.2 24.9 24.5 24.4 24.2 24.1 9.7 9.5 Pathway 2 52.4 50.9 50.2 48.9 34.2 10.5 Grid Decarbonization 52.4 59.4 57.5 59.5 57.9 57.1 55.6 55.4 54.7 53.8 52.6 52.2 51.9 51.7 51.5 51.3 51.2 51.1 51.0 50.9 50.8 Baseline GHGs 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 10-yr target (-50%)26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target . Six ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.29 0.66 0.97 25% 0.79 39% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.89 0.85 5% 0.66 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 47.02 41.50 23.71 50% 8.48 82% ECI ($/m²) $39.34 N/A $37.20 5% $36.64 7% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.29 0.66 0.79 39% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.89 0.66 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 47.02 41.50 9.38 80% ECI ($/m²) $39.34 N/A $36.64 7% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 24,882 0 0.7 $4,552 $10,043 2.0 $51,413 2 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -2,979 37 1.8 $103 $18,124 Never -$17,912 3 Solar Carports 57,048 0 1.7 $10,436 $245,764 16.9 -$28,423 4 DHW Heater – Electrification -17,116 69 2.9 -$1,918 $21,063 Never -$44,898 5 Unit Heaters – Electrification -119,572 456 19.1 -$13,893 $43,774 Never -$217,805 6 Heat Pump RTU Upgrade (RTU 1) -25,065 298 14.1 $631 $334,171 >50 -$315,430 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 7 Carbon Offsets - - 9.4 - $169 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #1. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to December 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of November 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems Fire Station #1 is a one-storey, 1,115 m2 facility located at 2430 Highway 2, Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1994. Fire Station #1 is used to provide essential emergency services. Most of the mechanical heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment is located on the roof and in the electrical room. The building has on average 27 full time employees and is in operation 24/7. Figure 2: Fire station #1 exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has one section of flat roof, with gravel ballast, with other areas being low-slope arched metal roof. The roof appeared to be in good condition. The exterior walls are finished with brick masonry. Metal framed swing doors with and without glazing are located at building entrances. Several double glazed, aluminum framed window assemblies of different sizes are located throughout the building. The building also includes three large overhead doors for exit and entrance of the firetrucks. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), door (top right), and garage doors (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4 Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building has one rooftop unit (RTU) and one make up air unit (MUA) that provide heating to the building offices via ducting and a furnace to heat the back rooms and truck bay. Primary heat is provided to the truck bay via ceiling hung unit heaters. Additionally, electrical baseboard heaters are located around the building to supply supplemental heat to the hallways and washrooms. Heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Rooftop Building Offices Carrier 48TCFD14A3 A2BOGO 2021 250 MBH 82% MUA 1 Rooftop Building Offices EngA S-300-O 1994 300 MBH 77% Unit Heaters 4 Truck Bay Truck Bay Carrier - - 100 MBH ~85% Baseboard Heater 1 Hallway Hallway - - - 1 kW 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency Baseboard Heater 1 Washroo ms Washrooms - - - 0.5 kW 100% Cabinet Heater 1 Entrance Entrance Westca n - - 4 kW 100% Furnace 1 Electrical Room Truck Bay/Back room Ainswor th Weather Maker 8000 - 37 MBH ~80% Baseboard Heater 1 Hallway Hallway - - - 1 kW 100% Figure 5: Truck bay unit heater (left) and RTU (right) Space Cooling The RTU is the only cooling equipment located in the building. RTU provides cooling to the office space via standard ducting and head end controls. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Roof Building Offices Carrier 48TCFD14A3A2BOGO 2021 12.9 kW 3.2 COP Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 6: RTU on roof Ventilation The building has several sources of ventilation. Make Up air unit (MUA) and RTU located on the roof provided tempered air to the building. Four ventilation units are installed in the truck bay. An HRV is in the electrical room to provide adequate ventilation of the backrooms. Additionally, there are exhaust fans located in the ceiling of the washrooms to provide supplemental ventilation. The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Ventilation Units 4 Truck Bay Truck Bay AirMation - 1 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Hose Tower Hose Tower - - 0.25 hp 80% HRV 1 Electrical Room Backrooms Summeraire SHRV- 150DM 1 hp 80% Rooftop Exhaust Fan 1 Rooftop Washrooms - - 0.5 hp 80% MUA 1 Roof Building EngA S-300-0 2 hp 80% Inline Exhaust Fans 2 Building Building - - 0.08 kW 80% Exhaust Fans 3 WR/gym WR/ gym - - 0.03 kW 80% Furnace 1 Electrical Rooms Truck Bay & Back room Ainsworth Weather Maker 8000 0.5 hp 80% RTU 1 Roof Offices - - 0.5 hp 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 7: Ventilation unit(left) and MUA (right) 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One domestic hot water (DHW) Tank is located in the janitor closet and services the building’s plumbing fixtures. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Janitor Closet Building Plumbing A.O Smith BTRC120 118 120 MBH 80% Figure 8: DHW tank 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building includes mostly strip lights and troffers. The most common fixture was troffer lights located throughout the building. There were also several strip lights located interior of the building. Exterior lighting includes wall packs, pot lights, and pole Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 lights. Interior lighting uses switches and exterior lights are on a daylight sensor. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Kitchen Residential Dishwasher 1 5.0 G/cycle Roof Access Residential front-loading clothes washer 1 18.8 G/cycle Fitness Room Washroom Lavatory Faucet 1 2.2 Gpm Fitness Room Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Female Washroom Lavatory Faucet 1 2.2 Gpm Female Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Female Washroom Showerhead 1 2.5 Gpm Reception Office Kitchen Faucet 1 2.2 Gpm Reception Office Residential Dishwasher 1 5.0 G/cycle Men Washroom Lavatory Faucet 1 2.2 Gpm Men Washroom Toilet 2 1.6 Gpf Men Washroom Showerhead 2 2.8 Gpm Men Washroom Urinal 2 1.0 Gpf Maintenance Room Kitchen Faucet 1 2.2 Gpm Truck Bay Truck Wash 1 2.6 m3/day Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724162 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65280 6 Exterior Whole Building Water 6539910000 Electrical Room Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One April 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from Utility Provider The Regional Municipality of Durham November 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside f igures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - December 2023. Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent pattern over the years. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from March 2022-December 2023. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter mont hs. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 50 100 150 200 250 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Water Water consumption data was collected and analyzed from November 2022 -Decemeber 2023. The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from this data period. The water consumption is relatively steady all year around. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and the clothes washer. Figure 13: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 129,492 kWh/yr. 466 $26,276 3.9 Natural gas 975 GJ/yr. 975 $17,594 48.5 Water 1,251 m3/yr. - $1,251 0.0 Total 1,441 $45,121 52.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water (2008), tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For natural gas, the marginal and fixed utility rate were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity $2,543.09/yr. $0.18/kWh - Natural Gas - - $17.25/GJ Water $3,712.25/yr. $2.29/m3 - 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Fire Station #1’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.29 0.66 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 47.02 41.50 ECI ($/m2) 39.34 WUI (m3/m2) 1.12 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity in the building. Plug loads and ventilation equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, while spac e cooling and heating consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Figure 14: Electricity end uses Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas in the building, while DHW consumes a small amount of natural gas. Figure 15: Natural gas end uses Lighting 40% Ventilation 22%Plug Loads 19% Cooling Equipment 13% Space Heating 6% Space Heating 93% DHW 7% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The truck wash labelled as ‘other’ on the pie chart constitutes most of the water consumption in the building at 76%. The lavatory faucets and toilets collectively consume 11% of the water consumption in the building. The rest of the water fixtures combine consume only 13% of the water. Figure 16: Water end uses Other 76% Faucet, lavatory 7% Toilet 4% Urinal 4%Clothes washer, residential 4%Showerhead 3% Dishwasher, residential 1%Faucet, kitchen 1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utility rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.3. LED Lighting – Remaining Fixtures Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of metal halide, fluorescent, a nd LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $10,043 Annual Electricity Savings: 24,882 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,552 Simple Payback: 2.0 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 11 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $51,413 Internal Rate of Return: 51% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.4. Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement Heat pump technology uses the vapour-compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. Specifically, in this application, a heat pump would extract heat from the outdoor air and transfer it to the distribution air. Since heat is transferred, rather than directly generated, heat pump systems are highly efficient. This ECM explores installing a heat pump to complement the current heating system. The heat pump will provide heat to the building in temperatures as low as -18°C. For temperatures lower than that, the existing furnace will provide heating, and so it must remain integrated with the heating system as a backup heating source. Project Cost: $18,124 Annual Electricity Savings: -2,979 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 37 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 26 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $103 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$219 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 26 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$17,912 Internal Rate of Return: -24% Cost and Savings Assumptions • Savings were estimated based on the existing furnace consumption, the existing furnace efficiency rating, and a proposed average COP of 2.7 for the heat pump. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for the complete install. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.5. Solar Carports A solar photovoltaic (PV) carport system provides the building with on -site renewable energy generation. Fire Station #1 could be a good candidate for two solar PV carport systems due to its large exterior parking area with southern exposures and western exposures and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding two solar PV carport systems to the building’s parking areas, one to the north of the building with south-facing modules, and the other to the west of the building, with west-facing modules. Project Cost: $245,764 Annual Electricity Savings: 57,048 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $10,436 Simple Payback: 16.9 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 43 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$28,423 Internal Rate of Return: 4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A carport array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available parking area and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 15 kW DC and 31 kW DC system were chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the carport location, local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar carport system. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm system compliance with relevant standards and requirements • Finalize system size and parameters • Obtain a formal quote from a solar contractor Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.6. Electrification – DHW Heater Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric domestic hot water heater. Project Cost: $21,063 Annual Electricity Savings: -17,116 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 69 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 8 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$1,918 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 44 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$44,898 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric domestic hot water heater of similar size to the current model. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.7. Electrification – Unit Heaters Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric unit heaters. Project Cost: $43,774 Annual Electricity Savings: -119,572 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 456 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 26 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$13,893 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 19.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 286 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$217,805 Savings and Cost Assumption • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 85 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 4 electric unit heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forw ard with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.8. Heat Pump RTUs Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The existing RTU currently heats air using a gas-fired burner and cools air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing the existing unit with heat pump model to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTU is equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance . Project Cost: $334,171 Annual Electricity Savings: -25,065 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 298 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 208 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $631 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$232 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 14.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 281 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$315,430 Internal Rate of Return: -16% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 81% while the proposed heating COP is 2.6. The estimated existing cooling efficiency is 331%, while the proposed cooling efficiency 328%. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.10. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #1. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. . The portfolio wide minutes for this workshop are included alongside this report. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 24,882 0 0.7 $4,552 $10,043 2.0 $51,413 2 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -2,979 37 1.8 $103 $18,124 Never -$17,912 3 Solar Carports 57,048 0 1.7 $10,436 $245,764 16.9 -$28,423 4 DHW Heater – Electrification -17,116 69 2.9 -$1,918 $21,063 Never -$44,898 5 Unit Heaters – Electrification -119,572 456 19.1 -$13,893 $43,774 Never -$217,805 6 Heat Pump RTU Upgrade (RTU 1) -25,065 298 14.1 $631 $334,171 >50 -$315,430 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 7 Carbon Offsets - - 9.4 - $169 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $169 9.4 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.29 0.66 0.97 25% 0.79 39% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.89 0.85 5% 0.66 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 47.02 41.50 23.71 50% 8.48 82% ECI ($/m²) $39.34 N/A $37.20 5% $36.64 7% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027- 2030 2031 2032- 2033 2034 2035- 2042 2043 2044 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $10,043 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $18,124 Solar Carports $245,765 Electrification – DHW Heater $21,063 Electrification – Unit Heaters $43,774 Heat Pump RTU (RTU1) $334,171 Total cost ($) $10,043 $18,124 $0 $21,063 $0 $289,539 $0 $334,171 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 52.4 57.3 54.1 55.8 54.5 53.8 52.6 49.9 49.2 48.3 26.4 25.9 25.5 25.2 24.9 24.5 24.4 24.2 24.1 9.7 9.5 Baseline GHGs 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 10-yr target (-50%)26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 20-yr target (-80%)10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.29 0.66 0.79 39% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.89 0.66 26% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 47.02 41.50 9.38 80% ECI ($/m²) $39.34 N/A $36.64 7% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $10,043 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $18,124 Electrification – DHW Heater $21,063 Solar Car Ports $245,765 Electrification – Unit Heaters $43,774 Heat Pump RTU (RTU1) $334,171 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $169 Total ($) $273,932 $0 $21,063 $43,774 $334,171 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 52.4 50.9 50.2 48.9 34.2 10.5 Baseline GHGs 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 5-yr target (-80%)10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.47 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 6 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 82,802 - 82,802 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 860 860 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 43 42 GHG Emission reduction (%) 82% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.038 0.038 Total yr 0 cost ($) $672,941 $ 673,110 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $14,786 $15,144 Net present value ($) -$940,684 -$940,853 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Figure 19: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $55.7K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.7K $0 $0 $11.0K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.8K Pathway 1 $10.0K $18.1K $0 $0 $0 $0 $21.1K $0 $0 $289.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $334.2 $0 Pathway 2 $273.9 $0 $21.1K $43.8K $334.3 $0 $50.0K $100.0K $150.0K $200.0K $250.0K $300.0K $350.0K $400.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 20: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 52.4 57.3 54.1 55.8 54.5 53.8 52.6 49.9 49.2 48.3 26.4 25.9 25.5 25.2 24.9 24.5 24.4 24.2 24.1 9.7 9.5 Pathway 2 52.4 50.9 50.2 48.9 34.2 10.5 Grid Decarbonization 52.4 59.4 57.5 59.5 57.9 57.1 55.6 55.4 54.7 53.8 52.6 52.2 51.9 51.7 51.5 51.3 51.2 51.1 51.0 50.9 50.8 Baseline GHGs 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 52.4 10-yr target (-50%)26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $10,043 N/A $10,043 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement $18,124 N/A $18,124 Solar Carports - 14 kW 27 kW $245,765 N/A $245,765 DHW Heater - Electrification $21,063 $8,698 $12,365 Unit Heaters - Electrification $43,774 $10,992 $32,782 Heat Pump RTU Upgrade (RTU 1) $334,171 $18,750 $315,421 Total Pathway 1 $672,941 $38,440 $634,501 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $169 N/A $169 Total Pathway 2 $673,110 $38,440 $634,670 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 6 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 82,802 - 82,802 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 860 860 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 43 42 GHG Emission reduction (%) 82% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.038 0.038 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $634,501 $ 634,670 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $14,786 $15,144 Incremental Net present value ($) -$902,244 -$902,413 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 4% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing the existing RTU with a heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing the RTU, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Multiple efficiency upgrades may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground floor Mech/electrical room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Cage 4 Ground floor Kitchen 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Ground floor Hallway 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 Ground floor Storage room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Community room 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 20 Ground floor Library hallway 1L-10in-FL-30W-Pot Light-x-Rcs 6 Ground floor Library hallway 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Washrooms 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Ground floor Washrooms 1L-4ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 3 Ground floor Family washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground floor Family washroom 1L-4ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 1 Ground floor Library hall 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 76 Ground floor Library hall 1L-MR16-LED-10W-Track-Ceil Sfc 8 Ground floor Library hall 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 83 Ground floor Library hall 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Ground floor staff washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground floor Staff washroom 1L-4ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 1 Ground floor Quiet study room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Coordinator branch office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Delivery entrance vestibule 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Entrance vestibule 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-50W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 16 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-100W-Pole Light Ground floor Electrical room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Cage 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $2,160.72 14,079 February $2,196.25 14,240 March $2,133.72 13,608 April $2,246.37 14,480 May $2,323.64 14,707 June $2,948.92 18,253 July $2,965.88 18,623 August $2,810.76 17,773 September $2,782.12 17,221 October $2,273.91 14,144 November $2,377.42 14,720 December $1,910.18 12,952 Total $1,910.18 12,952 $27,219.71 171,847.73 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $1,737.25 83.75 February $1,096.87 50.92 March $1,619.35 83.30 April $1,012.81 43.32 May $558.35 27.13 June $1,091.99 44.12 July $131.96 2.66 August $76.07 2.28 September $125.41 2.89 October $109.47 1.67 November $416.50 25.57 December $487.32 31.31 Total $8,463.35 398.92 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Fire Station #2 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2, Newcastle, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 25 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 27 4.3. Heat Pump RTUs ........................................................................................................................ 29 4.4. LED Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 30 4.5. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 31 4.6. BAS ............................................................................................................................................. 32 4.7. Tube Heater Electrification ........................................................................................................ 33 4.8. Boiler Electrification .................................................................................................................. 34 4.9. Hydronic Heating Additive (Additional Consideration) ............................................................. 35 4.10. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 36 4.11. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 36 4.12. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 38 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 40 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 40 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 40 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 40 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 42 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 42 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 43 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 44 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 46 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 47 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 51 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 52 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 54 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 54 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 56 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 56 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 57 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #2. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 201% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 229,020 kWh/yr. 824 $47,414 6.9 Natural gas 1,478 GJ/yr. 1,478 $28,435 73.5 Water 570 m³/yr. $570 0.0 Total 2,302 $76,420 80.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 80.4 90.6 83.4 86.3 66.0 64.3 61.1 60.7 59.2 57.2 40.4 39.5 38.8 38.2 37.7 37.1 36.9 36.6 36.4 36.2 16.1 Pathway 2 80.4 82.4 80.2 82.5 62.2 16.1 Grid Decarbonization 80.4 92.8 89.5 92.9 90.2 88.8 86.1 85.7 84.5 82.8 80.7 80.1 79.6 79.2 78.9 78.4 78.2 78.0 77.9 77.8 77.5 Baseline GHGs 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 10-yr target (-50%)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Six ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 1 & 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.98 0.66 1.72 13% 1.72 13% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.46 1.23 16% 1.23 16% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 69.30 41.50 34.83 50% 13.88 80% ECI ($/m²) $65.39 N/A $65.98 -1% $65.98 -1% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.98 0.66 1.48 25% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.46 1.23 16% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 69.30 41.50 13.88 80% ECI ($/m²) $65.39 N/A $51.69 21% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM Summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 LED Upgrade - Fixture 26,659 0 0.8 $5,793 $11,499 1.8 $66,620 2 BAS 8,241 74 3.9 $3,241 $32,429 9.0 $8,437 3 Low Flow Water Fixtures 1,694 0 0.1 $786 $14,230 13.8 $2,154 4 Rooftop Solar PV 45,248 0 1.4 $9,833 $100,621 9.2 $92,404 5 Tube Heaters - Electrification -124,561 478 20.0 -$17,695 $115,118 Never -$407,844 6 Boiler - Electrification -53,456 190 7.8 -$7,889 $31,141 Never -$187,971 7 Heat Pump RTU (AHU) -18,965 202 9.5 -$158 $446,802 Never -$445,408 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) - - 19.8 - $356 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 9 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 35.5 - $639 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #2. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to January 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2022 to August 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of November 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems Fire Station 2 is a one-storey, 1,160 m2 facility located at 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2, Newcastle, Ontario. The building was constructed in 2013. Fire Station 2 is used to provide essential emergency services. Most of the mechanical heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment is located on the on roof and in the Mechanical Room. The building has full time employees and is in operation 24/7. Figure 2: Fire Station 2 exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are finished with brick masonry and a variety of metal panelling. There are two different sections of sloped roof one with a modified bitumen finish and one with metal panels. Metal doors with inset glazing located at building primary and secondary entrances. Glazed, metal framed 4-fold doors provide ingress and egress for fire trucks. Aluminum framed, double glazed windows located around building exterior. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), exterior walls (top right), and exterior overhead and exit doors (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Heat is primarily provided to the building via two (2) wall mounted boilers with primary and secondary pumps. Heating is also provided to the building via rooftop air handling unit and heat recovery unit. Auxiliary heating is provided to select rooms via electric force floor and baseboard heaters. Space heating equipment is cataloged in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Boilers 2 202 Mech Room Building Viesmann WB2B 35 125 MBH 91.2% HW Pumps 2 202 Mech Room Building Bell & Goessett PL-25 0.5 kW 80% Return Water Pumps 2 202 Mech Room Building Grundfos - 0.087 kW 80% Tube Heaters 3 Truck Bay Truck Bay Schwank STS-JZ- 155 155 MBH 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Tube Heaters 2 Truck Bay Truck Bay Schwank STS-JZ- 80 80 MBH 80% HRU Burner 1 Roof Building Eng A DJE60/2 600 MBH 80% AHU Burner 1 Roof Building Eng A - 200 MBH 80% Forced Flow Heater 1 126 Bunker Hear Room 126 Bunker Hear Room Ouellet - 4 kW 80% Forced Flow Heater 1 107 Hose Tower 107 Hose Tower Ouellet - 4 kW 80% Baseboard Heater 2 201/202 Mech Room 201/202 Mech Room Ouellet 155221 2 kW 80% Baseboard Heater 1 121 Room 121 Room Ouellet - 2 kW 80% Figure 5: Boilers (left) and AHU (right) Space Cooling The AHU on the roof provides space cooling to the building. An additional mini-split heat pump is used to provide cooling to the computer room. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency AHU 1 Rooftop Building EngA FWE92/DJE20/0 5.8 hp - Mini Split Heat Pump - Condenser (CU-1) 1 Rooftop Computer Room Daikin RXS36LVJU 3 ton 3.93 COP Mini Split Heat Pump – Evaporator (FC-1) 1 Daikin Computer Room Daikin FTXS36LVJU 0.064 kW 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 6: Evaporator in computer room (left) heat pump condenser on roof (right). Ventilation The AHU and HRU located on the roof and provide ventilation to the whole building. Several exhaust and ceiling fans are installed throughout the building to provide supplemental localized ventilation. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency AHU – Supply Fan 1 Roof Building EngA FWE92/DJE20/0 5 hp 80% Power Ventilator 1 123 SCBA 123 SCBA Pennberry P16VA 1/3 hp 80% Ceiling Fans 6 Truck Bay Truck Bay - - 1/3 hp 80% Exhuast Fan 1 107 Hose Tower 107 Hose Tower Lauren Cook 100 ACE100C2B 1/6 hp 80% HRU – Supply Fan 1 Roof Building EngA DJE60/0 5 hp 80% HRU – Exhaust Fan 1 Roof Building EngA DJE60/1 5 hp 80% Exhaust Fans 4 Washrooms Washrooms Lauren Cook GN-182 0.16 kW 80% Exhaust Fans 2 Building Building Lauren Cook GC-720 0.24 kW 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 7: Exhaust fan on roof 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One electric hot water tank is located in the mechanical room provides heated water to the building water fixtures. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 202 Mech Room Building John Wood E80TE45240 250 4.5 kW 90% Circ Pump 1 202 Mech Room Building Grundfos - 0.179 kW 90% Figure 8: Electric hot water tank Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building includes mostly fluorescent strip lights and troffers. The most common fixture was troffer lights located throughout the ground floor. There were also several strip lights, wall packs, and pot lights located interior of the building. Exterior lighting includes LED pot lights, wall packs, and pole lights. Interior lighting uses switches and exterior lights are on a daylight sensor. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Laundry Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Laundry Room Clothes washer, residential, compact, front-loading 1 17.4 G/cycle Oxygen Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Hose Tower Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 gpm Truck Bay Fountain 1 0.0 Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Kitchen Dishwasher, residential, standard 1 5.0 G/cycle Shower Room Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 gpm CR Washroom Toilet 2 1.6 gpf CR Washroom Urinal 2 1.0 gpf CR Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 2 2.2 gpm Universal Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Universal Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 gpm Truck Washing Truck Washing 1 0.75 m3/day Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724353 Mech Room Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65360 1 Exterior Whole Building Water 1534910000 123 SCBA Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One April 2022 – January 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas April 2022 – August 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Bi-montly utility bills from Utility Provider The Regional Municipality of Durham November 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 – January 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption is relatively steady over the course of the data period. The red dotted line displays the baseload electricity use, attributable to typical loads that do not vary according to the season. Examples include MUA fans, plug loads, and exhaust fans. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - August 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time Water Water consumption data was collected and analyzed from November 2022 -Decemeber 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from this data period. The water consumption is relatively steady all year around. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and the clothes washer. Figure 13: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 229,020 kWh/yr. 824 $47,414 6.9 Natural gas 1,478 GJ/yr. 1,478 $28,435 73.5 Water 570 m³/yr. $570 0.0 Total 2,302 $76,420 80.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water (2008), tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was calculated for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity, natural gas, and water the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.22/kWh Natural Gas - - $19.62/GJ Water - - $6.021/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Fire Station 2’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.98 0.66 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 69.30 41.50 ECI ($/m2) 65.39 WUI (m3/m2) 0.49 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The ventilation system consumes the most electricity in the building. Lighting and space cooling equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, space h eating, plug loads, and DHW consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Figure 14: Electricity end uses Natural gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes all the natural gas in the building. Figure 15: Natural gas end uses Ventilation 44% Lighting 22% Cooling Equipment 15% Space Heating 11% Plug Loads 6% Domestic Hot Water 2% Space Heating 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The truck wash labelled as ‘other’ on the pie chart constitutes most of the water consumption in the building at 48%. The lavatory faucets and toilets collectively consume 24% of the water consumption in the building. The rest of the water fixtures combined consume only 28% of the water. Figure 16: Water end uses Other 48% Faucet, lavatory 14% Toilet 10%Clothes washer, residential 7%Pre-rinse spray valve 6% Urinal 6% Showerhead 5% Faucet, kitchen 3% Dishwasher, residential 1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.3. Heat Pump RTUs Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building’s AHU-1 currently heats air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing the existing unit with a heat pump model to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTU is equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance . Project Cost: $446,802 Annual Electricity Savings: -18,965 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 202 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 134 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$158 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$232 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 9.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 237 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$445,408 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is approximately 80% for the AHU while the proposed heating COP is 4.3. The estimated existing cooling COP is 3.28, while the proposed cooling COP is 3.37. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.4. LED Lighting Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 9.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory Project Cost: $11,499 Annual Electricity Savings: 26,659 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $5,793 Simple Payback: 1.8 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 12 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $66,620 Internal Rate of Return: 56% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.5. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. Fire Station 2 could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $100,621 Annual Electricity Savings: 45,248 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $9,833 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$836 Simple Payback: 9.2 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 34 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $92,404 Internal Rate of Return: 12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 15.4 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.6. BAS The building’s HVAC system is currently controlled by manually adjusting simple thermostats and activating switches. A more advanced control system, such as a building automation system (BAS) might incorporate feedback from additional sensors, include additional on/off controls, and provide easy management of HVAC parameters through cloud-access software. Generally, a BAS facilitates centralized access to and control of equipment operation, a high level of coordination between different pieces of equipment, and automated adjustment of system parameters in response to external conditions. This ECM explores installing a BAS to promote more efficient use of HVAC equipment and ultimately save energy. Project Cost: $32,429 Annual Electricity Savings: 8,241 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 74 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 104 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,241 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$485 Simple Payback: 9.0 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 59 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $8,437 Internal Rate of Return: 8% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 2.9% savings were applied to the building's electrical consumption and 5% of the buildings natural gas consumption from the buildings HVAC equipment. This is a conservative estimate based on the building’s HVAC configuration and age. Actual savings will depend on effective use of the installed system. • The cost includes material and labour for the installation and commissioning of new controls, sensors, thermostats, and management software. Pricing was sourced from SensorSuite, a company specializing in automation systems for multi -unit residential buildings. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Assess the existing HVAC system to ensure compatibility with BAS components (sensors, controllers, actuators). Verify if any upgrades or retrofits are required. • Evaluate the building's IT infrastructure, including network security, cloud connectivity, and integration with existing control systems. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.7. Tube Heater Electrification Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric radiant tube heaters. Project Cost: $115,118 Annual Electricity Savings: -124,561 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 478 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 29 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$17,695 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$310 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 20.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 400 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$407,844 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 100%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 6 electric heaters of similar size to the existing 6 natural gas tube heaters. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.8. Boiler Electrification Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boiler. Project Cost: $31,141 Annual Electricity Savings: -53,456 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 190 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: -2 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$7,889 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 7.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 196 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$187,971 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 100%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of an electric boiler of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forw ard with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.9. Hydronic Heating Additive (Additional Consideration) Hydronic heating systems use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal con tact between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at Fire Station 2. This ECM was not included in the pathway due to the client ’s apprehension about the savings and the limited GHG reductions resulting from its application . Project Cost: $1,463 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 15 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 15 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $298 Simple Payback: 4.1 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 6 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $1,033 Internal Rate of Return: 19% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boiler. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes a gallon of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies. • A BAS can enhance the effectiveness of a hydronic heating additive by optimizing water flow rates and temperatures in response to real-time heating demand. This ensures that the additive maximizes heat transfer efficiency while preventing unnecessary energy consumption. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. 4.10. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. This is included as additional consideration as savings are primarily water related and will not substantially reduce building GHGs. Project Cost: $14,230 Annual Electricity Savings: 1,694 kWh/yr. Annual Water Savings: 69 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $786 Simple Payback: 13.8 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $2,154 Internal Rate of Return: 6% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 2 toilets, 1 urinal, 1 showerhead, and 5 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). 4.11. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.12. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #2 This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The portfolio wide minutes for this workshop are included alongside this report. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 LED Upgrade - Fixture 26,659 0 0.8 $5,793 $11,499 1.8 $66,620 2 BAS 8,241 74 3.9 $3,241 $32,429 9.0 $8,437 3 Low Flow Water Fixtures 1,694 0 0.1 $786 $14,230 13.8 $2,154 4 Rooftop Solar PV 45,248 0 1.4 $9,833 $100,621 9.2 $92,404 5 Tube Heaters - Electrification -124,561 478 20.0 -$17,695 $115,118 Never -$407,844 6 Boiler - Electrification -53,456 190 7.8 -$7,889 $31,141 Never -$187,971 7 Heat Pump RTU (AHU) -18,965 202 9.5 -$158 $446,802 Never -$445,408 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) - - 19.8 - $356 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 9 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 35.5 - $639 - - As seen above, carbon offsets were additionally used both pathways in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 $356 19.8 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $639 35.5 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.98 0.66 1.72 13% 1.72 13% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.46 1.23 16% 1.23 16% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 69.30 41.50 34.83 50% 13.88 80% ECI ($/m²) $65.39 N/A $65.98 -1% $65.98 -1% Table 22: GHG Reduction Pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029- 2033 2034 2035- 2043 2044 BAS Install $32,429 Boilers - Electrification (B 1 & 2) $31,141 Heat Pump Upgrade (AHU) $446,802 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $11,499 Rooftop Solar PV $100,621 Tube Heaters - Electrification $115,118 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $356 Total ($) $11,499 $32,429 $- $215,739 $- $477,943 $- $356 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 80.4 90.6 83.4 86.3 66.0 64.3 61.1 60.7 59.2 57.2 40.4 39.5 38.8 38.2 37.7 37.1 36.9 36.6 36.4 36.2 16.1 Baseline GHGs 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 10-yr target (-50%)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 20-yr target (-80%)16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.98 0.66 1.48 25% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.46 1.23 16% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 69.30 41.50 13.88 80% ECI ($/m²) $65.39 N/A $51.69 21% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 BAS Install $32,429 Boilers - Electrification (B 1 & 2) $31,141 Heat Pump Upgrade (AHU) $446,802 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $11,499 Rooftop Solar PV $100,621 Tube Heaters - Electrification $115,118 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $603 Total ($) $144,549 $- $- $146,259 $447,405 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 2 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 91,174 - 91,174 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 870 870 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 64 64 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.055 0.055 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 737,967 $ 738,249 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 7,270 $ 7,273 Net present value ($) -$777,424 -$ 777,707 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 80.4 82.4 80.2 82.5 62.2 16.1 Baseline GHGs 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 5-yr target (-80%)16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Figure 19: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $46.6K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $11.5K $32.4K $0 $215.7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $477.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $356 Pathway 2 $144.5 $0 $0 $146.3 $447.4 $0 $100.0K $200.0K $300.0K $400.0K $500.0K $600.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Figure 20: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 80.4 90.6 83.4 86.3 66.0 64.3 61.1 60.7 59.2 57.2 40.4 39.5 38.8 38.2 37.7 37.1 36.9 36.6 36.4 36.2 16.1 Pathway 2 80.4 82.4 80.2 82.5 62.2 16.1 Grid Decarbonization 80.4 92.8 89.5 92.9 90.2 88.8 86.1 85.7 84.5 82.8 80.7 80.1 79.6 79.2 78.9 78.4 78.2 78.0 77.9 77.8 77.5 Baseline GHGs 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4 10-yr target (-50%)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Tube Heaters - Electrification $115,118 $46,632 $68,486 Rooftop Solar PV $100,621 N/A $100,621 BAS Install $32,429 N/A $32,429 Boilers - Electrification $31,141 $134,193 -$103,052 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $11,499 N/A $11,499 Heat Pump Upgrade (AHU) $446,802 $90,000 $356,802 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $356 N/A $356 Total Pathway 1 $737,967 $270,825 $467,142 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $639 N/A $639 Total Pathway 2 $738,249 $270,825 $467,424 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 91,174 - 91,174 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 870 870 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 64 64 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.055 0.055 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $467,142 $467,424 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 7,270 $7,273 Incremental Net present value ($) -$506,599 -$506,882 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 35% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing existing AHUs with heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, electrifying the natural gas equipment, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading HVAC equipment may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: While upgrades such as LED lighting offer immediate benefits, the installation of new HVAC equipment and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current onl y at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground floor Entrance vestibule 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Ground floor Hallway 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 Ground floor Reception office 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 13 Ground floor Kitchen hallway 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 7 Ground floor Lounge area 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Ground floor Dorm room 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 Ground floor Dorm hallway 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Office 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Storage room 1 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Ground floor Workshop 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 6 Ground floor Roof ladder 1L-HPS-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 3 Ground floor Truck bay hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 3 Ground floor Truck bay 1L-8ft-LED-40W-Strip-Hang 20 Ground floor Truck bay storage room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 1 Ground floor Fitness room 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 5 Ground floor Fitness room 1L-3in-LED-10W-Pot Light-x-Rcs 3 Ground floor Fitness room wrm 1L-LED-20W-Sconce-x-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground floor Platoon chief office 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Reception hallway 1L-8in-BR40-LED-15W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 4 Ground floor Reception hallway 1L-3in-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 7 Ground floor Reception hallway 1L-A19-LED-10W-Wall Pack-E26-Wall Sfc 3 Ground floor Female wrm 2L-HPS-20W-Wall Pack-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground floor Female wrm 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 1 Ground floor Maintenance room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Ground floor Platoon chief office storage room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Ground floor Reception office cabin 1 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Reception office cabin 2 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Reception office cabin 3 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Reception office cabin 4 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Men wrm 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 3 Ground floor General wrm 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Wrap 1 Exterior Exterior 2L-8in-LED-20W-Pot Light-Rcs 6 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-80W-Pole Light 4 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $3,549.17 17,850 $6,197.31 20,770 February $4,428.71 21,180 March $4,027.63 19,260 April $3,674.21 17,660 $4,185.37 20,010 May $3,955.18 18,990 $4,130.47 19,740 June $3,535.09 16,970 $3,916.75 18,760 July $3,535.09 16,970 $3,845.53 18,580 August $3,840.24 18,440 $3,980.31 19,230 September $3,399.40 16,310 $3,646.28 17,620 October $4,486.76 21,590 $4,367.22 20,950 November $3,551.10 16,580 $3,736.95 17,480 December $4,710.24 22,740 $4,279.43 19,920 Total $34,687.31 166,250 $48,093.82 230,580 $6,197.31 20,770 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $5,135.75 258.38 February $3,002.23 157.70 March $3,503.35 204.74 April $1,141.66 84.34 $1,217.21 65.20 May $1,476.90 109.77 $340.50 14.14 June $299.11 14.55 $300.77 12.87 July $992.25 44.91 $270.41 13.73 August $384.85 14.55 $275.87 14.14 September $2,185.55 105.34 October $946.36 44.28 November $3,863.89 189.52 December $3,863.89 189.52 Total $15,154.45 796.77 $14,046.09 740.9 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $266.04 49.5 February $266.04 49.5 March $287.19 50.5 April $287.19 50.5 May $300.36 50.5 June $300.36 50.5 July $288.29 50.0 August $288.29 50.0 September $262.37 38.3 October $262.37 38.3 November $284.10 47 $308.78 45.8 December $284.10 47 $308.78 45.8 Total $568.20 94 3426.06 570.2 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Fire Station #3 5708 Main Street, Orono, ON L0B1M0 Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating and Ventilation ............................................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 12 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 15 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 19 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 22 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 24 4.3. Boilers - Electrification ............................................................................................................... 25 4.4. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 26 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 27 4.6. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures............................................................................................ 28 4.7. Triple Pane Windows Upgrade (Additional Consideration)....................................................... 29 4.8. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 30 4.8 Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 31 4.9 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 32 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 34 5.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 34 5.1.1 Identifying Measures ................................................................................................................. 34 5.1.2 Estimating Cost and GHGs ......................................................................................................... 35 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ...................................................... 36 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways ................................................................................................................. 37 5.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 37 5.2.1 Pathway 1 .................................................................................................................................. 38 5.2.2 Pathway 2 .................................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 41 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 44 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ............................................................................. 45 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 47 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 47 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 49 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 49 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 50 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 52 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #3. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 6% better than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 29,445 kWh/yr. 106 $4,758 0.9 Natural Gas 284 GJ/yr. 284 $4,814 14.1 Water 123 m³/yr. $123 0.0 Total 390 $9,695 15.0 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 15.0 16.6 16.2 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.3 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 Pathway 2 15.0 14.1 13.9 14.1 13.9 3.0 Grid Decarbonization 15.0 16.6 16.2 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.3 15.0 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.6 14.6 Baseline GHGs 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10-yr target (-50%)7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Five ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.62 0.66 0.61 1% 0.61 1% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.49 0.48 2% 0.48 2% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 23.87 41.50 5.35 78% 2.98 88% ECI ($/m²) $15.24 N/A $28.18 -85% $28.18 -85% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.62 0.66 0.47 24% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.49 0.44 9% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 23.87 41.50 4.78 80% ECI ($/m²) $15.24 N/A $21.83 -43% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers - Electrification -77,576 284 11.8 -$9,256 $77,443 Never -$258,622 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 11,498 0 0.3 $1,902 $30,058 13.3 $6,474 3 LED Upgrade - Fixtures 4,744 0 0.1 $785 $13,426 13.1 -$2,733 4 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 23 1.1 $286 $3,206 7.9 -$658 5 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 2.5 - $45 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #3. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2021 to March 2023 o Water data for the period of April 2021 to December 2022 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net 2. Building and Systems Fire Station #3 is a three-storey, 628 m² public services building located at 5708 Main Street, Orono, Ontario. The fire hall was constructed in 1984 and features a double apparatus bay that accommodates four fire trucks. The building also includes an offi ce, a breakroom, bathrooms, and other amenities. The mechanical room is located inside the building. Approximately eighteen full-time firefighters and staff occupy the building which is open 24-hours a day. Figure 2: Newcastle Branch Library exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a sloped roof with asphalt shingles. The exterior walls feature a mix of concrete and brick masonry, and vinyl siding on different sections of the building. Metal framed swing doors with and without glazing are located at building entrance s. Several double glazed, aluminum framed window assemblies of different sizes are located throughout the building. The building also includes two large overhead doors for exit and entrance of the firetrucks. Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (left), exterior cladding & door (center), and door (right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating and Ventilation Space Heating The building is primarily heated by a natural gas boiler system connected to hydronic baseboards and unit heaters throughout the building. The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Boiler 1 Mechanical room Building Lochinvar FTX600N 600 MBH 97.5% Hydronic Unit Heaters 1 Vestibule Vestibule - - 1/6 hp 79% Hydronic Unit Heaters 3 Truck bay Truck bay - - ½ hp 79% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 5: Boiler (left) and hydronic unit heater (right) Ventilation Two exhaust fans are installed in the apparatus bay to remove stale air and vehicle exhaust. Additionally, two ceiling fans are installed to maintain air circulation. The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Rating Efficiency Exhaust Fan 2 Truck bay Truck bay 1 hp 80% Ceiling Fan 2 Truck bay Truck bay 0.1 kW 79% Figure 6: Exhaust fans and ceiling fans 2.3. Domestic Hot Water An electric domestic hot water (DHW) heater located in the mechanical room provides hot water to the building’s plumbing fixtures. The DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Table 8: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Mechanical room Building Rheem Unknown 7 kW 90% Figure 7: DHW tank 2.4. Lighting The building's lighting consists of 4% incandescent, 74% fluorescent, and 22% LED fixtures. Wall and ceiling mounted strip fixtures were the most observed lighting fixture . The primary control types are toggle switches. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 8: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Utility Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM Women's Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Women’s Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 GPM Men’s Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Men’s Washroom Urinal 1 1.0 GPF Men’s Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 GPM Figure 9: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 10: Utility meter information Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 96008606-06 Electrical room Whole Building Natural gas 91 00 61 65363 3 South-west exterior wall Whole Building Water 8668610000 Mech room Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 11: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy April 2022 to February 2024 Natural Gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas April 2021 to March 2023 Water Monthly utility bills from utility provider Durham Region April 2021 to February 2023 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy and Enbridge Gas supply the electricity and natural gas, respectively, to the building. The region of Durham supplies water to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - February 2024. The provided dataset was complete with no missing months. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Electricity consumption decreased by 6% from April to December 2023 relative to the data collected in 2022. January and February of 2024 show a 11% decrease relative to the monthly data collected in 2023. The electricity consumption follows remains consistent throughout the dataset other than the trends previously described. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time Natural gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from April 2021 - March 2023. No months are missing from the dataset. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption observed during the winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers. Consumption above the baseline is attributed to greater seasonal heating requirements in winter. A 27% reduction in natural gas consumption was observed from April to December in 2022 relative to the data collected in 2021. However, a 4% increase in natural gas consumption was observed from January to March 2023 relative to the data collected in 2022. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 11: Natural gas consumption over time Water Water data was collected and analyzed from April 2021 - December 2022. No months are missing from the dataset. The red dotted line in the figure below displays baseload water consumption. Baseload water consumption is attributable to occupants using the building's water fixtures. A 62% reduction in water consumption was observed from April to December 2022 relative to the monthly data collected in 2021. The spike in water consumption observed in December 2021 and January 2022 are unknown. Water consumption remains consistent annually. Figure 12: Water consumption over time 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2021 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2021 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value of the dataset. These results are presented in the table below. Table 12: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 29,445 kWh/yr. 106 $4,758 0.9 Natural Gas 284 GJ/yr. 284 $4,814 14.1 Water 123 m³/yr. $123 0.0 Total 390 $9,695 15.0 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 13: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kg CO₂e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kg CO₂e/m³ Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate is typically used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate represents only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission, distribution, or delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. A marginal utility rate is estimated using a linear regression analysis. This analysis assesses the statistical relationship between cost and consumption to differentiate between fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Typically, only the most recent 12 months of utility data are used in this analysis to ensure that the marginal rate accurately reflects current pricing. For electricity and water, neither marginal nor fixed utility rates could be determined through regression analysis. As a result, a standard 12-month average rate was used instead. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 The fixed, marginal, and 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 14: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.16/kWh Natural Gas $1,027.54/yr. $12.59/GJ - Water - - $6.58/m³ 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. The performance of Fire Station #3 over the billing period is better than the benchmark EUI and GHGI for fire stations. Table 15: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m²) 0.62 0.66 GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 23.87 41.50 ECI ($/m²) 15.24 N/A WUI (m³/m²) 0.20 N/A 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. Lighting consumes the most electricity in the building, followed by domestic water and space heating. Figure 13: Electricity end uses Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes all the natural gas allocated to the building. Lighting 29% Domestic Hot Water 25% Space Heating 21% Plug Loads 15% Ventilation 10% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Figure 14: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The urinal and toilets consume the most water in the building. Figure 15: Water end uses Space Heating 100% Urinal 41% Toilet 33%Faucet, lavatory 15% Faucet, kitchen 11% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This foster informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. 4.3. Boilers - Electrification Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers. Project Cost: $77,443 Annual Electricity Savings: -77,576 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 284 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 5 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$9,256 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 11.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 295 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$258,622 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the boiler’s efficiency from 98% to 99%, and by switching the fuel source from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric boiler of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. 4.4. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. Fire Station #3 is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its roof slope, orientation, and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $30,058 Annual Electricity Savings: 11,498 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,902 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$244 Simple Payback: 13.3 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $6,474 Internal Rate of Return: 7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 22% de -rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 10 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal cont act between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at Fire Station #3. Project Cost: $3,206 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 23 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 23 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $286 Simple Payback: 7.9 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$658 Internal Rate of Return: 0% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boiler. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm and includes 2.5 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. 4.6. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 7.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory. Project Cost: $13,426 Annual Electricity Savings: 4,744 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $785 Simple Payback: 13.1 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$2,733 Internal Rate of Return: 2% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.7. Triple Pane Windows Upgrade (Additional Consideration) Upgrading windows to triple pane units with high R-values decreases heat loss through the windows. In turn, less heat is required to maintain the building's temperature setpoint, and less natural gas is consumed by the heating system. The buildings’ windows are currently double- glazed units with aluminum frames. This ECM explores replacing six double glazed units with triple pane, vinyl framed units. This is considered additional consideration due to its minimal GHG reduction paired with high cost. Project Cost: $60,485 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 17 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 17 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $215 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 21 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$55,173 Internal Rate of Return: -10% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Windows were catalogued during the site audit. Note that not each individual window was inspected, but that windows that appeared visually alike were categorized as the same type. The energy and cost savings are based on replacing 6 windows which account for ~28 m2 of the vertical façade. The existing windows have 1.6 (ft2*°F*h/btu) nominal R-Values, while the proposed windows have an R-Value of 2.8 (ft2*°F*h/btu). • Costs were sourced from RSMeans and include materials and labour for the removal of current windows and installation of new windows, adjusted for location. Travel costs are not included. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Obtain formal quote Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.8. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $7,299 Annual Electricity Savings: 176 kWh/yr. Annual Water Savings: 37 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $274 Simple Payback: 18.6 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Net Present Value @5%: -$4,762 Internal Rate of Return: -12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for faucets. • Electricity savings were calculated based on typical cold and hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 2 toilets, 1 urinal, and 1 faucet. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. • Low-flow water fixtures reduce hot water demand, directly decreasing the workload on an electrified boiler and resulting in lower energy consumption and operational costs. This synergy enhances energy efficiency in water heating systems by allowing the boiler to operate less frequently or at lower capacity. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.8 Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 16: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.9 Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections within the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #3. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions but rather are intended to inform organizational decision -making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1 Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 5.1.2 Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 17: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post the Decision-making Workshop the Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is theNPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 18: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers - Electrification -77,576 284 11.8 -$9,256 $77,443 Never -$258,622 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 11,498 0 0.3 $1,902 $30,058 13.3 $6,474 3 LED Upgrade - Fixtures 4,744 0 0.1 $785 $13,426 13.1 -$2,733 4 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 23 1.1 $286 $3,206 7.9 -$658 5 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 2.5 - $45 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offsets to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 19: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $45 2.5 5.2.1 Pathway 1 Table 20: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.62 0.66 0.61 1% 0.61 1% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.49 0.48 2% 0.48 2% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 23.87 41.50 5.35 78% 2.98 88% ECI ($/m²) $15.24 N/A $28.18 -85% $28.18 -85% Table 21: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024-2033 2034 2035 - 2044 Boilers - Electrification $77,443 Total cost ($) $77,443 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 15.0 16.6 16.2 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.3 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 Baseline GHGs 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10-yr target (-50%)7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 20-yr target (-80%)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.2 Pathway 2 Table 22: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.62 0.66 0.47 24% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.49 0.44 9% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 23.87 41.50 4.78 80% ECI ($/m²) $15.24 N/A $21.83 -43% Table 23: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Boilers - Electrification $77,443 Rooftop Solar PV $30,058 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $13,426 Hydronic Heating Additive $3,206 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $45 Total ($) $46,690 $- $- $- $77,488 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 15.0 14.1 13.9 14.1 13.9 3.0 Baseline GHGs 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 5-yr target (-80%)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 5.2.3 Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 24: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 77,576 - 53,458 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 284 284 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 13 12 GHG Emission reduction (%) 88% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.021 0.019 Total yr 0 cost ($) $77,443 $124,178 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $789 $4,766 Net present value ($) -$227,275 -$207,365 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. For example, some measures that were required to meet the GHG targets in Pathway 2 were not necessary to include in Pathway 1. In addition, since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 18: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67.1K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77.4K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $46.7K $0 $0 $0 $77.5K $0 $10.0K $20.0K $30.0K $40.0K $50.0K $60.0K $70.0K $80.0K $90.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Figure 19: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 15.0 16.6 16.2 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.3 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 Pathway 2 15.0 14.1 13.9 14.1 13.9 3.0 Grid Decarbonization 15.0 16.6 16.2 16.6 16.2 16.1 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.3 15.0 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.6 14.6 Baseline GHGs 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10-yr target (-50%)7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 25: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification $77,443 $67,096 $10,347 Total Pathway 1 $77,443 $67,096 $10,347 Rooftop Solar PV $30,058 N/A $30,058 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $13,426 N/A $13,426 Hydronic Heating Additive $3,206 N/A $3,206 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $45 N/A $45 Total Pathway 2 $124,178 $67,096 $57,082 Table 26: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 77,576 - 53,458 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 284 284 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 13 12 GHG Emission reduction (%) 88% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.021 0.019 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 10,347 $57,082 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $789 $ 4,766 Incremental Net present value ($) -$160,179 -$140,269 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 30% and 32% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non - energy benefits. Strengths Improved Energy Efficiency: Transitioning from traditional boilers to electric systems enhances overall energy efficiency, leading to significant energy savings and GHG reductions over time. Energy Cost Savings: Solar PV can offset energy costs by producing electricity during peak hours, when utility rates are typically higher. Extended System Life: Hydronic heating additives reduce wear and tear on heating components, potentially prolonging system lifespan. Improved Thermal Insulation: Triple-pane windows offer superior insulation compared to double-pane windows, reducing heating and cooling demands. They also minimize drafts and temperature fluctuations, creating a more comfortable indoor environment. Enhanced Lighting Quality: LED lighting offers bright, uniform illumination with options for customization, improving aesthetics and functionality. Weaknesses High Upfront Costs: Initial investment in electric boilers can be substantial, potentially straining budgets. Variable Energy Production: Solar PV energy generation depends on sunlight availability, which can fluctuate seasonally and due to weather conditions. Limited Impact on Outdated Systems: The effectiveness of a hydronic heating additive may be reduced in older or poorly maintained heating systems. High Installation Costs: Upgrading to triple-pane windows involves significant capital investment and potential retrofitting challenges. Compatibility Issues: Some existing fixtures may require replacements or modifications to accommodate LEDs. Opportunities Congruency with future energy codes: Boiler electrification positions the facility to comply with evolving energy codes and regulations. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Net Metering Benefits: Potential for energy cost reduction through net metering arrangements with utilities if available. Scalable Implementation: Hydronic heating additives offer an affordable pathway to improve performance across multiple systems without major overhauls. Enhanced Building Performance: Triple-pane windows support net-zero or passive building goals by significantly reducing thermal losses. Smart Technology Integration: LED lighting enables compatibility with advanced control systems, such as motion sensors or daylight harvesting. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Advances in alternative heating technologies could diminish the perceived value of electric boilers. Regulatory Uncertainty: Changes in policies or incentives for solar energy could affect the financial feasibility of installations. Resistance to Change: Stakeholders may be hesitant to adopt unfamiliar technologies without proven results, such as hydronic heating additives. Supply Chain Challenges: Availability of high-quality materials and skilled installers could delay the installation of triple-paned windows. Emerging Technologies: Rapid development in lighting technologies may render current LED solutions outdated. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current onl y at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 27: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Fire Station #3 Truck bay 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-75W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 7 Fire Station #3 Truck bay 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 8 Fire Station #3 Hose Tower 1L-A19-Inc-40W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 3 Fire Station #3 Locker Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Fire Station #3 Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Classroom 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 16 Fire Station #3 Hallway 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Fire Station #3 Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Fire Station #3 Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Fire Station #3 Vestibule 2L-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Women’s Washroom 1L-4ft-X-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-4ft-X-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-2ft-X-LED-15W-Strip-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-6in-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 Fire Station #3 Exterior 1L-Mini-X-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 4 Fire Station #3 Exterior 1L-8in-X-LED-40W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 Fire Station #3 Exterior 1L-X-LED-80W-Flood-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Truck bay 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-75W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 7 Fire Station #3 Truck bay 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 8 Fire Station #3 Hose Tower 1L-A19-Inc-40W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 3 Fire Station #3 Locker Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Fire Station #3 Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Classroom 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 16 Fire Station #3 Hallway 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Fire Station #3 Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Fire Station #3 Office 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Fire Station #3 Vestibule 2L-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Women’s Washroom 1L-4ft-X-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-4ft-X-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-2ft-X-LED-15W-Strip-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-6in-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 Fire Station #3 Exterior 1L-Mini-X-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 4 Fire Station #3 Exterior 1L-8in-X-LED-40W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 Fire Station #3 Exterior 1L-X-LED-80W-Flood-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #3 Men’s Washroom 1L-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 28: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost Consumption (kWh) Cost Consumption (kWh) Cost Consumption (kWh) January $494 3,066 $479 2,776 February $466 2,894 $436 2,529 March $428 2,644 April $407 2,575 $318 1,960 May $404 2,557 $386 2,385 June $360 2,273 $321 1,974 July $309 1,946 $291 1,780 August $298 1,873 $338 2,079 September $370 2,339 $416 2,575 October $416 2,636 $407 2,508 November $417 2,788 $429 2,528 December $444 2,875 $455 2,682 Total $3,426 21,864 $4,747 29,077 $915 5,305 Natural Gas Table 29: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost Consumption (GJ) Cost Consumption (GJ) Cost Consumption (GJ) January $684 41 $734 52 February $774 47 $631 45 March $709 43 $571 40 April $428 28 $415 24 May $167 5 $181 7 June $73 1 $109 2 July $67 11 $83 August $85 8 $105 2 September $81 1 $76 1 October $306 12 $238 12 November $657 38 $424 25 December $862 50 $594 40 Total $2,726 154 $4,393 244 $1,936 136 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Water Data Table 30: Water utility data 2021 2022 Cost Consumption (GJ) Cost Consumption (GJ) January $63 74 February $69 3 March $67 3 April $64 5 $69 4 May $66 7 $67 4 June $64 7 $69 4 July $66 4 $69 4 August $66 4 $67 10 September $13 1 $69 11 October $60 10 $68 4 November $67 11 $70 4 December $69 70 $73 1 Total $535 119 $821 125 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Fire Station #4 2611 Trull Road, Courtice, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 24 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 24 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 26 4.3. Heat pump RTUs ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.4. Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters ...................................................................................... 29 4.5. Electrification – Unit Heaters .................................................................................................... 30 4.6. Rooftop solar ............................................................................................................................. 31 4.7. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 32 4.8. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 33 4.9. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 34 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 36 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 36 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 36 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 38 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 39 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 39 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 43 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 46 5.3. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 47 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 49 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 49 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 51 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting inventory ................................................................................................ 51 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 52 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station 4. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 150% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 177,961 kWh/yr. 641 $26,686 5.3 Natural gas 740 GJ/yr. 740 $13,788 36.8 Water 705 m³/yr. $705 0.0 Total 1,381 $41,179 42.2 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 42.1 51.8 49.2 51.9 49.8 29.7 20.9 20.5 19.3 17.7 15.6 15.0 14.5 14.1 13.8 13.3 13.1 12.9 12.8 7.5 7.2 Pathway 2 42.1 50.5 48.1 50.6 39.0 8.5 Grid Decarbonization 42.1 51.8 49.2 51.9 49.8 48.7 46.6 46.3 45.3 44.0 42.4 41.9 41.5 41.2 41.0 40.6 40.5 40.3 40.2 40.1 40.0 Baseline GHGs 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 10-yr target (-50%)21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Four ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.65 0.66 1.18 29% 1.16 30% TEDI (GJ/m²) 1.18 N/A 0.78 34% 0.69 41% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 50.42 41.50 18.66 63% 8.67 83% ECI ($/m²) $48.39 N/A $43.43 10% $46.22 4% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.65 0.66 1.10 34% TEDI (GJ/m²) 1.18 N/A 0.69 41% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 50.42 41.50 10.19 80% ECI ($/m²) $48.39 N/A $43.50 10% The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTUs (RTU 1-4) -26,672 418 20.0 $3,057 $967,495 >50 -$899,603 2 Tube Heater – Electrification -21,600 152 6.9 -$650 $39,521 Never -$47,055 3 Unit Heaters – Electrification -28,803 115 4.9 - $2,331 $7,614 Never -$51,598 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 Rooftop Solar 15,374 - 0.5 $2,275 $35,864 12.3 $11,497 5 Carbon Offsets - - 10.2 - $184 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station 4. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of May 2022 to January 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems Fire Station 4 is an 836 m2 facility located at 2611 Trulls Road in Courtice, Ontario. The mechanical heating equipment is located primarily on the rooftop and exterior to the building, with some select equipment located at point of use. There is an electrical room that houses a domestic hot water heater. The building is occupied 365 days of the year. Figure 2: Fire Station 4 exterior west (left), and aerial view (right) (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are brick masonry. The exterior doors vary in size and design, but include four overhead doors, three glazed metal frame exterior doors, and three non -glazed metal exterior doors. The windows are mostly uniformly sized aluminum framed double glazed units. The roof is a combination of multi-directional sloped sections with metal roofing finish and flat roof sections with membrane finish. Figure 3: Example envelope components; door (left) and window (right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some increased heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the therm al images. Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building is primarily heated via natural gas burners in the rooftop HVAC equipment, with supplemental heating provided by gas unit heaters, gas infrared tube heaters, and electric wall and baseboard heaters. No building automation system (BAS) is used in this facility. Occupants can adjust temperature controls using the corresponding analog and digital thermostats. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Roof Various Trane GBC036A3EMB 090 - - 100 MBH 80% RTU 1 Roof Various Lennox GCS16-048-120 - - 120 MBH 80% RTU 1 Roof Various Lennox unreadable - - 50 MBH 80% RTU 1 Roof Various Lennox GCS16-024-50- 6P - - 50 MBH 80% Baseboard Heaters 2 Mech Room Mech Room Ouelle t - - - 1 kW 100% Electric Wall Heaters 3 Various Various - - - - 4 kW 100% Tube Heaters 2 Apparat us Bay Apparat us Bay Schwa nk - - - 60 MBH 80% Unit Heater 1 Gear Room Gear Room Reznor UDAP30-S - - 30 MBH 82% Unit Heater 1 Gear Room Gear Room Reznor - - - 30 MBH 80% Figure 5: Natural gas RTU (left) and radiant tube heater (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 6: Digital thermostat (left) and analog thermostat (right) Space Cooling Cooled air is provided to the building via four roof top units (RTUs) via standard ducting and head end diffusers. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Roof Various Trane GBC036A3EMB090 10.5 kW 95% RTU 1 Roof Various Lennox GCS16-048-120 14.1 kW 90% RTU 1 Roof Various Lennox unreadable 7.0 kW 90% RTU 1 Roof Various Lennox GCS16-024-50-6P 7.0 kW 90% Figure 7: RTUs have integrated cooling, typical (left) ventilation diffuser, typical (right) Ventilation Four ducted rooftop units provided tempered air to the building and there are several exhaust fans located throughout the building. The apparatus bay is equipped with a flexible ducted hose exhaust system that connects to the exhaust pipe of fire trucks wh en they are running. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Ventilation equipment appears to be in good general condition, and is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Exhaust Fan 1 Hose tower Hose tower - - - - 1/4 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Apparatus bay Apparatus bay - - - - 1/4 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Apparatus bay Apparatus bay - - - - 1/4 hp 80% Exhaust Fans 8 Various Various - - - - ~1/10 hp ~80% RTU Supply Fan 1 Roof Various Trane GBC036A3EMB090 - - 1.5 hp 80% RTU Supply Fan 1 Roof Various Lennox GCS16-048-120 - - 3 hp 80% RTU Supply Fan 1 Roof Various Lennox unreadable - - 1 hp 80% RTU Supply Fan 1 Roof Various Lennox GCS16-024-50-6P - - 1 hp 80% Figure 8: Exhaust fan and flexible ducted hose exhaust (left) and exhaust fan (right). 2.3. Domestic Hot Water The domestic hot water (DHW) tank supplying the entire building is located in the electrical room and water is circulated via a recirculation pump. DHW equipment appeared to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Electrical Rm Building AO Smith BTH 120 970 - - 125 MBH 96% Recirc Pump 1 Electrical Rm Building US Motors S55JXPLG- 7638 - - 1/12 hp 90% Figure 9: DHW heater (left) and circulation pump (right). 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is mostly comprised of LED lighting. Exterior lighting includes LED wall packs. Control types include switches for interior lighting and a photocell sensor for the exterior wall packs. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 10: Example of interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, showerheads, and a clothes washer. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Laundry Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Laundry Room Clothes washer 1 17.4 g/cycle WR-Men Toilet 2 1.6 gpf WR-Men Urinal 1 1.0 gpf WR-Men Faucet 1 1.5 gpm WR-Men Showerhead 2 2.5 gpm WR-Women Toilet 1 1.6 gpf WR-Women Faucet 1 1.5 gpm WR-Women Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Kitchen Faucet 1 2.2 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Laundry Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm (Bylaw) WR-Staff Toilet 1 1.6 gpf (Bylaw) WR-Staff Faucet 1 1.5 gpm (Bylaw) WR-Common Toilet 1 1.6 gpm (Bylaw) WR-Common Faucet 1 1.5 gpm+ Figure 11: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724204 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65283 Exterior Whole Building Water 3797610000 Not located Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility Provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One May 2022 – January 2024 April 2023 has partial data. November 2023 is missing data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption using the available data. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Figure 12: Electricity consumption over time 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Natural Gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption during the period of available data. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating load s. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water heating and minimum summer heating requirements, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 13: Natural gas consumption over time Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption during the period of available data. SPG understanding is that the firefighting water is not part of metered consumption. The water consumption is relatively steady all year around compared to the other utilities. The reason for the higher consumption in March is unknown. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and the clothes washer. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Figure 14: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 177,961 kWh/yr. 641 $26,686 5.3 Natural gas 740 GJ/yr. 740 $13,788 36.8 Water 705 m³/yr. $705 0.0 Total 1,381 $41,179 42.2 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity, the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal (natural gas, water) and average (electricity) utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.15/kWh Natural Gas $555.11/yr. $16.76/GJ - Water $47.75/yr. $10.78/m3 - 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington’s Fire Station 4’s performance over the billing period is poorer than the benchmark EUI and poorer than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings – fire stations. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.65 0.66 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 50.42 41.50 ECI ($/m2) 48.39 WUI (m3/m2) 0.84 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The cooling system consumes the most electricity in the building at 30% of total. Ventilation use is close behind at 24%, with lighting estimated to consume 17%, and space heating 16% of the total. Plug loads and DHW use a smaller proportion of the total. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Figure 15: Electricity end uses Cooling Equipment 30% Ventilation 24% Lighting 17% Space Heating 16% Plug Loads 13% Domestic Hot Water 0% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed between space heating and domestic hot water end uses, with space heating consuming approximately 93% of the natural gas supplied. Figure 16: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. Toilets constitute the majority portion of the water consumption, with faucets and showerheads being other large uses. Remainder of uses are estimated to each consume 11% or less of total water use each. Figure 17: Water end uses Space Heating 93% Domestic Hot Water 7% Toilet 34% Faucet, lavatory 24% Showerhead 23% Urinal 11% Faucet, kitchen 5% Clothes washer, residential 3% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the type of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the net present value, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.3. Heat pump RTUs Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. There are four RTUs that currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance. Project Cost: $967,495 Annual Electricity Savings: -26,672 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 418 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 322 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,057 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$680 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 20.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 400 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$908,077 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is 80% for all RTUs while the proposed heating coefficient of performance (COP) is 2.7. The estimated existing cooling COP is 2.98, while the proposed cooling COP is 3.7. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.4. Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters In an effort to reduce GHGs and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHGs, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric radiant tube heaters. Project Cost: $39,521 Annual Electricity Savings: -21,600 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 152 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 74 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$650 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 6.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 173 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$47,055 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of three electric radiant tube heaters of matched capacity to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.5. Electrification – Unit Heaters In an effort to reduce GHGs and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHGs, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric unit heaters. Project Cost: $7,614 Annual Electricity Savings: -28,803 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 115 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 12 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$2,331 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 122 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$51,598 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% & 82% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of two electric unit heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.6. Rooftop solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. Fire Station 4 could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its low slope roof area with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explore s adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $35,864 Annual Electricity Savings: 15,374 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,275 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$293 Simple Payback: 13.4 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 12 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $7,367 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 15% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 12 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.7. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $14,198 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 7 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 134 m³/yr. Total Energy Savings: 7 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,558 Simple Payback: 7.8 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $18,569 Internal Rate of Return: 14% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. Water savings are not included since water data was not available. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing five toilets, one urinal, three showerheads, and three faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.8. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.9. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station 4. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG Reduction Pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the net present value (NPV). The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTUs (RTU 1-4) -26,672 418 20.0 $3,057 $967,495 >50 -$908,077 2 Tube Heater – Electrification -21,600 152 6.9 -$650 $39,521 Never -$47,055 3 Unit Heaters – Electrification -28,803 115 4.9 -$2,331 $7,614 Never -$51,598 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 Rooftop Solar 15,374 - 0.5 $2,275 $35,864 13.4 $7,367 5 Carbon Offsets - - 10.2 - $184 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 184 10.2 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.65 0.66 1.18 29% 1.16 30% TEDI (GJ/m²) 1.18 N/A 0.78 34% 0.69 41% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 50.42 41.50 18.66 63% 8.67 83% ECI ($/m²) $48.39 N/A $43.43 10% $46.22 4% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024 - 2028 2029 2030 2031 - 2035 2036 2037 - 2042 2043 2044 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) $967,495 Electrification – Tube Heaters $39,521 Electrification – Unit Heaters $7,614 Total cost ($) $0 $967,495 $39,521 $0 $0 $0 $7,614 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 42.1 51.8 49.2 51.9 49.8 29.7 20.9 20.5 19.3 17.7 15.6 15.0 14.5 14.1 13.8 13.3 13.1 12.9 12.8 7.5 7.2 Baseline GHGs 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 10-yr target (-50%)21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 20-yr target (-80%)8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.65 0.66 1.10 34% TEDI (GJ/m²) 1.18 N/A 0.69 41% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 50.42 41.50 10.19 80% ECI ($/m²) $48.39 N/A $43.50 10% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) $967,495 Electrification – Tube Heaters $39,521 Rooftop Solar PV $35,864 Electrification – Unit Heaters $7,614 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $184 Total ($) $35,864 $0 $0 $47,135 $967,679 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 42.1 50.5 48.1 50.6 39.0 8.5 Baseline GHGs 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 5-yr target (-80%)8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 4 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 77,075 - 61,701 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 685 685 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 35 34 GHG Emission reduction (%) 83% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.042 0.040 Total yr 0 cost ($) $1,014,630 $1,050,678 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $25,275 $27,302 Net present value ($) -$1,000,927 -$997,585 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements are included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 Figure 20: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105.0 $16.7K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11.0K Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $967.5 $39.5K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7.6K $0 Pathway 2 $35.9K $0 $0 $47.1K $967.7 $0 $200.0K $400.0K $600.0K $800.0K $1,000.0K $1,200.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Figure 21: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 42.1 51.8 49.2 51.9 49.8 29.7 20.9 20.5 19.3 17.7 15.6 15.0 14.5 14.1 13.8 13.3 13.1 12.9 12.8 7.5 7.2 Pathway 2 42.1 50.5 48.1 50.6 39.0 8.5 Grid Decarbonization 42.1 51.8 49.2 51.9 49.8 48.7 46.6 46.3 45.3 44.0 42.4 41.9 41.5 41.2 41.0 40.6 40.5 40.3 40.2 40.1 40.0 Baseline GHGs 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 10-yr target (-50%)21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) $967,495 $105,000 $862,495 Tube Heaters - Electrification $39,521 $16,716 $22,805 Unit Heaters - Electrification $7,614 $10,992 -$3,378 Total Pathway 1 $1,014,630 $132,708 $881,922 Rooftop Solar PV $35,864 N/A $35,864 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $184 N/A $184 Total Pathway 2 $1,050,678 $132,708 $917,970 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 4 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 77,075 - 61,701 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 685 685 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 35 34 GHG Emission reduction (%) 83% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.042 0.040 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $881,922 $917,970 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $25,275 $27,302 Incremental Net present value ($) -$868,219 -$864,877 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 13% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 5.3. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing existing RTUs with heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, electrifying natural gas-fueled equipment, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading RTUs may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and tenant activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight hours, which may lead to variability in energy generation. Transition Period: The installation of heat pump RTUs and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: More reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer and employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of customers and employees. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for provincial or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could impact its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Main Station Truck Bay 1L-8ft-LED-50W-High Bay-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 27 Main Station Room-1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc- Cage 1 Main Station Room-2(Laundry) 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Main Station Mens Sleeping Area 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 Main Station Womens Sleeping Area 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Main Station Mens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 2 Main Station Mens WR 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Main Station Mens WR 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Main Station Mens WR 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 1 Main Station Main Lobby Area 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 Main Station Kitchen Area 1L-3ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Val 4 Main Station Office -1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Main Station Office -2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 By Law Area Entrance 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 By Law Area Kitchen 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 By Law Area Meeting Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area Office 1 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 4 By Law Area Office 2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area Data Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area Hallway 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 1 By Law Area Main Area 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area Main Area 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 1 By Law Area Wr-1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 1 By Law Area Racing Against Drug Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 By Law Area Hallway 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 By Law Area Main Office -1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 10 By Law Area Copier Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area Storage 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area File Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 By Law Area Main Office-2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 5 By Law Area Exit Area 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Main Station Mens Sleeping Room 1L-7in-4pin PL-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 1 Main Station Womens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc- Wrap 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 Main Station Womens WR 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 By Law Area Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 By Law Area Storage Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 By Law Area Back Entrance 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-20W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Roof Top RT Room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-70W-Pot Light-Rcs-Square 20 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-60W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Linear 10 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-60W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Square 3 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $3,023 19,013 $1,969 11,902 February $2,834 18,794 March $3,067 19,398 April $0 9,778 May $2,465 15,519 $1,310 8,114 June $2,873 18,052 $1,497 9,246 July $2,889 18,134 $1,461 9,060 August $2,856 17,965 $1,452 8,981 September $2,920 18,553 $1,462 9,192 October $2,630 16,582 $2,798 17,253 November $2,597 16,488 No Data No Data December $3,276 20,425 $1,494 9,017 Total $22,508 141,717 $20,397 137,846 $1,969 11,902 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 Natural gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $2,616 128 February $1,965 100 March $1,163 90 $1,772 100 April $803 56 $216 7 May $233 11 $272 10 June $229 11 $167 5 July $311 11 $208 9 August $148 3 $144 4 September $312 11 $208 9 October $828 38 $687 47 November $2,195 103 $1,245 92 December $2,876 140 $1,465 110 Total $9,097 474 $10,965 621 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $615 65 February $615 65 March $1,319 145 $1,271 115 April $445 48 $451 42 May $445 48 $451 42 June $445 48 $451 42 July $643 63 $633 53 August $643 63 $633 53 September $340 38 $612 58 October $340 38 $612 58 November $340 38 $705 63 December $340 38 $705 63 Total $5,300 565 $7,754 715 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Fire Station #5 2354 Concession Road 8, Haydon, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Building and Systems ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Building Envelope ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 15 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 18 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 21 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 21 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Heat Pumps (Furnace Supplement) ........................................................................................... 25 4.4. Unit Heater – Electrification ...................................................................................................... 26 4.5. Rooftop Solar (Additional Consideration) ................................................................................. 27 4.6. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures (Additional Consideration) ................................................ 28 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 29 4.8. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 30 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 32 5.1.1 Identifying Measures ................................................................................................................. 32 5.1.2 Estimating Cost and GHGs ......................................................................................................... 32 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ...................................................... 34 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways ................................................................................................................. 34 5.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 35 5.2.1 Pathway 1 .................................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.2 Pathway 2 .................................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 38 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 41 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 42 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 44 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 44 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 46 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting inventory ................................................................................................ 46 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 47 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 48 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #5. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 34% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 13,861 kWh/yr. 50 $2,931 0.4 Propane 10,255 L/yr. 260 $6,356 15.9 Total 309 $9,287 16.3 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 16.3 17.0 16.8 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 Pathway 2 16.3 17.0 16.8 6.2 5.9 3.0 Grid Decarbonization 16.3 17.0 16.8 17.1 16.9 16.8 16.6 16.6 16.5 16.4 16.3 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 Baseline GHGs 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 10-yr target (-50%)8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. Two ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.66 0.31 65% 0.46 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.74 0.33 55% 0.31 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.54 41.50 13.14 72% 2.29 95% ECI ($/m²) $26.53 N/A $19.90 25% $29.59 -12% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.66 0.46 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.74 0.31 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.54 41.50 8.57 82% ECI ($/m²) $26.53 N/A $29.59 -12% The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Propane (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 & Pathway 2 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -16,494 7,889 11.7 $573 $23,476 21.7 -$12,931 2 Unit Heater – Electrification -14,780 2,367 3.2 -$2,084 $5,394 Never -$31,658 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #5. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to March 2024 o Propane data for the months of March 2022 and August 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 2. Building and Systems Fire Station #5 is a one-storey, 350 m2 fire station located at 2354 Concession Road 8, Haydon, Ontario. The fire hall was constructed in 1990 and includes a double apparatus bay, a hose tower, office space, a breakroom, bathrooms, and other amenities. The mechanical room is situated within the facility. The station is staffed by one full -time employee and operates 24 hours a day. Visiting hours occur between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. daily. Figure 2: Fire Station #5 exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building features multiple roof sections including a flat roof with a modified bitumen finish and a sloped dome roof with a metal panel finish. The exterior walls are primarily constructed of brick masonry. Selected exterior walls are finished with corrugated metal cladding. Fenestration openings include metal doors and aluminium framed double-glazed windows. Glass block windows are also located along the building’s west elevation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (left), exterior cladding (top right), windows (bottom left), and door (bottom right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like at windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the t hermal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Two propane furnaces service the building. A propane-powered unit heater provides supplementary heating to the hose tower. The space heating equipment is controlled by manual thermostats. The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Furnace 2 Mech closet Building International Comfort G9MXT100212A 100 MBH 97% Propane Unit Heater 1 Hose tower Hose tower Beacon/Morris The Brut II 60 MBH 80 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 5: Furnace (left) and Propane Unit Heater (right) Ventilation An exhaust fan located in the truck bay provides ventilation, while two ceiling fans provide destratification. The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Exhaust fan 1 Truck bay Truck bay N/A N/A 0.33 hp 79% Ceiling fan 2 Truck bay Truck bay N/A N/A 0.075 kW 80% Figure 6: Exhaust Fan (Left) and Ceiling Fans (Right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water An electric domestic hot water (DHW) heater services the plumbing fixtures located throughout the building. The DHW heater is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW heater 1 Water Closet Building John Wood JW807 3kW 90% Figure 7: DHW tank 2.4. Lighting The building's lighting consists of 40% fluorescent and 60% LED fixtures. Strip lighting fixtures suspended from the ceiling are the predominant lighting fixture throughout the building. Toggle switches control most of the light fixtures. A full lighting schedule can be found in Appendix A. Figure 8: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Men’s Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Men’s Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 GPM Men’s Washroom Showerhead 1 3.0 GPF Water Tank Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.5 GPM Women’s Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Women’s Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 GPM Women’s Washroom Showerhead 1 3.0 GPM Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM Figure 9: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 10: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole building Electricity J3992223 East exterior wall Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 11: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills Hydro One April 2022 to March 2024 - Propane Annual - March 2022 and August 2023 Propane data summed annually Water N/A Well System N/A Well System 3.1. Historical Data Utility consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 – March 2024. Baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as greater usage of lighting in the winter. A 5.5% increase in electrical consumption was observed between April to December 2023 relative to monthly data observed in 2022. However, a 24% decrease in electrical consumption was observed in January 2024 to March 2024 relative to the monthly data observed in 2023. The figure provides a visual representation of the building’s electrical consumption over time. Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Propane Annual data for propane consumption was provided from March 2022 and August 2023. The building’s propane tank is filled only when required. The absence of a consistent billing period prevents detailed analysis into monthly consumption totals. Annual consumption values were used for analysis. A 4.6% increase in propane consumption was observed in 2023 relative to the data provided for 2022. The figure below provides a visual depiction of the building’s propane expenditures in 2022 and 2023. Figure 11: Propane consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data . These results are presented in the table below. Table 12: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 13,861 kWh/yr. 50 $2,931 0.4 Propane 10,255 L/yr. 260 $6,356 15.9 Total 309 $9,287 16.3 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Pr o p a n e C o n s u m p t i o n ( L ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 13: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Propane 1.548 kg CO₂e/L National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate is typically used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate represents only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission, distribution, or delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. Marginal utility rates are typically estimated using a linear regression analysis. The analysis examines the statistical relationship between cost and consumption to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The marginal and fixed utility rates for electricity and propane were could not be determined through regression. A standard 12-month average rate was used for data analysis. Table 14: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.23/kwh Propane - - $0.55/L 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expect ed to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Fire Station #5's performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and benchmark GHGI for a public services fire station building type. Table 15: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.66 GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.54 41.50 ECI ($/m²) 26.53 N/A WUI (m³/m²) 0.00 N/A 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. Plug loads consume the most electricity in the building. Figure 12: Electricity end uses Plug Loads 40% Domestic Hot Water 34% Lighting 15% Ventilation 11% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Propane Propane is the fuel source for the building’s heating systems. Propane consumption is entirely allotted to space heating. Figure 13: Propane end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage. Consideration is given to building occupancy, baseload consumption, and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The toilet consumes most of the water in the building. The lavatory Space Heating 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 faucet also consumes a significant amount of water, while the kitchen sink consumes little water. Figure 14: Water end uses Toilet 47% Faucet, lavatory 32% Showerhead 15% Faucet, kitchen 6% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4.3. Heat Pumps (Furnace Supplement) Heat pump technology uses the vapour-compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. Specifically, in this application, a heat pump would extract heat from the outdoor air and transfer it to the heating hydronic loop. Since heat is transferred, rather than directly generated, heat pump systems are highly efficient. This ECM explores installing a heat pump to complement the current heating system. The heat pump will provide heat to the building in temperatures as low as -20°C. For temperatures lower than that, the existing furnaces will provide heating, and so they must remain integrated with the heating system as a backup heating source. Project Cost: $23,476 Annual Electricity Savings: -16,494 kWh/yr. Annual Propane Savings: 7,889 L/yr. Total Energy Savings: 140 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $573 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$286 Simple Payback: 21.7 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 11.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 176 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$12,931 Internal Rate of Return: -4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Savings were estimated based on the existing furnace consumption, the existing furnace efficiency rating, and a proposed average heating efficiency rating of 312% for the heat pump. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.4. Unit Heater – Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, propane consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than propane, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than propane. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from a propane to electric unit heater. Project Cost: $5,394 Annual Electricity Savings: -14,780 kWh/yr. Annual Propane Savings: 2,367 L/yr. Total Energy Savings: 7 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$2,084 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 3.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 48 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$31,658 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from propane to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of one electric unit heater of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.5. Rooftop Solar (Additional Consideration) A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. Fire Station #5 building is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to the area and slope of the roof. There are also minimal obstructions or restrictions to adequate light. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. This is an additional ECM as the pathway targets can be hit without implementing this ECM. Project Cost: $33,064 Annual Electricity Savings: 11,776 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,702 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$269 Simple Payback: 10.8 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $19,237 Internal Rate of Return: 9% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 23% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 11 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.6. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of 40% fluorescent and 60% LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. This is an additional consideration due to the limited GHG savings. Project Cost: $7,504 Annual Electricity Savings: 463 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $106 Simple Payback: 37.2 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$6,077 Internal Rate of Return: -12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 16: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Fire Station #5. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1 Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the building's stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff h ad the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2 Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and propane. For propane, the emission factor used was 61.16 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 17: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the decision-making workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e decision-making workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 18: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Propane (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 & Pathway 2 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -16,494 7,889 11.7 $573 $23,476 21.7 -$12,931 2 Unit Heater – Electrification -14,780 2,367 3.2 -$2,084 $5,394 Never -$31,658 5.2.1 Pathway 1 Table 19: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.66 0.31 65% 0.46 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.74 0.33 55% 0.31 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.54 41.50 13.14 72% 2.29 95% ECI ($/m²) $26.53 N/A $19.90 25% $29.59 -12% Table 20: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024- 2026 2027 2028- 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $23,476 Unit Heater - Electrification $5,394 Total cost ($) $23,476 $5,394 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Figure 15: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 16.3 17.0 16.8 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 Baseline GHGs 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 10-yr target (-50%)8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 20-yr target (-80%)3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 5.2.2 Pathway 2 Table 21: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.66 0.46 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.74 0.31 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.54 41.50 8.57 82% ECI ($/m²) $26.53 N/A $29.59 -12% Table 22: Pathway 2 Capital Expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $23,476 Electrification – Unit Heater $5,394 Total ($) $- $- $23,476 $- $5,394 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 16.3 17.0 16.8 6.2 5.9 3.0 Baseline GHGs 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 5-yr target (-80%)3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5.2.3 Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 23: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 2 2 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 31,274 - 31,274 Propane savings (GJ/yr) 260 260 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 16 13 GHG Emission reduction (%) 95% 82% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.044 0.038 Total yr 0 cost ($) $28,870 $28,870 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 1,860 $2,170 Net present value ($) -$ 49,843 -$49,843 Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Figure 17: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $23.5K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.4K $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $0 $0 $23.5K $0 $5.4K $0 $5.0K $10.0K $15.0K $20.0K $25.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 Figure 18: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 16.3 17.0 16.8 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 Pathway 2 16.3 17.0 16.8 6.2 5.9 3.0 Grid Decarbonization 16.3 17.0 16.8 17.1 16.9 16.8 16.6 16.6 16.5 16.4 16.3 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 Baseline GHGs 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 10-yr target (-50%)8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 24: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement $23,476 N/A $23,476 Unit Heater - Electrification $5,394 N/A $5,394 Pathway Totals $28,870 $0 $28,870 Table 25: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 2 2 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 31,274 - 31,274 Propane savings (GJ/yr) 260 260 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 16 13 GHG Emission reduction (%) 95% 82% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.044 0.038 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 28,870 $28,870 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $1,860 $ 2,170 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 49,843 -$ 49,843 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals that there is no change in NPV across all pathways when compared to the absolute Year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Adding a heat pump to supplement the furnace enhances climate control, offering efficient heating and cooling, and maintaining consistent indoor temperatures year-round. Energy Efficiency: Heat pumps can significantly reduce heating energy consumption by leveraging ambient heat, especially during milder seasons, lowering energy bills. Reduced Fossil Fuel Dependency: Supplementing the furnace with a heat pump and replacing the propane unit heater with an electric model will reduce reliance on fossil fuel -based heating systems. This measure supports sustainability goals and reduces GHG emissions. Energy Independence: Both EMCs reduce dependency on volatile propane markets, offering more predictable operational costs. Sustainability and Green Image: Electrification of the building’s heating systems contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing the existing heating equipment can be expensive, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Infrastructure Needs: Electrification may require upgrades to electrical panels or circuits, increasing upfront costs. Implementation Complexity: Installing a heat pump to supplement the furnace may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Compatibility Issues: Integration with existing furnace systems may require technical modifications or assessments, potentially increasing complexity. Seasonal Efficiency Variability: Heat pumps are less efficient in extreme cold, necessitating the furnace as a backup during harsh winter conditions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Opportunities Enhanced Building Appeal: Improved energy efficiency and indoor comfort can increase occupant satisfaction, enhancing the building’s appeal. Advancements in Technology: Ongoing improvements in heat pump technology could lead to even greater efficiency and cost savings in future upgrades. Integration with Renewable Energy: Electrification pairs well with on-site renewable energy systems, such as solar PV (which has been included as an additional ECM), for additional savings and sustainability benefits. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Threats Climate Variability: Prolonged periods of extreme cold could limit heat pump performance, challenging its reliability. Electricity Supply Challenges: Grid constraints or rising electricity prices could reduce the financial benefits of electrification. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value heat pump systems over traditional options. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting inventory Table 26: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Fire Station #5 Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 5 Fire Station #5 Paramedic Office 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 2 Fire Station #5 Men's Washroom 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 2 Fire Station #5 HWT room 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #5 Furnace Room 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #5 Women's Washroom 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 2 Fire Station #5 Main Lounge 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 8 Fire Station #5 Kitchen 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 9 Fire Station #5 Truck Bay 1L-8ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 8 Fire Station #5 Truck Bay 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 1 Fire Station #5 Furnace Room 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 1 Fire Station #5 Hose Tower 1L-LED-9W-Marine-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #5 Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #5 Exterior 1L-Med-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #5 Exterior 1L-Large-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #5 Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 5 Fire Station #5 Paramedic Office 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 2 Fire Station #5 Men's Washroom 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 2 Fire Station #5 HWT room 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #5 Furnace Room 1L-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Fire Station #5 Women's Washroom 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 2 Fire Station #5 Main Lounge 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 8 Fire Station #5 Kitchen 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 9 Fire Station #5 Truck Bay 1L-8ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 8 Fire Station #5 Truck Bay 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 1 Fire Station #5 Furnace Room 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 1 Fire Station #5 Hose Tower 1L-LED-9W-Marine-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #5 Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 1 Fire Station #5 Exterior 1L-Med-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 2 Fire Station #5 Exterior 1L-Large-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 27: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost Consumption (kWh) Cost Consumption (kWh) Cost Consumption (kWh) January $297 1,397 $403 1,482 February $303 1,419 $401 1,318 March $175 1,546 $155 508 April $180 839 $126 1,129 May $223 1,015 $218 959 June $177 776 $217 952 July $193 872 $237 1,052 August $201 914 $245 1,100 September $209 945 $251 1,141 October $297 1,538 $272 1,242 November $262 1,625 $296 1,350 December $222 1,235 $300 1,369 Total $1,965 9,757 $2,937 14,656 $959 3,308 Propane Table 28: Propane utility data 2022 2023 Cost Consumption (L) Cost Consumption (L) January February March $6,920 10,024 April May June July August $5,792 10,486 September October November December Total $6,920 10,024 $5,792 10,486 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Garnet B. Ric kard Recreation Centre 2440 Highway 2, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Key Contacts .............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 17 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 17 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 18 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.7. Other (Ice Rink) .......................................................................................................................... 20 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 24 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 25 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 28 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 28 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 30 4.3. Low Flow Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................... 32 4.4. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 33 4.5. LED Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 34 4.6. Variable Frequency Drives on Brine Pumps .............................................................................. 35 4.7. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 36 4.8. Electrification – Tube Heaters ................................................................................................... 37 4.9. Electrification – Unit Heaters .................................................................................................... 38 4.10. Heat Pump RTUs (RTU 1-4) ........................................................................................................ 39 4.11. Electrification – DHW Heater .................................................................................................... 40 4.12. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 41 4.13. Electrification – Boilers .............................................................................................................. 42 4.14. Lighting Controls Only (Additional Consideration) .................................................................... 43 4.15. High-Efficiency MUA (Additional Consideration) ...................................................................... 44 4.16. REALice (Additional Consideration) ........................................................................................... 45 4.17. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 46 4.18. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 47 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 49 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 49 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 49 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 49 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 51 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 51 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 52 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 56 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 57 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 61 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 62 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 64 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 64 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 66 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ........................................................................ 66 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 74 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 75 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 8% better than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 1,588,735 kWh/yr. 5,719 $273,520 47.7 Natural gas 6,775 GJ/yr. 6,775 $110,245 336.9 Water 5,789 m3/yr. - $5,789 0.2 Total 12,495 $389,554 384.8 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG red uctions. The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 384.6 471.0 404.6 427.3 395.3 386.6 321.8 319.3 311.0 300.1 180.4 175.5 171.8 168.8 143.9 140.4 126.2 125.1 74.2 73.1 71.7 Pathway 2 384.6 363.7 312.0 314.5 253.6 76.9 Grid Decarbonization 384.6 471.0 447.7 471.8 452.7 442.9 424.5 421.8 413.0 401.6 387.1 382.7 379.2 376.5 374.1 371.1 369.8 368.4 367.6 366.5 365.0 Baseline GHGs 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 10-yr target (-50%)192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. 11 ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.52 1.65 1.06 30% 0.78 49% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.67 0.27 60% 0.28 59% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.74 55.50 21.91 53% 8.71 81% ECI ($/m²) $46.61 N/A $34.26 27% $28.31 39% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.52 1.65 0.78 49% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.67 0.28 59% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.74 55.50 9.17 80% ECI ($/m²) $46.61 N/A $28.31 39% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 83 4.2 $3,412 $84,466 16.9 -$10,083 2 Existing Building Commissioning 96,913 647 35.1 $22,503 $81,216 3.2 $32,952 3 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 72,170 0 2.2 $10,412 $170,910 12.7 -$30,031 4 VFDs – Brine Pump 24,538 0 0.7 $3.540 $33,225 8.3 -$1,345 5 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 141 7.0 $1,862 $2,625 1.3 $13,764 6 Tube Heaters – Electrification -63,000 886 42.2 $2,580 $59,282 10.7 $79 7 Unit Heaters – Electrification -54,691 221 9.4 -$4,974 $16,647 Never -$111,473 8 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) -211,058 2,264 106.3 -$636 $1,729,669 Never -$1,675,313 9 DHW Heaters – Electrification -169,445 597 24.6 -$16,580 $84,253 Never -$290,786 10 Rooftop Solar PV 613,362 0 18.4 $88,492 $1,434,670 13.9 $223,723 11 Boilers – Electrification -507,404 1,768 72.7 -$49,926 $77,076 Never -$1,046,799 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 12 Carbon Offsets - - 70.0.0 - $1,260 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2. Building and Systems The Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex (GBRRC) is a two-storey, 8,233 m2 facility located at 2440 Highway 2, in Bowmanville, Ontario. The Pad A building was constructed in 1988 with Pad B built in 1999 and further additions constructed in 2006. The facility has two skating ice surfaces, as well as meeting rooms and social event spaces. The mechanical heating equipment is located on the rooftop and in the mechanical room. The ice plant equipment has its own mechanical room and associated exterior equipment. The building has approximately 20 full time staff, and many daily users. Figure 2: GBRRC exterior from the east (left), and aerial view (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are constructed of architectural concrete block siding with metal cladding along the upper elevations. The exterior doors vary include sliding glazed aluminum at the main entrance and primarily metal swing doors at secondary entrances. Other doors include an overhead door at the north side of the building for the arenas. There are aluminum -framed double glazed windows of various sizes, mainly at the south end and southwest side of the building. The roof has areas of typical flat-roof construction with built-up roofing, as well as areas of low-slope roof with ribbed metal roofing. Pad A Pad B Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 3: Example envelope components; doors (left) and window (right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Natural gas boilers and several rooftop HVAC units provide heat to various parts of the building. Supplemental heating is provided by natural gas tube heaters, natural gas unit heaters, and electric heaters. This building uses a building automation system (BAS) by Johnson Controls to schedule and control the main HVAC equipment and lighting. Only building operators can adjust temperature control settings. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU1 1 Roof PAD A Lobby Lennox LGC180H2BH2J 440 MBH 80% RTU2 1 Roof Upstairs Office Carrier 48TCED08A2G1- AB0A1 180 MBH 82% RTU3 1 Roof MPR Carrier 48LCT012A2A1- 1E3F0 252 MBH 80% RTU4 1 Roof PAD B Lennox KGA072S4BH1J 150 MBH 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency MUA5 1 Roof PAD B Drsg Rm - - 150 MBH 80% Tube Heaters 2 Olympia Room Olympia Room Schwank STS-JZ-80-N 100 MBH 80% Tube Heater 1 Olympia Room Olympia Room Schwank - 200 MBH 80% Boilers 2 Mech Room All Bradford White EF-100T-399E 399 MBH 93% Unit Heaters - Gas 4 Various Various Modine - 50 MBH 80% Unit Heaters – Gas (Fans) 4 Various Various Modine - 1/6 hp 80% Unit Heaters - Electric 6 Various Various - - 3 kW 100% Boiler Pump – Primary 1 Mech Room All Armstrong H52 1/3 hp 80% Boiler Pumps - Secondary 3 Mech Room Various Armstrong 810119-001 1/12 hp 80% Dehumidifiers 4 Pad A/B Pad A/B - - 3.5 kW ~80% Figure 5: Rooftop unit (left) and natural gas unit heater (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Space Cooling All four rooftop HVAC units also provide cooling to their service areas. Two condensers located on the exterior of the building are used to service the refrigeration equipment. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU1 1 Roof PAD A Lobby Lennox LGC180H2BH2J 53 kW 3.22 COP RTU2 1 Roof Upstairs Office Carrier 48TCED08A2G1- AB0A1 24.3 kW 3.22 COP RTU3 1 Roof MPR Carrier 48LCT012A2A1- 1E3F0 33.9 kW 3.81 COP RTU4 1 Roof PAD B Lennox KGA072S4BH1J 20.5 kW 3.22 COP Figure 6: Rooftop unit refrigeration condenser (right side of unit) Ventilation Ventilation is provided to the building via several rooftop HVAC units as well as three make up air units. Many areas have local exhaust fans. Dehumidifiers for the ice rinks have integrated fans to circulate air from the space through the unit for processing. Ventilation equipment seemed to be in good condition. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU1 1 Roof PAD A Lobby Lennox LGC180H2BH2J 3 hp 80% RTU2 1 Roof Upstairs Office Carrier 48TCED08A2G1- AB0A1 3 hp 80% RTU3 1 Roof MPR Carrier 48LCT012A2A1- 1E3F0 3 hp 80% RTU4 1 Roof PAD B Lennox KGA072S4BH1J 5 hp 80% MUA1 1 Roof PAD A Drsg Rm - - 3 hp 80% MUA2 1 Roof PAD A Drsg Rm - - 3 hp 80% MUA5-SF 1 Roof PAD B Drsg Rm - - 3 hp 80% MUA5-RF 1 Roof PAD B Drsg Rm - - 1.5 hp 80% Exhaust Fans 4 PAD A & B PAD A & B - - 3.5 hp 80% Exhaust Fans 14 Various Various - - ¼ hp 80% Exhaust Fans 2 Olympia Room Olympia Room - - 3 hp 80% Dehumidifier- SFs 4 PAD A & B PAD A & B - - ¼ hp 80% Figure 7: Exhaust fan (left) and MUA unit (right). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 2.3. Domestic Hot Water There are four natural gas DHW heaters serving the various areas in this building. There are also four natural gas instantaneous hot water heaters serving the arena (ice flooding process). Two circulator pumps are used for DHW in the building. DHW equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW heaters 3 PAD A & B PAD A & B AO Smith Various 399 MBH 96% DHW heater 1 PAD B PAD B AO Smith JW880S40N-AV 400 520 MBH 82.5% DHW Circ. Pumps 2 PAD A & B PAD A & B - - 1 hp 90% Instantaneous Water Heaters 4 Arena/ Zamboni Arena Rinnai RU199iN 199 MBH 95% Figure 8: DHW heaters (left) and circulation pumps (right). 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is primarily fluorescent tubes, with some LED fixtures. Fixtures included troffers, pot lights, and strip lights. The most common fixtures seen inside the building were 2x4ft fluorescent troffers. Exterior lighting includes wall packs and pole lights. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Figure 9: Examples of interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and pre -rinse spray valves. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Faucet, lavatory, public 29 0.5 Gpm Toilet 27 1.6 Gpf Urinal 8 1.0 Gpf Faucet, kitchen 12 2.5 Gpm Pre-rinse spray valve 2 2.6 Gpm Toilet 2 1.3 Gpf Showerhead 31 3.0 Gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory. Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724241 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 74 57 65 50999 4 Exterior Whole Building Water 2239910000 Not Located Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 2.7. Other (Ice Rink) Other systems in the building are catalogued in the table below. Table 12: Other equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Ice Rink: Compressor 1,2 2 Ice Rink Ice Rink Mycom N4WBHE 75 hp Ice Rink: Compressor 3 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Mycom N6WA 50 hp Ice Rink: Brine Pump (W) 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Armstrong - 25 hp Ice Rink: Brine Pump (E) 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Armstrong - 25 hp Ice Rink: Condenser Pump 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink WEG - 2 hp Ice Rink: Subfloor Pumps 2 Ice Rink Ice Rink - - 2 hp Ice Rink: Glycol Pump 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink WEG - 5 hp Ice Rink: Cooling Tower 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Evapco - 25 hp Ice Rink: Cooling Tower 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink BAC - 3 hp Ice Rink: Self Priming Pump 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Hayward SuperPump 1.5 hp Ice Rink: Ice Resurfacer 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Zamboni Electric 8.2 kW Ice Rink: Ice Resurfacer 1 Ice Rink Ice Rink Olympia Natural Gas - Figure 11: Ice plant refrigeration compressor (left) and natural gas operated ice re -surfacer (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One March 2022 – December 2023 March 2023 missing cost data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge March 2022 – December 2023 September 2022 and April 2023 missing all data. May to August 2022, and October 2022, missing consumption data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from the available data. Where monthly data was available for both years, consumption appears consistent year-to-year. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, greater usage of lighting in the winter, and seasonal operation of the ice plant. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 12: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption during the period of available data. The cause of the November 2022 spike is unknown. In general, natural gas consumption can be expected to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This general pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is generally attributed to functions such as the domestic hot water boilers, or minimal heating requirements, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 13: Natural gas consumption over time 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from the period of available data. Between these two years, March to August consumption appears relatively consistent. The reason for the discrepancy in usage between these two years for the months September to December is not known. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, which is typically attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets. Figure 14: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 1,588,735 kWh/yr. 5,719 $273,520 47.7 Natural gas 6,775 GJ/yr. 6,775 $110,245 336.9 Water 5,789 m³/yr. $5,789 0.2 Total 12,495 $389,554 384.8 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $36,804.10/yr $0.14/kWh Natural Gas $8,357.89/yr $13.17/GJ Water $9,747.21/yr $2.38/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex’ performance over the billing period is better than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.52 1.65 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 46.74 55.50 ECI ($/m2) 46.61 WUI (m3/m2) 0.70 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The ice plant system consumes the most electricity in the building, at about 55% of the total. Ventilation, lighting, and plug loads consume 18%, 11%, and 9%, r espectively, of the total electricity consumption. Other proportionately minor uses such as cooling, space heating, mechanical, and domestic hot water come it at 2% or lower. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Figure 15: Electricity end uses Natural Gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas in the building at 78% of the total. Ice reconditioning category is made up of the Rinnai instantaneous hot water heaters for ice making and resurfacing. The typical tank-style DHW heaters consume the least natural gas at about 9% of the total. Figure 16: Natural gas end uses Icerink 55% Ventilation 18% Lighting 11% Plug Loads 9% Cooling Equipment 2% Space Heating 2% Mechanical 2% Domestic Hot Water 0.6% Space Heating 78% Ice Reconditioning 13% Domestic Hot Water 9% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The “other” category includes water use for icemaking and irrigation. Figure 17: Water end uses Other 41% Toilet 20% Showerhead 18% Urinal 8% Pre-rinse spray valve 8% Faucet, lavatory 5% Faucet, kitchen <1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.3. Low Flow Water Fixtures Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $84,466 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 83 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 974 m³/yr. Total Energy Savings: 83 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,412 Simple Payback: 16.9 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 104 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$10,083 Internal Rate of Return: 4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 27 toilets, 8 urinals, 31 showerheads, and 12 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.4. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interaction and run times. Project Cost: $81,216 Annual Electricity Savings: 96,913 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 647 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 996 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $22,503 Simple Payback: 3.2 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 35.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 175 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $32,952 Internal Rate of Return: 18% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for recreation-type buildings with an average size of 115,914 ft2. On average Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.50/ft2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6% and 10%, respectively. • When heat pump RTUs are integrated into a building following EBCx, the commissioning process ensures the heat pumps are optimally configured and operate seamlessly within the broader HVAC system. This minimizes runtime inefficiencies and maximizes the energy savings potential of the RTUs. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas 4.5. LED Lighting Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $170,910 Annual Electricity Savings: 72,170 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $10,412 Simple Payback: 12.7 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 32 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$30,031 Internal Rate of Return: 2% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347 ) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality 4.6. Variable Frequency Drives on Brine Pumps For many circumstances where the load on a motor varies, energy consumption can be reduced by using a variable frequency drive (VFD) to reduce motor speed when appropriate. The VFD adjusts the motor speed, typically based on the instantaneous motor load. Typically, energy savings can range anywhere from 10 to 50 percent depending on the application. This ECM explores adding VFDs to the brine pumps (M4/M5) for the ice plant cooling loop. Project Cost: $33,225 Annual Electricity Savings: 24,538 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,540 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$180 Simple Payback: 8.0 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 7 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $45 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Currently, the M4/M5 pumps/motors operate an estimated 5,400 hours per year, at a constant 65% load factor. A low-speed variable motor profile was used to simulate pump/motor operation with the proposed VFDs, with an equivalent savings rate of 30%. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans, and includes labour and materials for adding the VFDs. While it is possible to add a VFD to most pump systems without replacing the existing pump and motor, it is common to replace these components to ensure compatibility. The estimated cost does not include re -piping or integration with the building automation system. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • This ECM will require a design phase to confirm system suitability. For example, we will need to confirm that two-way zone valves are present. • Confirm VFD compatibility with the existing motors and system controls Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 4.7. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal cont act between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at GRRC. Project Cost: $2,625 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 141 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 141 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,862 Simple Payback: 1.3 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 7.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 56 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $13,764 Internal Rate of Return: 83% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 2 gallons of additive • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 4.8. Electrification – Tube Heaters In an effort to reduce GHG and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric radiant heaters. Project Cost: $59,282 Annual Electricity Savings: -63,000 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 886 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 659 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,580 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$186 Simple Payback: 10.7 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 42.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 633 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $79 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 96%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 5 electric radiant tube heaters to match capacity of the 3 current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 4.9. Electrification – Unit Heaters In an effort to reduce GHG and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric unit heaters. Project Cost: $16,647 Annual Electricity Savings: -54,691 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 221 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 25 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$4,974 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 9.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 234 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$111,473 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 4 electric unit heaters of similar size to the 4 current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 4.10. Heat Pump RTUs (RTU 1-4) Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's RTUs currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing four of the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption . The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance . Project Cost: $1,729,669 Annual Electricity Savings: -211,058 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 2,264 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 1,505 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$636 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$1,296 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 106.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2,125 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,675,313 Internal Rate of Return: -19% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 80%-81% for all RTUs while the proposed heating COP is 4.3. The estimated existing cooling COP is 2.98, while the proposed cooling COP is 3.37. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.11. Electrification – DHW Heater In an effort to reduce GHG and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric water heaters. Project Cost: $84,253 Annual Electricity Savings: -169,445 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 597 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: -13 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$16,580 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 24.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 369 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$290,786 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from one 82% unit and three 96% units, to four 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 4 electric hot water heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. • The combination of DHW heater electrification with low flow water fixtures delivers cumulative benefits for water conservation and energy savings. By reducing hot water demand through low-flow fixtures, electric DHW heaters operate more efficiently, resulting in substantial reductions in both energy and water consumption . Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.12. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Garnet B Rickard Recreation Centre could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large low slope arena roof with minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $1,434,670 Annual Electricity Savings: 613,362 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $88,492 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$13,055 Simple Payback: 13.9 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 18.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 460 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $223,723 Internal Rate of Return: 6% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 15° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 534 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 4.13. Electrification – Boilers In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers. Project Cost: $77,076 Annual Electricity Savings: -507,404 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 1,768 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: -59 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$49,926 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 72.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1,818 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,046,799 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 93 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. • Boiler electrification and hydronic heating additive ECMs target the heating system. Boiler electrification provides a cleaner and more efficient heat source, while the hydronic heating additive enhances heat transfer efficiency and reduces energy losses. This combination optimizes the heating system's performance while significantly reducing overall energy consumption. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. 4.14. Lighting Controls Only (Additional Consideration) Installing advanced lighting controls, like occupancy sensors and dimmer switches, reduces electricity consumption by either reducing the amount of time lights are switched on, or reducing the power that the light fixtures consume. This ECM explores installing advanced lighting controls at Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Centre. Project Cost: $41,099 Annual Electricity Savings: 4,336 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $626 Simple Payback: 35.5 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$32,634 Internal Rate of Return: -12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated were calculated by reducing the estimated annual hours of operation of light fixtures to be fitted with occupancy sensors, and reducing the percentage of time lights are using full power for light fixtures to be fitted with dimmers. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure the existing fixtures and ballasts are compatible with the chosen control systems (some dimming systems may not work with certain types) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 4.15. High-Efficiency MUA (Additional Consideration) This ECM explores replacing the existing MUA with a high-efficiency model to reduce natural gas consumption. Project Cost: $57,518 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 16 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $212 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 20 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$52,480 Internal Rate of Return: -10% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated natural gas savings are based on the difference in the thermal efficiency between the existing and new models. The existing model has an estimated efficiency of 80%, while the proposed model is 91% efficient. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new MUA. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new MUA unit is properly sized for the building’s ventilation requirements • Ensure compatibility with the existing Building Automation System (BAS) • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 4.16. REALice (Additional Consideration) Hot water is used for ice building and resurfacing in ice rinks to minimize air bubbles in the water, resulting in smooth ice. REALice is a system that removes air bubbles from the water mechanically, producing a similar effect at a lower water temperature. This results in savings in energy related to heating water. REALice is a small device which is installed on the incoming water line. It is powered by water pressure alone to create a high-velocity vortex that traps and removes air bubbles. In addition to realizing energy savings related to hot water consumption, RE ALice decreases energy consumption related to the ice plant compressor and dehumidification system due to decreased cooling and evaporation loads, respectively. This ECM explores integrating REALice for two sheets of ice for this facility. The ECM is considered additional as Clarington has noted limited success with this technology in the past . Project Cost: $188,444 Annual Electricity Savings: 237,572 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 834 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 1,689 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $45,255 Simple Payback: 3.7 yrs. Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 48.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 972 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $625,293 Internal Rate of Return: 29% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated energy savings for two sheets of ice are based on assumptions about water consumption and temperature. Ice building was assumed to be completed annually and fill the rink with ice 3/4” thick. Ice resurfacing was assumed to occur 9 times per day for 365 days of operation and use the entire capacity of a Zamboni tank. The existing water temperature is assumed to be 60 °C and the proposed water temperature is 20 °C. • The project cost was sourced from REALice. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Obtain actionable quote from REALice Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 4.17. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Figure 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.18. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as pathway 1 and pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Figure 19:Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive me asures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Figure 20: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 83 4.2 $3,412 $84,466 16.9 -$10,083 2 Existing Building Commissioning 96,913 647 35.1 $22,503 $81,216 3.2 $32,952 3 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 72,170 0 2.2 $10,412 $170,910 12.7 -$30,031 4 VFDs – Brine Pump 24,538 0 0.7 $3.540 $33,225 8.3 -$1,345 5 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 141 7.0 $1,862 $2,625 1.3 $13,764 6 Tube Heaters – Electrification -63,000 886 42.2 $2,580 $59,282 10.7 $79 7 Unit Heaters – Electrification -54,691 221 9.4 -$4,974 $16,647 Never -$111,473 8 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) -211,058 2,264 106.3 -$636 $1,729,669 Never -$1,675,313 9 DHW Heaters – Electrification -169,445 597 24.6 -$16,580 $84,253 Never -$290,786 10 Rooftop Solar PV 613,362 0 18.4 $88,492 $1,434,670 13.9 $223,723 11 Boilers – Electrification -507,404 1,768 72.7 -$49,926 $77,076 Never -$1,046,799 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 12 Carbon Offsets - - 70.0.0 - $1,260 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 Figure 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $1,260 70.0 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Figure 22: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.52 1.65 1.06 30% 0.78 49% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.67 0.27 60% 0.28 59% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.74 55.50 21.91 53% 8.71 81% ECI ($/m²) $46.61 N/A $34.26 27% $28.31 39% Table 18: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2034) Measure 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Low Flow Water Fixtures - - $84,466 - - - - - - - - Existing Building Commissioning - - $81,216 - - - - - - - - LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures - - - - $170,910 - - - - - - VFDs – Brine Pump - - - - $33,225 - - - - - - Hydronic Heating Additive - - - - $2,625 - - - - - - Tube Heaters – Electrification - - - - - - $59,282 - - - - Unit Heaters – Electrification - - - - - - $16,647 - - - - Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) - - - - - - - - - - $1,729,669 Total cost ($) $0 $0 $165,682 $0 $206,760 $0 $75,929 $0 $0 $0 $1,729,669 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Table 19: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2035-2044) Measure 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 DHW Heaters –Electrification - - - $84,253 - - - - - - Rooftop Solar PV - - - - - $1,434,670 - - - - Boilers – Electrification - - - - - - - $77,076 - - Total cost ($) $0 $0 $0 $84,253 $0 $1,434,670 $0 $77,076 $0 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 Figure 23: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 384.6 471.0 404.6 427.3 395.3 386.6 321.8 319.3 311.0 300.1 180.4 175.5 171.8 168.8 143.9 140.4 126.2 125.1 74.2 73.1 71.7 Baseline GHGs 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 10-yr target (-50%)192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 20-yr target (-80%)76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 20: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.52 1.65 0.78 49% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.67 0.28 59% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 46.74 55.50 9.17 80% ECI ($/m²) $46.61 N/A $28.31 39% Table 21: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Low Flow Water Fixtures $84,466 Existing Building Commissioning $81,216 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $170,910 VFDs – Brine Pump $33,225 Hydronic Heating Additive $2,625 Tube Heaters – Electrification $59,282 Unit Heaters – Electrification $16,647 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) $1,729,669 DHW Heaters – Electrification $84,253 Rooftop Solar PV $1,434,670 Boilers – Electrification $77,076 Carbon Offsets $1,260 Total ($) $1,722,645 $161,542 $84,253 $75,929 $1,730,929 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 Figure 24:: GHG reduction pathway 2 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 22:: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 11 12 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) 54,903 54,903 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 5,879 5,879 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 313 308 GHG Emission reduction (%) 81% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.038 0.037 Total yr 0 cost ($) $3,774,039 $3,775,299 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $10,528 $10,708 Net present value ($) -$2,268,093 -$2,269,353 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 384.6 363.7 312.0 314.5 253.6 76.9 Baseline GHGs 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 5-yr target (-80%)76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 59 Figure 25:: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44.6K $0 $0 $0 $281.8 $0 $0 $0 $50.0K $0 $0 $0 $104.0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $165.7 $0 $206.8 $0 $75.9K $0 $0 $0 $1,729 $0 $0 $0 $84.3K $0 $1,434 $0 $77.1K $0 $0 Pathway 2 $1,722 $161.5 $84.3K $75.9K $1,730 $0 $200.0K $400.0K $600.0K $800.0K $1,000.0K $1,200.0K $1,400.0K $1,600.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 60 Figure 26: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 384.6 471.0 404.6 427.3 395.3 386.6 321.8 319.3 311.0 300.1 180.4 175.5 171.8 168.8 143.9 140.4 126.2 125.1 74.2 73.1 71.7 Pathway 2 384.6 363.7 312.0 314.5 253.6 76.9 Grid Decarbonization 384.6 471.0 447.7 471.8 452.7 442.9 424.5 421.8 413.0 401.6 387.1 382.7 379.2 376.5 374.1 371.1 369.8 368.4 367.6 366.5 365.0 Baseline GHGs 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 384.6 10-yr target (-50%)192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 192.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 76.9 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 61 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 23: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification $77,076 $103,970 -$26,894 Domestic Hot Water Heaters - Electrification (DHWH 1-4) $84,253 $50,000 $34,253 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $81,216 N/A $81,216 Gas-Fired Unit Heaters - Electrification $16,647 $17,890 -$1,243 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-4) $1,729,669 $281,792 $1,447,877 Hydronic heating additive $2,625 N/A $2,625 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $170,910 N/A $170,910 Low flow water fixtures $84,466 N/A $84,466 Rooftop Solar PV $1,434,670 N/A $1,434,670 Tube Heater - Electrification $59,282 $26,688 $32,594 VFD(s) - Brine Pumps $33,225 N/A $33,225 Total Pathway 1 $3,774,039 $480,340 $3,293,699 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $1,260 N/A $1,260 Total Pathway 2 $3,775,299 $480,340 $3,294,959 Table 24: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 11 12 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) 54,903 54,903 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 5,879 5,879 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 313 308 GHG Emission reduction (%) 81% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.038 0.037 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $3,293,699 $3,294,959 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $10,528 $10,708 Incremental Net present value ($) -$1,787,753 -$1,789,013 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 62 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 21% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing existing RTUs with heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, installing LED lighting, ensuring electrical service capacity, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV, upgrading RTUs and lighting, managing electrical service for equipment electrification projects, along with other efficiency upgrades may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 63 Transition Period: While upgrades such as LED lighting offer immediate benefits, other efficiency upgrades such as the installation of heat pump RTUs and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, or electrification projects, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 64 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 65 • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 66 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 25:: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Facility Operations Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Lobby 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 31 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Lobby 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms MWR 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms MWR 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms MWR 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Administration Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 9 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Janitorial Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Kitchen 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Troffer-Rcs 7 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Kitchen 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas Entrance 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 L1 - Community Support Areas Entrance 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 9 L1 - Community Support Areas Clarington Boardroom 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 14 L1 - Community Support Areas Clarington Boardroom 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 3 L1 - Community Support Areas Fridge Room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 67 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Community Support Areas General Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 17 L1 - Community Support Areas Individual Offices (X5) 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 10 L1 - Community Support Areas No Access Storage 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas Social Space 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 32 L1 - Community Support Areas Social Space Side Rooms 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 - Community Support Areas No Access Office 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 L1 - Community Support Areas No Access Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas Hallway 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 14 L1 - Community Support Areas Hallway 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 14 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Lobby 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 17 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Lobby 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Front Vestibule 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 16 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hallway 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 5 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 11 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 1 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 20 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 2 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 16 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 3 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 12 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls No Access Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 4 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Accessible WR 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 1 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls MWR 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 68 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls MWR 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 1 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls WWR (No Access) 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 3 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls WWR (No Access) 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 1 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hallway 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Kitchen 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Viewing Lobby 1L-8ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang-Arch 12 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Viewing Lobby 1L-LED-10W-Cylinder-Pend 8 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms MWR 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms MWR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Tourism Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Small Change Room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Small Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Small Change Room 1L-A19-LED-11W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 1 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Change Room 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 7 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Other Change Rooms (#2,3,6) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 21 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Clarington Eagles Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 14 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Change Room 5 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 14 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Referee Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms DHW Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Storage Rooms (No Access) 1L-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 18 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 69 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Pad A 1L-MH-400W-High Bay-Hang 24 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Pad A 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 28 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Storage (No Access) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Pad B 6L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Low Bay-Med BiPin-Hang 40 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Pad B Viewing Stands 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 7 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Storage (No Access) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Flames Hockey Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 4 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Ref Rooms 1/2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 L1 - Pad B & Rooms B Pad Change Rooms 1//6 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 54 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Stariway To L2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Stariway To L2 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Olympia Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 16 L1 - Assorted Back Utility Room Haal 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - Assorted Staff WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - Assorted Mech Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 L1 - Assorted Compressor Vestibule 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Assorted Compressor Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 10 L1 - Assorted Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Assorted Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 Exterior 2L-LED-80W-Pole Light-Metric 9 Exterior 1L-7in-LED-30W-Pot Light-Rcs-Circ 7 Exterior 1L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Metric 2 Exterior 2L-LED-100W-Flood-Linear 1 Exterior 1L-LED-60W-Wall Pack 9 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 70 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Exterior 1L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Circ 3 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Facility Operations Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Lobby 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 31 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Lobby 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Mwr 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Mwr 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Mwr 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Administration Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 9 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Janitorial Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Kitchen 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Troffer-Rcs 7 L1 - Pad B Lobby and Nearby Rooms Food Service Kitchen 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas Entrance 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 L1 - Community Support Areas Entrance 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 9 L1 - Community Support Areas Clarington Boardroom 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 14 L1 - Community Support Areas Clarington Boardroom 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 3 L1 - Community Support Areas Fridge Room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas General Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 17 L1 - Community Support Areas Individual Offices (X5) 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 10 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 71 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Community Support Areas No Access Storage 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas Social Space 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 32 L1 - Community Support Areas Social Space Side Rooms 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 - Community Support Areas No Access Office 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 L1 - Community Support Areas No Access Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Community Support Areas Hallway 1L-8in-4pin PL-FL-32W-Pot Light-Rcs 14 L1 - Community Support Areas Hallway 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 14 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Lobby 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 17 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Lobby 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Front Vestibule 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 16 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hallway 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 5 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 11 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 1 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 20 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 2 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 8 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 16 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hall 3 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 12 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls No Access Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 4 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Accessible WR 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 1 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Mwr 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 3 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Mwr 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 1 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls WWR (No Access) 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 72 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls WWR (No Access) 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang 1 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Hallway 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 L1 - Front Lobby and Multipurpose Halls Kitchen 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Viewing Lobby 1L-8ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang-Arch 12 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Viewing Lobby 1L-LED-10W-Cylinder-Pend 8 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Mwr 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Mwr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms WWR (No Access) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Tourism Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Small Change Room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Small Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Small Change Room 1L-A19-LED-11W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 1 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Change Room 1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 7 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Other Change Rooms (#2,3,6) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 21 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Clarington Eagles Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 14 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Change Room 5 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 14 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Referee Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Dhw Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Storage Rooms (No Access) 1L-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 18 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Pad A 1L-MH-400W-High Bay-Hang 24 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Pad A 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 28 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 73 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Storage (No Access) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 L1 - Pad A Lobby and Nearby Rooms Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Pad B 6L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Low Bay-Med BiPin-Hang 40 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Pad B Viewing Stands 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 7 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Storage (No Access) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Flames Hockey Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 4 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Ref Rooms 1/2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 L1 - Pad B & Rooms B Pad Change Rooms 1//6 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 54 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Stairway To L2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Stairway To L2 1L-LED-10W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 L1 - Pad B & Rooms Olympia Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 16 L1 - Assorted Back Utility Room Hall 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - Assorted Staff WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 3 L1 - Assorted Mech Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 L1 - Assorted Compressor Vestibule 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Assorted Compressor Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 10 L1 - Assorted Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 L1 - Assorted Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 Exterior 2L-LED-80W-Pole Light-Metric 9 Exterior 1L-7in-LED-30W-Pot Light-Rcs-Circ 7 Exterior 1L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Metric 2 Exterior 2L-LED-100W-Flood-Linear 1 Exterior 1L-LED-60W-Wall Pack 9 Exterior 1L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Circ 3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 74 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 26:: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $25,150 166,699 February $31,613 184,233 March $513 155 $0 156,798 April $20,474 123,006 $24,273 122,492 May $11,377 53,187 $12,953 64,665 June $12,405 52,565 $14,804 62,199 July $23,219 72,401 $17,873 58,678 August $40,442 180,548 $32,438 179,922 September $26,867 173,722 $34,402 202,573 October $24,405 211,716 $38,181 214,143 November $27,598 172,734 $205 1,007 December $36,235 192,744 $34,850 180,351 Total $223,535 1,232,776 $266,742 1,593,761 Natural Gas Table 27: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $19,326 952 February $17,829 914 March $9,153 762 $13,009 754 April $4,854 376 No Data 0 May $85 0 $7,803 1,185 June -$62 0 $1,366 71 July $23 0 $720 46 August $85 0 $1,391 99 September No Data No Data $2,806 209 October $85 0 $5,710 443 November $38,878 2,329 $9,315 737 December $17,925 874 $9,343 739 Total $71,024 4,342 $88,618 6,149 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 75 Water Table 28: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $1,606 503 February $1,606 503 March $1,810 311 $1,284 311 April $1,810 311 $1,284 311 May $1,036 80 $1,311 80 June $1,036 80 $1,311 80 July $2,396 564 $2,260 512 August $2,396 564 $2,260 512 September $1,245 397 $3,433 1,078 October $1,245 397 $3,433 1,078 November $1,245 397 $3,403 1,053 December $1,245 397 $3,403 1,053 Total $15,464 3,500 $26,592 7,073 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Hampton Hall 5360 Old Scugog Rd, Hampton, ON L0B 1J0 Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 23 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Boiler Electrification .................................................................................................................. 27 4.4. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures............................................................................................ 28 4.5. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 29 4.6. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 30 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 31 4.8. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 32 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 34 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 34 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 34 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 35 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 36 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 37 5.2. Life Cycle Analysis Results ......................................................................................................... 37 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 38 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 41 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 44 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 45 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 47 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 47 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 49 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 49 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 50 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Hampton Hall. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 129% worse than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 13,477 kWh/yr. 49 $3,001 0.4 Natural Gas 282 GJ/yr. 282 $5,187 14.0 Total 331 $8,188 14.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 14.4 15.2 15.0 15.2 15.0 14.9 14.8 4.4 4.0 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 Pathway 2 14.4 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 2.9 Grid Decarbonization 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Baseline GHGs 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 10-yr target (-50%)7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Four ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.97 0.86 1.78 9% 1.78 9% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.80 1.62 10% 1.62 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 85.88 58.40 15.65 82% 8.75 90% ECI ($/m²) $48.74 N/A $114.21 -134% $114.21 -134% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.97 0.86 1.27 36% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.80 1.48 18% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 85.88 58.40 17.26 80% ECI ($/m²) $48.74 N/A $88.56 -82% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boiler Electrification -69,626 282 11.9 -$13,005 $31,141 Never -$290,961 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 8,883 0 0.3 $2,051 $161,388 >50 -$139,342 3 Hydronic Heating Additive 23 1.1 $246 $1,463 4.5 $766 4 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 863 0 0.0 $199 $7,847 24.8 -$5,160 5 Carbon Offsets - - 1.5 0 $27 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Hampton Hall. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to March 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2022 to December 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems Hampton Hall is a one-storey, 168 m² public services building located at 5360 Old Scugog Road in Hampton, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1968 and is currently used as a community hall. It features a main hall with a stage, storage areas, function rooms, and washrooms. The mechanical room is located within the building. The building has approximately five to ten daily visitors between the hours of 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. Figure 2: Hampton Hall exterior from north-east (left), and simulated aerial view with red highlighting around in- scope building (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building features a flat roof with a built-up roofing (BUR) system and an asphalt roll finish. The exterior cladding is mainly painted concrete masonry units (CMUs), complemented by decorative stone masonry. Fenestrations include double-paned vinyl windows and aluminium doors. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; exterior walls (top left), door (top right), and window (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like at windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the t hermal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating A natural gas boiler is the principal heating system for the building. Two mini-split heat pumps with individual thermostat controls provide supplementary heating throughout the community hall. The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Boiler 1 Basement Building Lennox GWBB-245E 245 MBH 80% Heat pump 2 Exterior Building Comfort Aire A-VMH28TV- 1 8.2 kW 381% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 5: Heat pump condenser (left), evaporator (right), and boiler (bottom) Space Cooling The mini-split heat pump units also provide air conditioning throughout the building when switched to their cooling or dehumidification modes. Details of the cooling equipment are listed in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Heat pump 2 Exterior Building Comfort Aire A- VMH28TV-1 8.2 kW 3.81 COP Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 6: Heat pump condenser (left) and evaporator (right) 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One electric domestic hot water (DHW) heater provides hot water for the building’s plumbing fixtures. The DHW heater is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Basement Building Rheem PRO + E40 M2 CN69 3 kW 90% Figure 7: DHW tank Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 2.4. Lighting The lighting in the building consists of 3.4% incandescent, 37.3% fluorescent, 5.1% compact fluorescent, and 54.2% LED fixtures. The most common fixture types observed were strip, panel, and keyless fixtures. Lighting is primarily controlled by toggle switches. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 8: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures A total water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Basement - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 2 2.2 GPM Basement - Kitchen Dishwasher 1 1.72 G/cycle Basement - Washrooms Faucet, lavatory, public 4 2.22 GPM Basement - Washrooms Toilet 4 1.62 GPF Basement - Men’s Washroom Urinal 2 1.02 GPF Basement - Janitor room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.52 GPM Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 9: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 10: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole building Electricity 306724029 Northwest wall exterior Whole building Natural gas 91 00 61 65354 4 Northwest wall exterior Whole Building Water N/A Well System Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 11: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills Hydro One April 2022 to March 2024 - Natural gas Monthly utility bills Enbridge Gas April 2022 to March 2024 - Water N/A N/A N/A Well System 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One provides Hampton Hall with electricity. Enbridge Gas supplies the building with natural gas. There was no available dataset detailing water consumption. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 to March 2024. Baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as the building’s plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as greater usage of lighting in the winter. A 35% increase in electricity consumption was observed between April to December in 2023 relative to monthly consumption totals observed in 2022. A 25% increase in electrical consumption was observed from January to March in 2024 relative to monthly consumption totals observed in 2023. It is difficult to identify seasonal or annually recurring trends in the absence of consumption totals for January to March in 2022 and beyond March 2024. Electricity consumption from 2022 to 2024 is visually presented in the graph below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 to March 2024. Natural gas consumption peaks in the winter months, indicative of a seasonal trend. This trend is anticipated due to variable space heating loads over the winter. Natural gas consumption increased by 12.5% between April and December in 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. A 6.7% decrease was observed between January and March in 2024 relative to monthly consumption totals observed in 2023. Natural gas consumption from 2022 to 2024 is visually presented in the graph below. Figure 11: Natural gas consumption over time 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 12: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 13,477 kWh/yr. 49 $3,001 0.4 Natural Gas 282 GJ/yr. 282 $5,187 14.0 Total 331 $8,188 14.4 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 13: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural gas 49.729 kg CO₂e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate is typically used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate represents only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission, distribution, or delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The marginal and fixed utility rate for electricity could not accurately be determined through regression analysis. A standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed, marginal, and 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 14: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.23/kWh Natural Gas $1,236.68/yr. $10.39 / GJ - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Hampton Hall's performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services type buildings. Table 15: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m²) 1.97 0.86 GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 85.88 58.40 ECI ($/m²) 48.74 N/A WUI (m³/m²) 0.00 N/A 3.4. End Uses End uses were identified, and energy or water consumption was allocated to each end use. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. Space heating consumes the most electricity in the building. The remaining electrical consumption is distributed between DHW, plug loads, lighting, and cooling equipment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Figure 12: Electricity end uses Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes all the natural gas allocated to the building. Space Heating 30% Domestic Hot Water 20% Plug Loads 19% Lighting 18% Cooling Equipment 13% Space Heating 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 13: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The lavatory faucet consumes most of the water in the building. The toilets also consume a significant amount of water. Figure 14: Water end uses Faucet, lavatory 38% Toilet 35%Urinal 14% Dishwasher, commercial 13% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating interactive effects. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Boiler Electrification Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuel. Electrification will increase electricity consumption. However, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas. However, it will increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from a natural gas to an electric boiler Project Cost: $31,141 Annual Electricity Savings: -69,626 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 282 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 31 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$13,005 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 11.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 298 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$290,961 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric boiler of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.4. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 9.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory Project Cost: $7,847 Annual Electricity Savings: 863 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $199 Simple Payback: 24.8 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$5,160 Internal Rate of Return: -7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.5. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Hampton Hall building is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof. There is also no obstructions or restrictions to light around the building. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $161,388 Annual Electricity Savings: 8,883 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,051 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$1,467 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 7 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$139,342 Internal Rate of Return: -7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 23% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. An 8kW DC system was chosen due to available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.6. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating systems use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal contact between the fluid a nd the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at Hampton Hall. Project Cost: $1,463 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 23 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $246 Simple Payback: 4.5 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $766 Internal Rate of Return: 16% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to the boiler’s natural gas consumption. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12%. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm and includes 0.98 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 200$/hr. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 16: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections within the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Hampton Hall. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the fun ding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the building's stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 17: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘addit ional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 18: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boiler Electrification -69,626 282 11.9 -$13,005 $31,141 Never -$290,961 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 8,883 0 0.3 $2,051 $161,388 >50 -$139,342 3 Hydronic Heating Additive 23 1.1 $246 $1,463 4.5 $766 4 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 863 0 0.0 $199 $7,847 24.8 -$5,160 5 Carbon Offsets - - 1.5 0 $27 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Table 19: Carbon Offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $27 1.5 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 20: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.97 0.86 1.78 9% 1.78 9% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.80 1.62 10% 1.62 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 85.88 58.40 15.65 82% 8.75 90% ECI ($/m²) $48.74 N/A $114.21 -134% $114.21 -134% Table 21: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024- 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036- 2044 Boiler Electrification $31,141 Total cost ($) $31,141 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Figure 15: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 14.4 15.2 15.0 15.2 15.0 14.9 14.8 4.4 4.0 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 Baseline GHGs 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 10-yr target (-50%)7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 20-yr target (-80%)2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 22: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.97 0.86 1.27 36% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.80 1.48 18% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 85.88 58.40 17.26 80% ECI ($/m²) $48.74 N/A $88.56 -82% Table 23: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Boiler Electrification $31,141 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $7,847 Hydronic Heating Additive $1,463 Rooftop Solar PV $28,691 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $27 Total ($) $38,000 $- $- $- $31,168 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 14.4 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 2.9 Baseline GHGs 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 5-yr target (-80%)2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 24: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 69,626 - 52,047 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 282 282 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 13 12 GHG Emission reduction (%) 90% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.077 0.069 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 31,141 $ 69,168 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) -$ 2,775 $179 Net present value ($) -$ 245,781 -$231,898 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Boiler electrification was the only measure included in pathway one, as it satisfied the 10 and 20-year emission reduction goals. However, each ECM was required to meet the 5 five emission reduction goals embodied in Pathway 2. In addition, since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and t he reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario’s projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 17: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67.1K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31.1K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $38.0K $0 $0 $0 $31.2K $0 $10.0K $20.0K $30.0K $40.0K $50.0K $60.0K $70.0K $80.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Figure 18: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 14.4 15.2 15.0 15.2 15.0 14.9 14.8 4.4 4.0 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 Pathway 2 14.4 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 2.9 Grid Decarbonization 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Baseline GHGs 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 10-yr target (-50%)7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 25: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification $31,141 $67,096 -$35,955 Total Pathway 1 $31,141 $67,096 -$35,955 Rooftop Solar PV $28,691 N/A $28,691 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $7,847 N/A $7,847 Hydronic Heating Additive $1,463 N/A $1,463 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $27 N/A $27 Total Pathway 2 $69,168 $67,096 $2,072 Table 26: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 69,626 - 52,047 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 282 282 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 13 12 GHG Emission reduction (%) 90% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.077 0.069 Total yr 0 cost ($) $31,141 $69,168 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) -$ 35,955 $2,072 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) -$ 2,775 $ 179 Net present value ($) -$ 245,781 -$ 231,898 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 178,685 -$ 164,802 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 27% and 29% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Educational Opportunities: Solar PV systems provide a visible demonstration of renewable energy, fostering awareness and education for occupants and the community. Improved System Efficiency: Adding hydronic heating additives can enhance the efficiency of existing boiler systems, reducing energy consumption and operating costs. Environmental Benefits: Transitioning from fossil-fuel-powered boilers to electric models reduces GHG emissions and supports sustainability goals. Lower Maintenance Costs: Electric boilers generally have fewer moving parts, leading to reduced maintenance requirements. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious individuals. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of installing LED lighting, an electronic boiler, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Energy Costs: Depending on regional electricity rates, operational costs may increase by installing an electric boiler compared to fossil fuel boilers. System Dependency: The effectiveness of hydronic heating additives depends on the current state of the hydronic system, potentially requiring pre-treatment or cleaning. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading lighting may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Opportunities Integration with Renewables: Electric boilers pair well with renewable energy sources, such as solar PV, for additional cost savings and carbon reductions. Complementary Upgrades: Hydronic heating additives can be combined with other ECMs, such as boiler electrification, for additional efficiency gains. Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher visitor satisfaction, which may lead to greater visitor retention. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for other local buildings. Threats Stakeholder Resistance: Initial cost concerns or reluctance to change from familiar building systems may hinder the potential adoption of renewable energy systems or electric boilers. Electricity Supply Challenges: Grid constraints or rising electricity prices could reduce the financial benefits of electrification. Compatibility Issues: Some hydronic heating additives may not be suitable for all system materials, necessitating careful selection and application. Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in solar technologies could render some components of the retrofit less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the ti me of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 27: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground Meeting room 4L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Ground Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Vault 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Wall Sfc 1 Ground Front entrance 2L-Med-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Basement Main hall 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs-DIM 9 Basement Main hall 1L-10in-A19-LED-9W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs-Square 3 Basement Kitchen 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 4 Basement Storage 1L-Mini-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Basement Washrooms 1L-1x4ft-LED-25W-Panel-Rcs 5 Basement Storage 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Wall Sfc 2 Basement Storage 1L-Mini-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Basement Kitchen 1L-4in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-15W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-20W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 2 Ground Hallway (Abandoned) 4L-2x4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground Offices (Abandoned) 4L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 7 Ground Offices (Abandoned) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Ground Washrooms (Abandoned) 1L-Med-A19-Inc-60W-Sconce-E26-Pend 2 Ground Meeting room 4L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 4 Ground Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Vault 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Wall Sfc 1 Ground Front entrance 2L-Med-A19-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Basement Main hall 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs-DIM 9 Basement Main hall 1L-10in-A19-LED-9W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs-Square 3 Basement Kitchen 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 4 Basement Storage 1L-Mini-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Basement Washrooms 1L-1x4ft-LED-25W-Panel-Rcs 5 Basement Storage 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Wall Sfc 2 Basement Storage 1L-Mini-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Basement Kitchen 1L-4in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-15W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-20W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 2 Ground Hallway (Abandoned) 4L-2x4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground Offices (Abandoned) 4L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 7 Ground Offices (Abandoned) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 6 Ground Washrooms (Abandoned) 1L-Med-A19-Inc-60W-Sconce-E26-Pend 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 28: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $227 1,027 $498 1,833 February $213 948 $453 1,510 March $99 1,128 $163 544 April $151 641 $149 1,128 May $239 1,091 $273 1,232 June $226 1,044 $246 1,092 July $217 977 $224 962 August $211 946 $242 1,069 September $208 920 $241 1,079 October $217 939 $284 1,292 November $230 975 $372 1,729 December $222 973 $398 1,872 Total $1,921 8,507 $2,968 14,558 $1,113 3,888 Natural Gas Table 29: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $994 46 $657 63 February $1,022 49 $376 46 March $957 48 $370 25 April $383 23 $610 30 May $169 6 $213 21 June $85 0 $86 6 July $52 0 $87 0 August $84 0 $86 0 September $66 0 $82 0 October $405 14 $275 14 November $674 29 $567 36 December $1,254 57 $565 38 Total $3,172 128 $5,543 287 $1,403 134 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Hampton Operations Depot 2320 Taunton Road, Hampton, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copywrite Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 24 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 24 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 26 4.3. LED Lighting Upgrade ................................................................................................................ 28 4.4. Rooftop Solar PV ........................................................................................................................ 29 4.5. High-efficiency MUA Upgrade ................................................................................................... 30 4.6. Heat-pump RTU Upgrade .......................................................................................................... 31 4.7. DHW Heater – Electrification .................................................................................................... 32 4.8. Tube Heater – Electrification ..................................................................................................... 33 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 34 4.10. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 35 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 37 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 37 5.1.1 Identifying Measures ................................................................................................................. 37 5.1.2 Estimating Cost and GHGs ......................................................................................................... 37 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ...................................................... 39 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways ................................................................................................................. 39 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 40 5.2.1 Pathway 1 .................................................................................................................................. 41 5.2.2 Pathway 2 .................................................................................................................................. 43 5.2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 44 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 47 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ............................................................................. 48 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 50 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 50 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 52 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 52 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 53 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Hampton Operations Depot. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 67% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 161,629 kWh/yr. 582 $32,503 4.8 Natural gas 1,072 GJ/yr. 1,072 $16,990 53.3 Total 1,654 $49,492 58.2 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 58.2 58.0 55.0 58.1 55.7 54.4 52.1 51.7 49.1 47.7 28.8 28.5 28.3 28.1 28.0 27.8 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.5 11.6 Pathway 2 58.2 58.0 55.0 43.6 33.1 11.6 Grid Decarbonization 58.2 67.0 64.6 67.0 65.1 64.1 62.2 61.9 61.1 59.9 58.4 58.0 57.6 57.3 57.1 56.8 56.7 56.5 56.4 56.3 56.2 Baseline GHGs 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 10-yr target (-50%)29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Six ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.20 0.72 0.55 54% 0.58 52% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.70 0.52 26% 0.45 35% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 42.27 21.10 20.93 50% 8.43 80% ECI ($/m²) $35.97 $23.70 34% $26.03 28% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.20 0.72 0.58 52% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.70 0.45 35% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 42.27 21.10 8.43 80% ECI ($/m²) $35.97 N/A $26.03 28% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 20,681 0 0.6 $5,615 $33,575 5.4 $42,435 2 Rooftop Solar PV 170,734 0 5.1 $46,354 $403,469 8 $516,038 3 High-Efficiency MUA Upgrade (All) 0 30 1.5 $357 $172,555 >50 -$163,653 4 Heat-pump RTU Upgrade (RTU 1-2) -11,804 127 6.0 -$1,669 $515,748 Never -$543,550 5 DHW Heater - Electrification -61,658 250 10.6 -$13,719 $21,063 Never -$198,110 6 Tube Heater - Electrification -15,462 278 13.4 -$831 $53,086 Never -$57,245 7 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) - - 9.7 - $175 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 15.3 - $275 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Hampton Operations Depot. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to March 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2021 to March 2023 o Building Condition assessment This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Hampton Operations Depot is a two-storey, 1,376 m² truck bay, warehouse, and storage facility located at 2320 Taunton Road, Hampton, Ontario. Constructed in 1987, the building is currently used as a vehicle service garage for the maintenance and repair of public works vehicles. The facility includes a truck bay, office, storage room, kitchen, and washrooms, with the mechanical room located within the truck bay. Approximately 21 employees, including 17 drivers, work in the building on a daily basis. Office hours are 7:30 AM to 3:00 PM, although the building is sometimes occupied on weekends and during after -hours as well. Figure 2: Hampton Operation Depot exterior from the east (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a flat roof with modified bitumen finish. The exterior walls are finished with vertical metal panels. Metal doors with or without inset glazing located at primary and secondary entrances. Aluminum frame, double-pane windows located in the office areas. Overhead doors provide access to the garage bays. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), door (top right), and window (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building uses multiple natural gas heating systems, including three Make -Up Air (MUA) units servicing the stock room and shop bays, and a radiant tube heater providing additional heat in the truck bay. The offices are heated by a natural gas rooftop units (RTUs), with a condensing furnace for the stock room and lunchroom. Electric unit heaters provide heat for the generator room, and baseboard heaters provide supplementary heat in select o ffices. The heating equipment is listed in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial Number Year Rating Efficiency MUA 1 Shop Bays Shop Bays EngA DJE-40 M12022 F-3 2008 250 MBH 84.0% Radiant Tube Heaters 4 Shop Bays Shop Bays Schwank STS-JZ-110-N JZPXN110G M01XX - 110 MBH ~80.0% Furnace 1 Stockroom, Offices, Lunch rm Stockroom, Offices, Lunch rm Lennox G5MP-48C- 110-07 5907M1748 2007 110 MBH 93.6% MUA 2 Stockroom/ Delivery Bay Stockroom/ Delivery Bay EngA DJE-20 M12022 F-2 2007 150 MBH 82.7% RTU 2 Offices Offices Trane GBC036A3E MB09C 22163050PA / 22163047PA - 100 MBH 80.0% Baseboard Heaters 2 Offices Offices - - - - 1 kW 100% Electric Unit heater 1 Entrance Entrance Ouellet - - - 1.5 kW 100% Electric Unit heater 1 Entrance Entrance Ouellet OAS03000A M-T - - 3 kW 100% Figure 5: MUA (left) and furnace (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Space Cooling Space cooling is provided to the offices spaces via two rooftop units (RTUs) and a condensing unit tied to an internal unit, all located at exterior of building. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial Number Year Rating Efficiency RTU 2 Exterior Offices Trane GBC036A3EMB09C 22163050PA/ 22163047PA 2022 10.5 3.52 COP Condensing Unit 1 Exterior Offices Arcoaire N4H430GKP100 X213389675 2021 8.3 3.37 COP Figure 6: RTUs (left) and condensing unit (right) Ventilation Ventilation is provided by ceiling mounted MUAs, exterior RTUs and furnace tied to ducting and thermostat controls. Additional ventilation is provided to the office spaces via a heat recovery ventilator. Exhaust fans provide exhaust ventilation to the shops and washrooms. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial Number Year Rating Efficiency MUA 2 Stock Room, Delivery bay Stock Room, Delivery bay EngA DJE-20 M12022 F-2 / M12022 F-4 2007 1 hp 79% RTU 2 Exterior Offices Trane GBC036A3EM B09C 22163050P A/2216304 7PA 2 hp 79% Exhaust Fan 1 Repair shop Repair shop 0.5 hp 79% Exhaust Fan 1 Upper Level Washroom Repair shop 0.1 hp 79% HRV 1 Electrical Room Offices vanEE FVM4X36COBL 04E F21413761 8 2021 0.5 hp 79% MUA 1 Repair Shop Repair Shop EngA DJE-40 M12022 F-3 2008 1.5 hp 79% Furnace 1 Furnace Room Stock room, Offices, Lunch room Lennox G5MP-48C- 110-07 5907M1748 2007 ½ hp 80% Figure 7: Make-up air unit (left) and heat recovery ventilation (right) 2.3. Domestic Hot Water The facility is equipped with one natural gas and one electric domestic hot water (DHW) heater. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Electrical room Offices, reception & L2 John Wood JW805ESC 9310812160 4.5 kW 100% DHW Heater 1 Furnace Room Repair shop, washrooms and lunchroom Rhee m Ruud G76-180-1 URNG0607G 00269 180 MBH 80% Figure 8: Electric DHW left) and natural gas DHW (right) 2.4. Lighting The building's lighting consists of 1.5% incandescent, 52% fluorescent, and 46.5% LED fixtures, with the most common type being strip lighting fixtures. The lighting is primarily controlled by toggle switches. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Ground - Accessible WR Toilet 1 1.3 Gpf Ground - Accessible WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Ground - Womens WR Toilet 1 1.3 Gpf Ground - Womens WR Showerhead 1 2.5 Gpm Ground - Womens WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Ground - Janitorial Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Ground - Mens WR Toilet 2 1.3 Gpf Ground - Mens WR Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 Gpm Ground - Mens WR Urinal 2 1.0 Gpf Ground - Mens WR Showerhead 3 2.5 Gpm Ground - Mens WR Clothes washer, residential, standard, top-loading 1 37.8 G/cycle Ground - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm 2nd - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.0 Gpm 2nd - WR Toilet 1 1.3 Gpf 2nd - WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity - Electrical room Whole Building Natural Gas - Back of bldg. (exterior) Whole Building Water (Well) N/A N/A Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hyrdo One April 2022 to March 2024 - Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas April 2021 to March 2023 - Water N/A Well System N/A Well System – no utility connection 3.1. Historical Data Hyrdo One and Enbridge Gas supply electricity and natural gas to the building respectively. Utility consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity A comparison of electricity data from April to December 2022 with the same period in 2023 shows a 9% decrease in consumption. Additionally, the first three months of 2024 indicate a 25% decrease compared to the same period in 2023. The low consumption in M arch 2024 is assumed to be due to a billing anomaly or correction, rather than reflecting actual usage. Increase in consumption in the winter months is likely to do increased lighting requirements and electrical heating equipment providing space heating in the colder season. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas A comparison of natural gas consumption between April and December 2021 and the same period in 2022 reveals a 15% reduction. In contrast, the first three months of 2023 show a 22% increase compared to the same period in 2022. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data . These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 161,629 kWh/yr. 582 $32,503 4.8 Natural Gas 1,072 GJ/yr. 1,072 $16,990 53.3 Total 1,654 $49,492 58.2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2021 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity, the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.22/kwh Natural Gas $2,561.98/yr. $12.10/GJ - 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Hamptons Operation Depot’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for depot building types. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline* Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.20 0.72 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 42.27 21.10 ECI ($/m2) 35.97 WUI (m3/m2) 0.00 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The plug loads and lighting system consume the most electricity. Figure 13: Electricity end uses Plug Loads 27% Lighting 27% Space Heating 17% Ventilation 11% Domestic Hot Water 8% Cooling Equipment 7% Mechanical… Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas allocated to the building. Figure 14: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. Space Heating 77% Domestic Hot Water 23% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Figure 15: Water end uses Faucet, lavatory 25% Toilet 23% Clothes washer, residential 16% Urinal 16% Showerhead 14% Faucet, kitchen 6% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utility rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.3. LED Lighting Upgrade Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $33,575 Annual Electricity Savings: 20,681 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $5,615 Simple Payback: 5.4 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $42,435 Internal Rate of Return: 19% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.4. Rooftop Solar PV A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Hampton Operations Depot building is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof . Project Cost: $403,469 Annual Electricity Savings: 170,734 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $46,354 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$3,666 Simple Payback: 8.0 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 5.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 128 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $516,038 Internal Rate of Return: 14% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 22.67% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 150 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.5. High-efficiency MUA Upgrade This ECM explores replacing the existing MUAs with high-efficiency model) to reduce natural gas consumption. The existing MUAs have reached their end of useful service life (>15 yrs old), so this ECM can be implemented in alignment with capital replacement plans. Project Cost: $172,555 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 30 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $357 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 37 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$163,653 Internal Rate of Return: -12% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated natural gas savings are based on the difference in the thermal efficiency between the existing and new models. The existing models have a rated efficiency of 84% and 82.7% respectively, while the proposed models are 91% efficient. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new MUAs. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new MUA unit is properly sized for the building’s ventilation requirements . • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.6. Heat-pump RTU Upgrade Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's five RTUs currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance. Project Cost: $515,748 Annual Electricity Savings: -11,804 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 127 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 85 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$1,669 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$340 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 6.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 119 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$543,550 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 80%-81% for all RTUs while the proposed heating COP is 4.3. The estimated existing cooling COP is 2.98, while the proposed cooling COP is 3.37. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.7. DHW Heater – Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric domestic hot water heater. Project Cost: $21,063 Annual Electricity Savings: -61,658 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 250 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 28 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$13,719 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 10.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 159 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$198,110 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of one electric DHW heater of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.8. Tube Heater – Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric tube heaters. Project Cost: $53,086 Annual Electricity Savings: -15,462 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 278 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 223 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$831 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$248 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 13.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 201 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$57,245 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of one electric radiant tube heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.10. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections within the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Hampton Operations Depot. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1 Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2 Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3 Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4 Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030 . 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 20,681 0 0.6 $5,615 $33,575 5.4 $42,435 2 Rooftop Solar PV 170,734 0 5.1 $46,354 $403,469 8 $516,038 3 High-Efficiency MUA Upgrade (All) 0 30 1.5 $357 $172,555 >50 -$163,653 4 Heat-pump RTU Upgrade (RTU 1-2) -11,804 127 6.0 -$1,669 $515,748 Never -$543,550 5 DHW Heater - Electrification -61,658 250 10.6 -$13,719 $21,063 Never -$198,110 6 Tube Heater - Electrification -15,462 278 13.4 -$831 $53,086 Never -$57,245 7 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) - - 9.7 - $175 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 15.3 - $275 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in both Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 $175 9.7 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $275 15.3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 5.2.1 Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.20 0.72 0.55 54% 0.58 52% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.70 0.52 26% 0.45 35% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 42.27 21.10 20.93 50% 8.43 80% ECI ($/m²) $35.97 $23.70 34% $26.03 28% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026- 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035- 2043 2044 LED Lighting Upgrade $33,575 Rooftop Solar PV $403,469 High-efficiency MUA Upgrade $172,555 Heat Pump RTU Upgrade $515,748 DHW Heater - Electrification $21,063 Tube Heaters - Electrification $53,086 Pathway 1 Carbon Offsets $175 Total cost ($) $54,638 $- $- $172,555 $456,555 $- $515,923 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 58.2 58.0 55.0 58.1 55.7 54.4 52.1 51.7 49.1 47.7 28.8 28.5 28.3 28.1 28.0 27.8 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.5 11.6 Baseline GHGs 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 10-yr target (-50%)29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 20-yr target (-80%)11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.2 Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.20 0.72 0.58 52% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.70 0.45 35% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 42.27 21.10 8.43 80% ECI ($/m²) $35.97 N/A $26.03 28% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 LED Lighting Upgrade $33,375 Rooftop Solar PV $403,469 High-efficiency MUA Upgrade $172,555 Heat Pump RTU Upgrade $515,748 DHW Heater - Electrification $21,063 Tube Heaters - Electrification $53,086 Pathway 2 Carbon Offsets $275 Total ($) $54,638 $- $403,469 $225,641 $516,023 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 58.2 58.0 55.0 43.6 33.1 11.6 Baseline GHGs 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 5-yr target (-80%)11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.3 Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) 46,970 46,970 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 685 685 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 47 47 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.034 0.034 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 1,199,671 $1,199,772 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 19,537 $ 19,547 Net present value ($) -$ 857,570 -$ 857,671 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Figure 18: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $8.0K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $167.0 $0 $39.9K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $54.6K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172.6 $0 $456.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $515.9 Pathway 2 $54.6K $0 $403.5 $225.6 $516.0 $0 $100.0K $200.0K $300.0K $400.0K $500.0K $600.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Figure 19: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 58.2 58.0 55.0 58.1 55.7 54.4 52.1 51.7 49.1 47.7 28.8 28.5 28.3 28.1 28.0 27.8 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.5 11.6 Pathway 2 58.2 58.0 55.0 43.6 33.1 11.6 Grid Decarbonization 58.2 67.0 64.6 67.0 65.1 64.1 62.2 61.9 61.1 59.9 58.4 58.0 57.6 57.3 57.1 56.8 56.7 56.5 56.4 56.3 56.2 Baseline GHGs 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 58.2 10-yr target (-50%)29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-2) $515,748 $75,000 $440,748 Rooftop Solar PV $403,469 N/A $403,469 High-Efficiency MUA Upgrade $172,555 $167,043 $5,512 Tube Heaters - Electrification $53,086 $39,888 $13,198 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $33,575 N/A $33,575 DHW Heater - Electrification $21,063 $8,033 $13,030 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) $175 N/A $175 Total Pathway 1 $1,199,671 $289,964 $909,707 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $275 N/A $275 Total Pathway 2 $1,199,772 $289,964 $909,808 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 7 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) 46,970 46,970 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 685 685 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 47 47 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.034 0.034 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 909,707 $ 909,808 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $19,537 $19,547 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 567,606 -$ 567,707 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 34% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing existing RTUs with heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading RTUs and lighting may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: While upgrades such as LED lighting offer immediate benefits, the installation of heat pump RTUs, solar PV, high-efficiency MUA upgrades, new DHW heaters and new tube heaters may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. ??Increased Property Value: Sustainable upgrades, such as solar PV and energy-efficient HVAC systems, can increase the building’s market value and appeal to a growing segment of eco- conscious buyers or investors. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting Inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground Hallway 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 17 Ground Reception 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 6 Ground Copy room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Ground Copy room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Ground Water heater room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground Accessible WR 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Wall Sfc-Van 1 Ground Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 14 Ground Meter room 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 2 Ground Truck Bay 4L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-High Bay-Med BiPin-Hang 9 Ground Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Truck Bay 6L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-High Bay-Med BiPin-Hang 27 Ground Truck Bay 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Low Bay-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Ground Storage Control 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Ground Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 12 Ground Storage 1L-8ft-LED-45W-Strip-Hang 16 Ground Truck Bay 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Ground Truck Bay 1L-8ft-LED-45W-Strip-Hang 2 Ground Hot water pump room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Womens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-12.5W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground Janitorial closet 1L-Mini-A19-Inc-60W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground Mens WR 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-40W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 5 Ground Mens WR 1L-Mini-A19-Inc-60W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Kitchen 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 Ground Dellivery Bay 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Ground Dellivery Bay 1L-8ft-LED-45W-Strip-Hang 1 Ground Storage Control 1L-8ft-LED-45W-Strip-Hang 2 2nd floor Open Office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 9 2nd floor Office 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 2nd floor Kitchen 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 2nd floor Meeting room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 2nd floor WR 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 1 Exterior Generator room 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Exterior Sign depot 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Exterior Sign depot 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-12.5W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-45W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Half CO 14 Exterior Exterior 1L-Large-LED-100W-Flood-Wall Sfc 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $3,624 18,819 $5,522 20,470 February $3,754 18,914 $5,118 18,142 March $1,026 17,714 $819 2,901 April $2,333 13,182 $2,117 12,609 May $2,352 13,228 $2,347 11,342 June $2,330 11,966 $2,103 10,099 July $2,390 11,722 $2,161 10,424 August $2,418 11,650 $2,136 10,246 September $2,193 10,512 $1,995 9,606 October $2,484 12,140 $2,322 11,377 November $3,005 14,453 $3,161 15,415 December $3,889 19,570 $3,407 16,756 Total $23,395 118,424 $30,152 163,321 $11,458 41,513 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2021 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumptio n (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $3,167 155 $3,543 281 February $2,688 138 $2,287 177 March $3,898 223 $2,308 175 April $1,261 199 $2,124 120 May $304 16 $436 19 June $86 2 $83 2 July $122 2 $209 4 August $136 3 $417 3 September $104 2 $183 1 October $653 27 $542 32 November $1,856 90 $1,455 107 December $2,778 135 $1,526 116 Total $7,297 476 $16,730 921 $8,138 633 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Kendal Community Centre 6742 Newtonville Rd, Orono, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 18 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 18 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 21 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 21 4.1 No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Electrification - Boiler ................................................................................................................ 25 4.3 Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 26 4.4 LED Lighting – Remaining Fixtures ............................................................................................. 27 4.5 Pipe Insulation ........................................................................................................................... 28 4.6 Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 29 4.7 Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 30 4.8 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 31 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 33 5.2. Identifying Measures ................................................................................................................. 33 5.3. Estimating Cost and GHGs ......................................................................................................... 33 5.4. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ...................................................... 35 5.5. Comparing Pathways ................................................................................................................. 36 5.6. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 36 5.2.1 Pathway 1 .................................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.2 Pathway 2 .................................................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 40 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 43 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 44 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 46 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 46 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 48 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 48 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 50 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Kendal Community Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently estimated to be performing 16% better than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. No heating oil utility data was provided, so consumption had to be estimated via RETScreen modeling. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 29,213 kWh/yr. 105 $6,505 0.9 Heating oil 13,661 L/yr. (est.) 530 (est.) $19,131 (est.) 37.7 (est.) Total 635 (est.) $25,636 (est.) 38.6 (est.) The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 38.6 14.6 12.1 14.7 12.6 11.6 9.6 9.3 8.3 7.1 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 Pathway 2 38.6 14.1 10.7 13.0 10.3 7.7 Grid Decarbonization 33.3 34.9 34.4 34.9 34.5 34.4 34.0 34.0 33.8 33.6 33.3 33.3 33.2 33.1 33.1 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 32.9 Baseline GHGs 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 10-yr target (-50%)19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Four ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for athway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.72 0.86 0.71 2% 0.71 2% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.61 0.60 2% 0.60 2% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.79 58.40 6.24 86% 3.48 92% ECI ($/m²) $29.07 N/A $38.96 -34% $38.96 -34% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.72 0.86 0.58 20% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.61 0.57 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.79 58.40 8.73 80% ECI ($/m²) $29.07 N/A $31.82 -9% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Heating Oil (L/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Electrification - Boiler -144,114 13,665 33.4 -$9,438 $74,924 Never -$239,270 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 11,599 0 0.3 $2,299 $29,723 11.2 $15,100 3 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 13,637 0 0.4 $2,703 $20,879 6.7 $15,859 4 Piping Insulation – DHW 6,512 0 0.2 $1,291 $693 <1 $11,405 5 Carbon Offsets - - 1.7 - $31 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Kendal Community Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity consumption data for the period of January 2023 to March 2024 o No heating fuel consumption or cost data was provided; all values were estimated o No water consumption or cost data was provided This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a comprehensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Kendal Community Centre is a single-storey, 882 m² social and meeting hall located at 6742 Newtonville Road in Orono, Ontario. Built in 1961, the facility features meeting rooms and a main hall for wedding receptions and other special events. It operates daily from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., with one full-time employee and an average of 10 or more visitors per day. Figure 2: Kendal Community Centre exterior from the east (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building features low-sloped roof with thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) type finish. The exterior walls are finished with a mix of cladding materials, including traditional red brick, concrete block and metal panels. The building has metal doors and double-paned aluminum- framed windows. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), door (top right), and window (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like at windows and doors. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building is primarily heated by an oil-powered hot water heating boiler tied to building wide cabinet radiators. Additionally, a hydronic forced-flow heater is installed in the vestibule near the building's entrance. The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Boiler 1 Mech rm Building Viessmann VD2A- 160 7160531900011105 - 628 MBH 88% Hydronic Unit Heater 1 Vestibule Vestibule Unknown Unknown - - 1/8 hp ~80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 5: Boiler (left) and hydronic cabinet heater (right) Ventilation Ventilation is managed by a make-up air (MUA) unit and an air handling unit (AHU), in combination with roof-mounted exhaust fans, to ensure proper ventilation, temperature control, and air quality. The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7 : Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency (%) AHU 1 Mech. Room Building ROTOM Canada - - 0.17 hp ~79% MUA 1 Mech. Room Main hall Delhi 212.0 2007 1.5 hp ~80% Roof-top Exhaust 4 Rooftop Building - - - 0.25 hp ~79% Exhaust Fan 1 Kitchen Kitchen - - - 0.5 hp ~79% Figure 6 Air handling unit (left) and roof-mount exhaust fan (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Hot water for the building is supplied by two dual-element electric domestic hot water (DHW) tanks service the buildings plumbing fixtures. The DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency (%) DHW Heater 2 Mech. room Building Bradford White RE240S8 NJ38231495 Unknown 3 kW 90% Figure 7: DHW 2.4. Lighting The building primarily uses fluorescent lighting, with about 28% of the fixtures upgraded to more energy-efficient LED lighting in the past 3 years. The most common fixtures are strip lights, either ceiling-hung or surface-mounted. Lighting is controlled by wall-mounted toggle switches. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 8: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9 :Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Kitchen 1 Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Kitchen 1 Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Kitchen 1 Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 Gpm Kitchen 1 Dishwasher, residential, compact 1 3.5 G/cycle Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 2 2.5 Gpm Accessible WR Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Accessible WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 Gpm WR Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 Gpm Womens WR Toilet 3 1.6 Gpf Womens WR Faucet, lavatory, public 2 2.2 Gpm Janitors Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.5 Gpm Mens WR Urinal 3 1.5 Gpf Mens WR Faucet, lavatory, public 2 2.2 Gpm Mens WR Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Post Office Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 Gpm Figure 9: Example water fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 10: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider - January 2023 to March 2024 15 months data Heating Oil No data - - Not available Water No data Well System - Well System 3.1. Historical Data Utility consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity consumption in January 2023 was significantly higher than the typical monthly usage based on the provided data. The cause of this spike is unknown, but it is assumed to be a billing anomaly or correction rather than an accurate reflection of actual consumption for that month. Additionally, with only fifteen months of utility data available, identifying seasonal or recurring trends is challenging. More utility data would be required to confirm or reject this as a recurring trend. Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. For heating oil, no utility data was provided, for the sake of GHG reduction calculation, consumption rates were calculated via RETScreen modeling. These results are presented in the table below. Table 11: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 29,213 kWh/yr. 105 $6,505 0.9 Heating oil 13,661 L/yr. (est) 530 (est.) $19,131 (est.) 37.7 (est.) Total - 635 (est.) $25,636 (est.) 38.6 (est.) Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 12 : Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Heating Oil 71.21 kg CO₂e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate is typically used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate represents only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission, distribution, or delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. A marginal utility rate is estimated using a linear regression analysis. This analysis assesses the statistical relationship between cost and consumption to differentiate between fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Typically, only the most recent 12 months of utility data are used in this analysis to ensure that the marginal rate accurately reflects current pricing. Table 13: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $714.18/yr. $0.20/kWh Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. The benchmarks are calculated with the full energy use within the average building they represent. Due to the provided utility data for Kendal Community Centre including only a subset of on-site energy use (i.e., the data not including heating fuel and water consumption), comparing the calculated baseline and the benchmarks is not a like -for-like comparison and therefore not suitable for claims related to overall building performance. Table 14: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline* Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 0.72 0.86 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 43.79 58.40 ECI ($/m2) 29.07 N/A * Note that the presented baseline values for EUI, GHGI, and ECI do not cover the normal scope of these indicators and thus cannot be directly compared against the presented benchmarks. 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The Plug Loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity in the building. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 11: Electricity end uses Heating Oil All heating oil consumption is attributed solely to the heating oil boiler. Figure 12: Heating oil end use Lighting 71% Domestic Hot Water 13% Space Heating 7% Ventilation 6% Plug Loads 3% Space Heating 100% Space Heating Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. Figure 13: Water end use Faucet, lavatory 33% Toilet 24% Urinal 23% Pre-rinse spray valve 10% Dishwasher, residential 8% Faucet, kitchen 2% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.1 No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption . Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4.2 Electrification - Boiler Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, heating oil consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than heating oil, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than heating oil. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from heating oil to an electric boiler. Project Cost: $74,924 Annual Electricity Savings: -144,114 kWh/yr. Annual Heating Oil Savings: 13,665 L/yr. Total Energy Savings: 11 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$9,438 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 33.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 836 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$239,720 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 88.1 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 1 electric boiler of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a fuel-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 4.3 Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Kendal Community Centre building could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to available flat roof space with minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $29,723 Annual Electricity Savings: 11,599 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,299 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$244 Simple Payback: 11.2 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $15,100 Internal Rate of Return: 9% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 22% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 10 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.4 LED Lighting – Remaining Fixtures Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of metal halide, halogen, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $20,879 Annual Electricity Savings: 13,637 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,703 Simple Payback: 6.7 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 6 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $15,859 Internal Rate of Return: 14% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.5 Pipe Insulation Adding insulation to exposed hot piping reduces heat loss from the fluid to the environment as it travels through the piping. By reducing heat loss within the system, the return fluid will be at a higher temperature, reducing the load on heating equipment. Consequently, the energy consumption will be reduced. This ECM explores adding insulation to exposed piping in the mechanical room for the domestic hot water system. Project Cost: $693 Annual Electricity Savings: 6,512 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,291 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$7 Simple Payback: <1 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $11,405 Internal Rate of Return: 197% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated electricity savings are calculated based on the difference between the existing heat loss from the uninsulated piping and the theoretical heat loss after an insulating layer has been added to the hot bare piping. These calculations are based on several assumptions such as room and fluid temperatures, piping material, wind factor, piping diameter, and the total length of uninsulated piping. Actual savings will depend on the real value of those variables, as well as insulation thickness and material selection. • The project cost was sourced from vendors and includes materials and labour for adding insulation to a total 23 feet of piping. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a site visit by a qualified technician to assess piping layouts. SPG can assist with this Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.6 Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. This ECM is an additional consideration due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $24,557 Annual Electricity Savings: 169 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $33 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$23,856 Internal Rate of Return: -15% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings estimates were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for faucets. Estimated water savings are not shown in table since water data was not available. • Electricity savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 6 toilets, 3 urinals, and 12 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.7 Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 15: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8 Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Kendal Community Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.2. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.3. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.4. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 5.5. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.6. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 17: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Heating Oil (L/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Electrification - Boiler -144,114 13,665 33.4 -$9,438 $74,924 Never -$239,270 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 11,599 0 0.3 $2,299 $29,723 11.2 $15,100 3 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 13,637 0 0.4 $2,703 $20,879 6.7 $15,859 4 Piping Insulation – DHW 6,512 0 0.2 $1,291 $693 <1 $11,405 5 Carbon Offsets - - 1.7 - $31 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 Table 18: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $31 1.7 5.2.1 Pathway 1 Table 19: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.72 0.86 0.71 2% 0.71 2% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.61 0.60 2% 0.60 2% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.79 58.40 6.24 86% 3.48 92% ECI ($/m²) $29.07 N/A $38.96 -34% $38.96 -34% Table 20: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 - 2044 Electrification - Boiler $74,924 Total cost ($) $74,924 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Figure 14: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 38.6 14.6 12.1 14.7 12.6 11.6 9.6 9.3 8.3 7.1 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 Baseline GHGs 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 10-yr target (-50%)19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 20-yr target (-80%)7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.2.2 Pathway 2 Table 21: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.72 0.86 0.58 20% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.61 0.57 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.79 58.40 8.73 80% ECI ($/m²) $29.07 N/A $31.82 -9% Table 22: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Electrification – Boiler $74,924 Rooftop Solar PV $29,723 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $20,879 Piping Insulation - DHW $693 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $31 Total ($) $75,617 $20,879 $- $29,723 $31 Figure 15: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 38.6 14.1 10.7 13.0 10.3 7.7 Baseline GHGs 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 5-yr target (-80%)7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.3 Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 23: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 144,114 - 112,366 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 530 530 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 36 31 GHG Emission reduction (%) 92% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.040 0.035 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 74,924 $126,251 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 492 $2,226 Net present value ($) -$210,496 -$155,128 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 16: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $57.4K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $74.9K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $75.6K $20.9K $0 $29.7K $31 $0 $10.0K $20.0K $30.0K $40.0K $50.0K $60.0K $70.0K $80.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 17: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 38.6 14.6 12.1 14.7 12.6 11.6 9.6 9.3 8.3 7.1 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 Pathway 2 38.6 14.1 10.7 13.0 10.3 7.7 Grid Decarbonization 33.3 34.9 34.4 34.9 34.5 34.4 34.0 34.0 33.8 33.6 33.3 33.3 33.2 33.1 33.1 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 32.9 Baseline GHGs 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 10-yr target (-50%)19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 24: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boiler Electrification $74,924 $57,441 $17,483 Total Pathway 1 $74,924 $57,441 $17,483 Rooftop Solar PV $29,723 N/A $29,723 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $20,879 N/A $20,879 Piping Insulation - DHW $693 N/A $693 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $31 N/A $31 Total Pathway 2 $126,251 $57,441 $68,810 Table 25: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 144,114 - 112,366 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 530 530 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 36 31 GHG Emission reduction (%) 92% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.040 0.035 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $17,483 $ 68,810 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 492 $2,226 Incremental Net present value ($) -$153,055 -$ 97,687 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 27% and 37% reduction in NPV for Pathway 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of ensuring electrical service capacity and electrifying equipment, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV may require careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Opportunities Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or equipment electrification, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or equipment electrification over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the ti me of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 26: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Kendal Community Centre Library room 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Kendal Community Centre Mechanical room 1L-CFL-23W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 Kendal Community Centre Kitchen 1 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 8 Kendal Community Centre Kitchen 1 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 Kendal Community Centre Kitchen 2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 Kendal Community Centre Lions den 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Kendal Community Centre Lions den 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 Kendal Community Centre Gymnasium 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Cage 30 Kendal Community Centre Stage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 12 Kendal Community Centre Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 11 Kendal Community Centre Accessible WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 Kendal Community Centre Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Kendal Community Centre Womens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Kendal Community Centre Janitors room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Kendal Community Centre Mens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Kendal Community Centre Storage 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Kendal Community Centre Storage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 Kendal Community Centre Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 Kendal Community Centre AHU level 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 Post Office Post office 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 1 Exterior Entrance 1L-Large-MH-100W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 1 Exterior Exterior 2L-PAR38-Hal-80W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Kendal Community Centre Library room 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Exterior Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 3 Kendal Community Centre Library room 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Kendal Community Centre Mechanical room 1L-CFL-23W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 Kendal Community Centre Kitchen 1 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 8 Kendal Community Centre Kitchen 1 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 Kendal Community Centre Kitchen 2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 4 Kendal Community Centre Lions Den 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Kendal Community Centre Lions Den 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 Kendal Community Centre Gymnasium 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Cage 30 Kendal Community Centre Stage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 12 Kendal Community Centre Hallway 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 11 Kendal Community Centre Accessible WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 2 Kendal Community Centre Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Kendal Community Centre Womens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Kendal Community Centre Janitors Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Kendal Community Centre Mens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Wrap 2 Kendal Community Centre Storage 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 9 Kendal Community Centre Storage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 5 Kendal Community Centre Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 Kendal Community Centre AHU level 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc 1 Post Office Post office 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang 1 Exterior Entrance 1L-Large-MH-100W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 1 Exterior Exterior 2L-PAR38-Hal-80W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-Mini-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 27: Electricity utility data 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $2,470 8,912 $602 2,701 February $523 2,342 $491 2,154 March $589 2,727 $481 2,067 April $582 2,662 - - May $440 1,896 - - June $461 2,043 - - July $414 1,786 - - August $391 1,682 - - September $482 2,144 - - October $539 2,441 - - November $431 1,899 - - December $492 2,208 - - Total $7,812 32,742 $1,575 6,922 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Municipal Administration Centre 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Key Contacts .............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 18 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 22 2.7. Building Automation System ..................................................................................................... 22 2.8. Humidifiers ................................................................................................................................ 23 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 24 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 24 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 27 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 28 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 31 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 31 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 33 4.3. Rooftop Solar PV ........................................................................................................................ 35 4.4. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures............................................................................................ 35 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 37 4.6. Existing Building Recommissioning ........................................................................................... 38 4.7. High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade ................................................................................................. 40 4.8. Electrification – Boilers (Space Heating) .................................................................................... 41 4.9. Electrification – Domestic Hot Water ........................................................................................ 42 4.10. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 43 4.11. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 44 4.12. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 45 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 47 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 47 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 47 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 47 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 49 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 49 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 50 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 51 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 54 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 57 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 58 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 61 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 61 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 63 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 63 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 72 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Municipal Administration Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 7% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 1,136,721 kWh/yr. 4,092 $181,270 34.1 Natural Gas 3,504 GJ/yr. 3,504 $61,013 174.2 Water 2,073 m³/yr. $2,073 0.1 Total 7,596 $244,356 208.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 208.3 251.5 235.4 171.8 138.1 127.4 107.4 104.5 95.0 82.6 66.9 62.1 58.3 55.3 52.0 48.8 47.4 45.9 44.6 43.5 42.0 Pathway 2 208.3 251.5 235.4 171.8 134.2 41.8 Grid Decarbonization 208.3 270.2 253.5 270.7 257.1 250.1 236.9 234.9 228.7 220.5 210.2 207.0 204.5 202.5 200.8 198.7 197.8 196.7 196.2 195.4 194.4 Baseline GHGs 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 10-yr target (-50%)104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Seven ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.93 0.87 0.90 3% 0.87 7% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.44 18% 0.43 20% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.49 33.20 8.18 68% 5.13 80% ECI ($/m²) $29.64 N/A $39.40 -33% $38.91 -31% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.93 0.87 0.77 17% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.43 20% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.49 33.20 5.12 80% ECI ($/m²) $29.64 N/A $34.91 -18% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers - Electrification -820,329 3,207 134.9 -$82,467 $309,773 Never - $1,900,429 2 Hydronic Heating Additive 257 12.8 $4,047 $15,413 3.2 $19,335 3 Rooftop Solar PV 31,013 - 0.9 $5,030 $79,067 13.4 $16,376 4 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 53,665 - 1.6 $8,704 $69,965 7.0 $47,676 5 Existing Building Recommissioning 26,713 215 11.5 $7,729 $80,645 8.3 -$41,565 6 High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade 22,355 0.7 $3,626 $419,625 >50 -$356,855 7 DHW Heaters - Electrification -11,752 48 2.0 -$1,155 $99,342 Never -$113,546 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 82.0 - $1,476 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Municipal Administrative Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2. Building and Systems The Municipal Administrative Centre is a three-storey, 8,175 m² office located at 40 Temperance Street in Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1870. Additions to the building were added in 1988 and 2001. The building mainly consists of office space, a meeting hall, and a public library. The mechanical room is located on the penthouse floor. The building is occupied by over 50 full-time employees daily, with general hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 4:30 PM. Figure 2: Exterior of Municipal Administrative Centre from east (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The original building features a pitched roof covered with asphalt shingles. The newer additions have flat roofs with a modified bitumen roofing system. The exterior walls are finished with red bricks. The exterior doors are metal. The original building has double-pane vinyl windows, while the additions feature double-pane aluminum windows. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 3: Sloped asphalt and modified bitumen roofing (top), window (bottom left), and exterior door (bottom right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like at windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the t hermal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building is primarily heated by natural gas boiler systems, which work in conjunction with pumps and air handling units to distribute heat throughout the facility. Electric unit heaters are also installed in various locations to regulate temperatures in specific zones. The system is controlled by a building automation system (BAS). The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Boiler 2 Original Building (L4) Original Building Lochinvar PBN0752 750,000 btu/h 85% Boiler 2 Addition Mech. Room Additions LAARS HH 0850 IN 11 K 1 C C UH 38,000 btu/h 80% Boiler Pump 2 Original Building (L4) Hydronic Loop Bell & Gosset - ½ hp 80% Primary Pump 2 Original Building (L4) Hydronic Loop Armstrong 4001516-268 2 hp 80% Primary Pump 2 Addition Mech. Room Hydronic Loop WEG - 5 hp 84% Unit heater 1 L1 library vestibule L1 library vestibule Stelpro - 2 kW 100% Hydronic unit heater 3 Specific zones Specific zones - - 1/2 hp 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 5: Boilers (top) and unit heaters (bottom) Space Cooling Space cooling for the building is primarily provided by the chiller systems, which generate chilled water to remove heat, in conjunction with air handling units that use this chilled water to cool and distribute air throughout the building. Additionally, air conditioning units are installed in specific zones for localized cooling. The system is controlled by a building automation system (BAS). The cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Chiller 1 Original Building Rooftop Original Building York YLAA0080SE58 25 Ton 2.93 COP Chiller 1 Addition Mech. Room Additions Trane RTWA1005YE 01C3DOWFNTH 100 Ton 4.22 COP Cooling Tower 1 Addition Rooftop Additions BAC VTL-092-L 15 hp 86% Minisplit Heat Pump 2 Addition Rooftop Addition Server Room Mitsubishi PUY-A30NHA4 2.5 Ton 3.68 COP Condenser Pump 2 Addition Mech. Room Cooling Loop Bell & Gosset 80-BF 4X7 5 hp 84% Chilled Water Pumps 2 Addition Mech. Room Cooling Loop Bell & Gosset 80SC-BF 7.5 hp 84% Figure 6: Chiller (left), air conditioning units (right) Ventilation Ventilation is managed by air handling units (AHUs), which distribute air throughout the building via ducting. The system, along with a heat recovery unit (HRU) in the new building, is controlled by a building automation system (BAS). The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Air Handling Unit 1 SF 1 Original Building L4 Original Building Trane 22-1/ 4MP-HF- BVU 15 hp 86% Air Handling Unit 1 RF 1 Original Building Rooftop Original Building Trane 22-1/ 4MP-HF- BVU 10 hp 92% Air Handling Unit 2 RF 1 Original Building Rooftop Original Building Trane - 10 hp 92% Air Handling Unit SF 1 Mezz. Level Mech. Room Library Trane MCCA014AJ 10 hp 86% Air Handling Unit 2 SF 1 Original Building L4 Original Building Trane - 15 hp 86% Heat Recovery Unit 1 Addition Mech. Penthouse Additions Unknow n - 10 hp 86% Exhaust fan 1 Original Building rooftop Original Building Penn - 3/4 hp 80% Figure 7: Roof mounted exhaust fan (left) and air handling unit (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Natural gas hot water heaters located in the east and west buildings provide hot water for the facility. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Original Building Rooftop Original Building Rheem XG40S06EC38B0 38 MBH 80% DHW Heater 2 Addition Mech Penthouse Additions Rheem G82-156 156 MBH 80% Figure 8: Natural gas water heaters 2.4. Lighting The building’s lighting systems were retrofitted between 2020 and 2021. LED lighting represents 63% of the building’s fixtures, while the remaining 37% of fixtures had fluorescent lamps. The most common type of fixture was a recessed troffer. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate 2001 - Penthouse Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM 2001 – Level 4 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM 2001 – Level 4 Library Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM 2001 – Level 4 Library Dishwasher, residential, standard 1 5.0 G/cycle 2001 - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 GPM 1988 – Level 3 Men’s Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 2 2.0 GPM 1988 – Level 3 Men’s Washroom Toilet 2 1.0 GPF 1988 – Level 3 Men’s Washroom Urinal 1 1.0 GPF 1988 – Level 3 Janitor Room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate 1988 – Level 3 Women’s Washroom Toilet 3 1.6 GPF 1988 – Level 3 Women’s Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 GPM 1988 – Level 3 Meeting Room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 GPM 1988 – Level 3 Meeting Room Dishwasher, residential, standard 1 5.0 G/cycle 1988 – Room 357 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM 1988 – Room 357 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM 1988 - Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 GPM 1988 - Hallway Fountain 1 0.0 GPM original - Hallway Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 GPM 1988 - Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 8 0.5 GPM 1988 - Washroom Toilet 8 1.3 GPF 1988 – Level 3 Janitor Room Faucet, lavatory, public 4 1.5 GPM 1988 – Level 2 Council Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM 1988 – Level 2 CAOs Office Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM 1988 – Level 2 CAOs Office Dishwasher, residential, standard 1 5.0 G/cycle 1988 – Level 2 CAOs Office Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.0 GPM 1988 – Level 2 CAOs Office Toilet 1 1.3 GPF 1988 – Level 1 Tax Toilet 1 1.3 GPF 1988 – Level 1 Tax Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM 1988 – Level 1 Tax Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 GPM 1988 – Level 1 Meeting Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM 1988 – Level 1 Meeting Room Toilet 1 1.3 GPF 1988 – Level 1 Meeting Room Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.0 GPM 1988 – Level 1 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM Original Building – Level 1 Meeting Room Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 GPM Original Building – Level 1 Meeting Room Dishwasher, residential, standard 1 5.0 G/cycle Original Building - Permits Office Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM Original Building - Basement Maintenance Faucet, kitchen 1 1.8 GPM Original Building - Basement Maintenance Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM 1988 - Staff Room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 GPM Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate 2001 - Basement Shop Clothes washer 1 30.2 G/cycle 2001 - Basement Shop Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM Library - Universal Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 0.5 GPM Library - Universal Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Library - Staff Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 GPM Library - Staff Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Library - Men’s Washroom - Mezzanine Toilet 1 1.6 GPF Library - Men’s Washroom - Mezzanine Urinal 2 1.0 GPF Library - Men’s Washroom - Mezzanine Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 GPM Library - Women’s Washroom - Mezzanine Toilet 3 1.6 GPF Library - Women’s Washroom - Mezzanine Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 GPM Figure 10: Example water fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 97014657-00 Electrical Room Submeter Electricity 97014725-00 Unknown Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65216 3 Exterior Whole Building Water 50399100000 Boiler Room 2.7. Building Automation System The building is equipped with a building automation system (BAS) that monitors and controls various components of the building's HVAC system, including air handling units (AHUs), boilers, chillers, and fan coil units (FCUs). It regulates parameters such as supply and return air temperatures, humidity levels, and fan speeds throughout the building. The BAS also manages the hot water system by monitoring supply and return water temperatures and controlling boiler operation. It oversees the operation of the heat recovery unit (HRU), as well as the chilled water system, including the chiller and cooling tower. Other functions, such as lighting and smoke exhaust fans, are also integrated into the system. Additionally, the BAS is equipped to adjust heating and cooling setpoints for individual spaces via fan coil units, based on occupancy. Figure 11: Building automation system controlling hot water Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 2.8. Humidifiers The building is equipped with humidifiers to ensure that indoor humidity levels remain balanced, which helps improve occupant comfort, protect materials, enhance air quality, and potentially increase energy efficiency. These humidifiers play a crucial role in preventing overly dry indoor air as the heating systems operate during the heating season. The humid ifiers are catalogued in the table below. Table 12: Humidifiers Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Humidifier 2 Electrical Rm Original Building Condair EL DUCT 75/550- 600/3 21.3 kW 70% Humidifier 1 Addition Mech Rm Addition Nortec GHMC 200 N 238,000 btu/h 80% Figure 12: Humidifier Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 to December 2023 Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 to December 2023 Water Monthly utility bills from utility provider Region of Durham March 2022 to December 2023 3.1. Historical Data Utility consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 to December 2023. There was a 24% increase in electricity consumption during the months of March to December in 2023 relative to 2022. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and increased lighting requirements over the winter. Figure 13: Electricity consumption over time 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Natural gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 to December 2023. There was a 21% increase in natural gas consumption between the months of March to December in 2023 relative to the data collected in 2022. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption observed in the winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads over the heating season. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from March 2022 to December 2023. Figure 14: Natural gas consumption over time Water Water usage data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 to December 2023. Significant fluctuations were observed in water consumption throughout 2022. There was an observed rise in water consumption during July and August, likely due to increased cooling demands in the summer. However, other months displayed unexpected variations, such as a significant decrease between August and September in 2022. The absence of data for January, February, and October 2022 further complicates the analysis, making it difficult to determine if these fluctuations are part of a larger trend. Water consumption throughout 2023 appeared more consistent. However, a comprehensive dataset would be required to accurately assess overall water usage patterns and to identify potential inefficiencies. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Figure 15: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 1,136,721 kWh/yr. 4,092 $181,270 34.1 Natural Gas 3,504 GJ/yr. 3,504 $61,013 174.2 Water 2,073 m³/yr. $2,073 0.1 Total 7,596 $244,356 208.4 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Water 0.038 kg CO₂e/m³ Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 0 50 100 150 200 250 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type, representing only the consumption-variable utility charges. These charges may include consumption costs, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery fees, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate specifically excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. The marginal utility rates were estimated through linear regression analysis, which assessed the statistical relationship between cost and consumption to differentiate between fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Typically, only the most recent 12 months of utility data are included in this analysis to ensure that the marginal rate reflects current pricing accurately. For electricity and water, neither marginal nor fixed utility rates could be determined through regression analysis. Therefore, a standard 12-month average rate was utilized instead. The fixed, marginal and 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.16/kWh Natural Gas $4,536.27/yr. $15.77/GJ - Water - - $8.76 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. The Municipal Administrative Centre's performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for offices. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline* Benchmark EUI (GJ/m²) 0.93 0.87 GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.49 33.20 ECI ($/m²) 29.64 N/A WUI (m³/m²) 0.25 N/A 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses considering factors such as equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and both baseload and variable consumption. The Plug Loads end use was estimated based on the differenc e between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The ‘mechanical’ category includes humidifiers and laundry machines. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. Mechanical and cooling equipment consume the most electricity in the building. Figure 16: Electricity end uses Mechanical 27% Cooling Equipment 26% Ventilation 22% Lighting 12% Plug Loads 8% Space Heating 5% Domestic Hot Water 0% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and both utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system accounts for 92% of the building's natural gas consumption, with 7% attributed to the humidifier and 1% to hot water heating. Figure 17: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The cooling tower uses most of the water in the building, while the residential appliances and kitchen faucets use a marginal percentage of overall water consumption. Space Heating 92% Humidifer 7% Domestic Hot Water 1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Figure 18: Water end uses Cooling Tower 41% Toilet 22% Urinal 19% Faucet, lavatory 15% Faucet, kitchen… Clothes washer, residential 1% Dishwasher, residential 1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals . A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or oth er costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utility rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.3. Rooftop Solar PV A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Municipal Administrative Centre building may be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to some areas of available flat roof with southwestern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $79,067 Annual Electricity Savings: 31,013 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $5,030 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$660 Simple Payback: 13.4 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 23 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $16,376 Internal Rate of Return: 7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 22% de -rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a total 27 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. 4.4. LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 7.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory Project Cost: $69,965 Annual Electricity Savings: 53,665 kWh/yr. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Annual Utility Cost Savings: $8,704 Simple Payback: 7.0 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 24 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $47,676 Internal Rate of Return: 13% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal contact between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at the Municipal Administrative Centre. Project Cost: $15,413 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 257 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 257 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,047 Simple Payback: 3.2 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 12.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 102 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $19,335 Internal Rate of Return: 28% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes combined total of 13 gallons of additive, appropriate for two separate boiler loops. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing both the heating additive and boiler electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 4.6. Existing Building Recommissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems. The result hampers optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunities to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the buildi ng automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interactions and run times. Project Cost: $80,645 Annual Electricity Savings: 26,713 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 215 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 311 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $7,729 Simple Payback: 8.3 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 11.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 58 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$41,565 Internal Rate of Return: -16% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for large office-type buildings with an average size of 232,281ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $(0.27)/ft2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 4.5% and 13%, respectively. For the calculation, 2% electricity savings and 7% natural gas savings were used. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 4.7. High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade This ECM explores replacing the existing chiller with a high -efficiency model to reduce electricity consumption. Project Cost: $419,625 Annual Electricity Savings: 22,355 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,626 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 13 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$356,855 Internal Rate of Return: -10% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated electricity savings are based on the difference in coefficients of performances (COP) between the existing and new models. The existing models have an estimated COP of 293% and 422%, respectively, while the proposed models are 299% and 489% efficient, respectively. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new chillers, and related duct and electrical work. • This ECM will require a design phase to confirm system suitability. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new chiller unit is properly sized for the building’s cooling requirements • Ensure compatibility with the existing Building Automation System (BAS) • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 4.8. Electrification – Boilers (Space Heating) In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers. Project Cost: $309,773 Annual Electricity Savings: -820,329 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 3,207 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 254 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$82,467 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 134.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 3,372 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,900,429 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the systems from 85% and 81% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 4 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 4.9. Electrification – Domestic Hot Water In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric hot water heaters. Project Cost: $99,342 Annual Electricity Savings: -11,752 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 48 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 5 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$1,155 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 30 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$113,546 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 3 electric hot water heaters of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 4.10. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. This ECM is an additional consideration due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $30,956 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 4 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 115 m³/yr. Total Energy Savings: 4 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,072 Simple Payback: 19.6 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 5 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$8,456 Internal Rate of Return: 2% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 9 toilets, 3 urinals, and 13 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. • Implementing low-flow water fixtures reduces overall hot water demand, which complements DHW electrification by lowering energy consumption and improving system efficiency Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 4.11. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.12. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Municipal Administrative Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 19: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘addit ional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 20: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers - Electrification -820,329 3,207 134.9 -$82,467 $309,773 Never - $1,900,429 2 Hydronic Heating Additive 257 12.8 $4,047 $15,413 3.2 $19,335 3 Rooftop Solar PV 31,013 - 0.9 $5,030 $79,067 13.4 $16,376 4 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 53,665 - 1.6 $8,704 $69,965 7.0 $47,676 5 Existing Building Recommissioning 26,713 215 11.5 $7,729 $80,645 8.3 -$41,565 6 High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade 22,355 0.7 $3,626 $419,625 >50 -$356,855 7 DHW Heaters - Electrification -11,752 48 2.0 -$1,155 $99,342 Never -$113,546 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 8 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - 82.0 - $1,476 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offsets to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Table 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $1,476 82.0 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 22: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.93 0.87 0.90 3% 0.87 7% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.44 18% 0.43 20% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.49 33.20 8.18 68% 5.13 80% ECI ($/m²) $29.64 N/A $39.40 -33% $38.91 -31% Table 23: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 - 2037 2038 2039-2041 2042 Electrification - Boilers $309,773 Electrification – DHW Heaters $99,342 Existing Building Commissioning $80,645 High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade Hydronic Heating Additive $15,413 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $69,965 Rooftop Solar PV $79,067 $419,625 Total ($) $184,719 $- $309,773 $80,645 $- $76,067 $- $419,625 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 208.3 251.5 235.4 171.8 138.1 127.4 107.4 104.5 95.0 82.6 66.9 62.1 58.3 55.3 52.0 48.8 47.4 45.9 44.6 43.5 42.0 Baseline GHGs 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 10-yr target (-50%)104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 20-yr target (-80%)41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 24: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.93 0.87 0.77 17% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.55 0.44 20% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.49 33.20 5.12 80% ECI ($/m²) $29.64 N/A $34.91 -18% Table 25: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Electrification - Boilers $309,773 Electrification – Domestic Water Heaters $99,342 Existing Building Commissioning $80,645 High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade $419,625 Hydronic Heating Additive $15,413 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $69,965 Rooftop Solar PV $79,067 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $1,476 Total ($) $184,719 $0 $309,773 $579,336 $1,476 Figure 20: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 208.3 251.5 235.4 171.8 134.2 41.8 Baseline GHGs 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 5-yr target (-80%)41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 26: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 8 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 534,496 - 534,496 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 3,255 3,255 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 166 166 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.020 0.020 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 1,073,828 $ 1,075,304 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 4,546 $4,552 Net present value ($) -$1,576,966 -$1,576,968 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. For example, some measures which had >1tCO2e reduction in the year 2044 did not meet that criterium in 2029, which means that they were selected for Pathway 1, but not Pathway 2. In addition, since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 Figure 21: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $17.7K $0 $259.9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39.8K $0 Pathway 1 $184.7 $0 $309.8 $80.6K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79.1K $0 $0 $0 $419.6 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $184.7 $0 $309.8 $579.3 $1.5K $0 $100.0K $200.0K $300.0K $400.0K $500.0K $600.0K $700.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 Figure 22: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 208.3 251.5 235.4 171.8 138.1 127.4 107.4 104.5 95.0 82.6 66.9 62.1 58.3 55.3 52.0 48.8 47.4 45.9 44.6 43.5 42.0 Pathway 2 208.3 251.5 235.4 171.8 134.2 41.8 Grid Decarbonization 208.3 270.2 253.5 270.7 257.1 250.1 236.9 234.9 228.7 220.5 210.2 207.0 204.5 202.5 200.8 198.7 197.8 196.7 196.2 195.4 194.4 Baseline GHGs 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 208.3 10-yr target (-50%)104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 104.2 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 - 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 27: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) High-Efficiency Chiller Upgrade $419,625 $39,775 $379,850 Boilers - Electrification (All) $309,773 $259,926 $49,847 Rooftop Solar PV $79,067 N/A $79,067 DHW Heaters - Electrification $99,342 $17,742 $81,600 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $80,645 N/A $80,645 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $69,965 N/A $69,965 Hydronic Heating Additive $15,413 N/A $15,413 Total Pathway 1 $1,073,828 $317,443 $756,385 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $1,476 N/A $1,476 Total Pathway 2 $1,075,304 $317,443 $757,861 Table 28: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 7 8 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 534,496 - 534,496 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 3,255 3,255 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 166 166 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.020 0.020 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 756,385 $ 757,861 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 4,546 $ 4,552 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 1,259,523 -$ 1,260,999 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 20% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Energy Efficiency: Electrified boilers are typically more energy-efficient compared to traditional gas-fired systems, reducing energy consumption and operational costs. Increased System Longevity: Electric water heaters often experience less wear and tear than traditional systems, extending their operational lifespan. Renewable Energy Source: Solar PV systems generate clean, renewable energy, reducing reliance on grid electricity and lowering utility bills. Enhanced Lighting Quality: LED lights provide bright, uniform illumination, improving occupant comfort and productivity. Optimized Performance: Existing building commissioning ensures building systems operate efficiently by addressing operational inefficiencies, improving overall energy performance. Improved Reliability: Modern chillers are more reliable, with advanced controls that enhance operational stability. Improved Heat Transfer: Hydronic heating additives enhance the efficiency of hydronic heating systems, reducing energy usage for heating. Weaknesses High Initial Investment: Electrification of boilers can require significant upfront capital, including potential electrical system upgrades. Retrofit Challenges: Upgrading older buildings to electric systems may involve extensive retrofits, increasing project complexity and cost. Weather Dependence: Solar PV efficiency varies with weather conditions, potentially impacting energy savings during low-sunlight periods. Retrofitting Challenges: Upgrading older fixtures to accommodate LEDs may require additional modifications, increasing initial expenses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 59 Limited Impact Without Maintenance: Ongoing maintenance is required to sustain performance improvements realized during existing building commissioning. Compatibility Issues: Integrating new chillers with existing systems may present challenges, necessitating additional upgrades. Specialized Expertise Required: Proper application and maintenance of additives may require specialized knowledge, increasing operational complexity. Opportunities Integration with Renewable Energy: Pairing electric boilers and domestic hot water systems with solar PV systems creates an opportunity for low-cost, sustainable space and water heating. Improved Regulatory Compliance: Electrification helps meet emerging energy codes and standards targeting decarbonization. Revenue Generation: Excess solar energy can be sold back to the grid in regions with net metering policies. Smart Lighting Integration: LEDs are compatible with smart lighting systems, allowing for advanced controls and further energy savings. Post-Building Commissioning Savings: Identified inefficiencies often lead to substantial cost and energy savings over time. Emerging Technologies: Innovations in chiller technology, such as magnetic bearing compressors, offer potential for even greater efficiency gains. Wider Adoption Potential: Increasing awareness of hydronic heating additives may lead to broader adoption across industries. Threats Electricity Price Volatility: Rising or unpredictable electricity rates could diminish the cost savings of electrified systems. Stakeholder Resistance: Some stakeholders may prefer traditional systems due to familiarity or perceived reliability. Policy Uncertainty: Changes in government policies or incentives for solar energy could impact project economics. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 60 Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in LED technology could make existing installations outdated quickly. Operational Resistance: Staff or management may resist adopting changes recommended through the building commissioning process. Maintenance Complexity: High-efficiency chillers may require specialized maintenance, increasing operational dependency on skilled technicians. Unpredictable Performance: Variability in additive effectiveness due to differing system conditions may limit perceived benefits. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 61 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current onl y at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 62 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 63 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 29: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty Ground Meeting Room 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 12 4th floor Mechanical Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 12 4th floor Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 8 4th floor Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 1 Penthouse Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 20 Penthouse Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Penthouse Chiller room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 4th floor Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 4th floor Elevator 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 4th floor Janitor 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 4th floor 406 Library Administration 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 4th floor 406 Library Administration 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 4th floor 406 Library Administration 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 4th floor 420 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 4th floor 420 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 4th floor Kitchen 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 4th floor 421 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 12 4th floor 421 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 4th floor 423 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 7 4th floor 423 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 4th floor 434 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 4th floor 434 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 43 4th floor 434 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 5 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 20 3rd floor 313 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 4 3rd floor 312 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 3 3rd floor 311 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 3 3rd floor 310 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 4 3rd floor Reception 1L-4ft-LED-15W-Strip-Hang 4 3rd floor Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 18 3rd floor Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 22 3rd floor Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 35 3rd floor Hallway 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 33 3rd floor Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 10 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 64 Section Room Fixture Qty 3rd floor Hallway 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 18 3rd floor Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 64 3rd floor Hallway 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 18 3rd floor Meeting Room 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 9 3rd floor Men’s Washrooms 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 4 3rd floor Men’s Washrooms 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 3rd floor Janitor 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 2 3rd floor Women’s Washrooms 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 4 3rd floor Women’s Washrooms 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 3rd floor Meeting Room 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 16 3rd floor Office 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 10 3rd floor Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 3 3rd floor Office 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 6 3rd floor Kitchen 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 3rd floor Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 5 3rd floor Office 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 5 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 2nd Council Chambers 1L-8in-PAR30-LED-25W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 12 2nd Council Chambers 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 2nd Council Chambers 1L-8in-PAR30-LED-25W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 47 2nd Council Chambers 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 6 2nd Council Chambers 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 9 2nd Council Chambers 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 5 2nd Council Chambers 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 4 2nd Council Chambers 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 2nd Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 2nd Mayor’s office 1L-5in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs-Square 16 2nd Mayor’s office 1L-6ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 1 2nd Mayor’s office 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 28 2nd Mayor’s office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 26 2nd CAOs Office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 17 2nd CAOs Office 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 18 2nd CAOs Washroom 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 2nd CAOs Office 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 2nd Meeting Room 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 2nd CAOs Office 1L-5in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs-Square 7 2nd CAOs Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 2nd CAOs Office 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 65 Section Room Fixture Qty 2nd Multi-faith Room 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 5 Ground Tax 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 6 Ground Tax 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 11 Ground Tax 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 2 Ground Tax 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 56 Ground Tax 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 6 Ground Tax 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 2 Ground Meeting Room 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 6 Ground Meeting Room 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 15 Ground Meeting Room Washroom 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 1 Ground Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 3 Ground Office 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 Ground Meeting Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 12 Ground Meeting Room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 5 Ground Meeting Room 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 10 Ground Permits Office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 8 Ground Permits Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 16 Ground Permits Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 2 Ground Permits Office 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 8 Ground Permits Office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Permits Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 Ground Permits Office 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 21 Ground Open Meeting Rooms 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 8 Ground Open Meeting Rooms 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 10 Ground Wood Staircase 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 7 Basement Maintenance Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 10 Basement Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 5 Basement Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 5 Basement Union's Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Basement Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 5 Basement Electrical Room 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 4 Basement File Storage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 36 Basement Elevator Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Basement Law Enforcement Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 66 Section Room Fixture Qty Basement Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 12 Basement Sick Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Staff Room 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 13 Basement Sprinkler Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 8 Basement Shop 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 15 Basement Elevator Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Basement Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 Ground Lobby 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 15 Ground Lobby 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 24 Ground Lobby 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 10 2nd Lobby 1L-Large-HPS-175W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Val 8 Ground Lobby 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Val 3 Ground Hallway 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Val 16 Ground Vestibule 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Vestibule 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 2 2nd Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 14 All Stairs 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 17 3rd floor Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 11 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 All Stairs 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 11 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 17 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-25W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 8 L1 Library Vestibule 1L-4ft-X-LED-20W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 4 L1 Library Vestibule 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 1 L1 Library Library 1L-X-LED-20W-High Bay-Hang 32 L1 Library Library 2L-2pin PL-FL-18W-Sconce-G24q-Wall Sfc 24 L1 Library Library Reception 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 2 L1 Library Library 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 68 Atrium Library Atrium 1L-LED-20W-High Bay-Pend 8 L1 Library Children’s Area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 27 L1 Library Offices 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 L1 Library Offices 1L-10in-4pin PL-FL-13W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 3 L1 Library Offices 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 5 L1 Library Employee Break Room 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 Library Comms/Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 L1 Library Storage Area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 5 L1 Library Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 67 Section Room Fixture Qty Staircase Library Staircase 2L-2pin PL-FL-18W-Sconce-G24q-Wall Sfc 4 Library Mezzanine Library Mezzanine 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 37 Library Mezzanine Library Mezzanine 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 7 Library Mezzanine Library Mezzanine 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 15 Library Mezzanine Mens Washroom 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 2 Library Mezzanine Mens Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Library Mezzanine Womens Washroom 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 2 Library Mezzanine Womens Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Library Mezzanine Meeting Room (locked) 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 20 L2 Library Library 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 84 L2 Library Library 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 12 L2 Library Reception 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 4 L2 Library Library 1L-8ft-LED-40W-Strip-Hang 37 L2 Library Library 1L-X-LED-20W-High Bay-Hang 8 L2 Library Library 2L-2pin PL-FL-18W-Sconce-G24q-Wall Sfc 12 L2 Library Offices 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Ground Meeting room 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 12 4th floor Mech room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 12 4th floor Mech room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 8 4th floor Mech room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 1 Penthouse Mech room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 20 Penthouse Mech room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Penthouse Chiller room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 4th floor Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 4th floor Elev 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 4th floor Janitor 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 4th floor 406 library adm 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 4th floor 406 library adm 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 4th floor 406 library adm 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 4th floor 420 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 4th floor 420 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 8 4th floor Kitchen 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 4th floor 421 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 12 4th floor 421 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 68 Section Room Fixture Qty 4th floor 423 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 7 4th floor 423 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 4th floor 434 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 4th floor 434 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 43 4th floor 434 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 5 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 20 3rd floor 313 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 4 3rd floor 312 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 3 3rd floor 311 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 3 3rd floor 310 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 4 3rd floor Reception 1L-4ft-LED-15W-Strip-Hang 4 3rd floor Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 18 3rd floor Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 22 3rd floor Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 35 3rd floor Hallway 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 33 3rd floor Office 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 10 3rd floor Hallway 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 18 3rd floor Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 64 3rd floor Hallway 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 18 3rd floor Meeting room 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 9 3rd floor Mens WR 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 4 3rd floor Mens WR 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 3rd floor Janitor 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 2 3rd floor Womens wr 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 4 3rd floor Womens wr 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 3rd floor Meeting room 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 16 3rd floor Office 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-41W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 10 3rd floor Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 3 3rd floor Office 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 6 3rd floor Kitchen 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 3 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 3rd floor Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 5 3rd floor Office 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 5 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 2nd Council Chambers 1L-8in-PAR30-LED-25W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 12 2nd Council Chambers 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 2nd Council Chambers 1L-8in-PAR30-LED-25W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 47 2nd Council Chambers 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 6 2nd Council Chambers 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 9 2nd Council Chambers 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 5 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 69 Section Room Fixture Qty 2nd Council Chambers 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 4 2nd Council Chambers 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 2nd Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 2nd Mayors office 1L-5in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs-Square 16 2nd Mayors office 1L-6ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 1 2nd Mayors office 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 28 2nd Mayors office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 26 2nd CAOs Office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 17 2nd CAOs Office 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 18 2nd CAOs WR 2L-7in-CFL-15W-Pot Light-Rcs 2 2nd CAOs Office 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 2nd Meeting room 1L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 2nd CAOs Office 1L-5in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs-Square 7 2nd CAOs Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 2nd CAOs Office 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 2 2nd Multi-faith room 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 5 Ground Tax 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 6 Ground Tax 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 11 Ground Tax 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 2 Ground Tax 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 56 Ground Tax 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 6 Ground Tax 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 2 Ground Meeting room 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 6 Ground Meeting room 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 15 Ground Meeting room WR 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 1 Ground Office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 3 Ground Office 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 1 Ground Meeting room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 12 Ground Meeting room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 5 Ground Meeting room 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 10 Ground Permits office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 8 Ground Permits office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 16 Ground Permits office 1L-1x4ft-LED-18W-Panel-Rcs 2 Ground Permits office 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 8 Ground Permits office 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Permits office 1L-2x2ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 Ground Permits office 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 21 Ground Open meeting rooms 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 8 Ground Open meeting rooms 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 10 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 70 Section Room Fixture Qty Ground Wood staircase 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 7 Basement Maintenance office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 10 Basement Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 5 Basement Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 5 Basement Union's office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Basement Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 5 Basement Elec room 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 4 Basement File storage 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 36 Basement Elev room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Basement Law enforcement room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 3 Basement Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 12 Basement Sick room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Staff room 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 13 Basement Sprinkler room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 8 Basement Shop 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 15 Basement Elev room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Basement Mech room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Basement Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 Ground Lobby 2L-8in-LED-7W-Pot Light-Rcs 15 Ground Lobby 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 24 Ground Lobby 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 10 2nd Lobby 1L-Large-HPS-175W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Val 8 Ground Lobby 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Val 3 Ground Hallway 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Val 16 Ground Vestibule 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Vestibule 1L-Med-PAR30-LED-9W-Sconce-E26-Hang 2 2nd Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 14 All Stairs 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 17 3rd floor Hallway 2L-Large-LED-7W-Sconce-Wall Sfc-Arch 11 3rd floor Hallway 1L-6in-PAR20-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 All Stairs 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Wrap 11 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 17 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-25W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 8 L1 Library Vestibule 1L-4ft-X-LED-20W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 4 L1 Library Vestibule 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 1 L1 Library Library 1L-X-LED-20W-High Bay-Hang 32 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 71 Section Room Fixture Qty L1 Library Library 2L-2pin PL-FL-18W-Sconce-G24q-Wall Sfc 24 L1 Library Library Reception 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 2 L1 Library Library 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 68 Atrium Library Atrium 1L-LED-20W-High Bay-Pend 8 L1 Library Childrens Area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 27 L1 Library Offices 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 8 L1 Library Offices 1L-10in-4pin PL-FL-13W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 3 L1 Library Offices 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 5 L1 Library Employee Break Room 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 L1 Library Comms/Electrical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 L1 Library Storage Area 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 5 L1 Library Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Staircase Library Staircase 2L-2pin PL-FL-18W-Sconce-G24q-Wall Sfc 4 Library Mezzanine Library Mezzanine 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 37 Library Mezzanine Library Mezzanine 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 7 Library Mezzanine Library Mezzanine 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 15 Library Mezzanine Men's Washroom 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 2 Library Mezzanine Men's Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Library Mezzanine Women's Washroom 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 2 Library Mezzanine Women's Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Library Mezzanine Meeting Room (locked) 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 20 L2 Library Library 2L-8in-4pin PL-FL-18W-Pot Light-G24q-Rcs 84 L2 Library Library 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-20W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 12 L2 Library Reception 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 4 L2 Library Library 1L-8ft-LED-40W-Strip-Hang 37 L2 Library Library 1L-X-LED-20W-High Bay-Hang 8 L2 Library Library 2L-2pin PL-FL-18W-Sconce-G24q-Wall Sfc 12 L2 Library Offices 2L-2x2ft-T8 (U)-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 72 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 30: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost Consumption (kWh) Cost Consumption (kWh) January $11,640 101,871 February $12,629 89,910 March $12,276 83,150 $14,441 96,926 April $11,078 77,640 $14,476 80,436 May $13,482 87,545 $15,523 95,591 June $17,511 92,955 $20,322 105,264 July $21,434 100,462 $23,126 114,011 August $20,761 104,990 $15,137 107,080 September $14,762 92,054 $15,827 98,102 October $8,301 83,699 $15,915 96,477 November $11,280 85,148 $14,905 92,170 December $15,126 88,935 $18,319 107,246 Total $146,011 896,577 $192,259 1,185,083 Natural Gas Table 31: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost Consumption (GJ) Cost Consumption (GJ) January $10,273 527 February $9,578 509 March $4,909 422 $8,330 487 April $4,134 339 $5,168 305 May $1,945 150 $4,768 84 June $656 45 $468 24 July $695 33 $330 16 August $761 33 $459 29 September $3,430 169 $380 24 October $5,512 273 $2,563 200 November $7,775 392 $5,156 419 December $10,402 530 $5,209 427 Total $40,218 2,387 $52,680 3,052 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 73 Water Table 32: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost Consumption (m³) Cost Consumption (m³) January $1,769 191 February $1,620 174 March $1,582 98 $1,667 193 April $1,527 95 $1,605 187 May $1,671 146 $1,688 196 June $1,636 148 $1,636 190 July $1,667 218 $1,717 209 August $1,662 230 $1,722 212 September $375 52 $1,640 189 October $1,688 191 November $1,191 131 $1,657 180 December $1,606 176 $1,717 185 Total $12,918 1,293 $20,126 2,298 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 74 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Newcastle Branch Library 150 King Avenue West, Newcastle, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. ii Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Building and Systems ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Building Envelope ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 19 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 22 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Heat Pump RTUs ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.4. LED Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 28 4.5. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 29 4.6. Solar Carport (Additional Consideration) .................................................................................. 30 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 31 4.7 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 32 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 34 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 34 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 34 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 34 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 36 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 36 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 37 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 38 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 41 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................... 44 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 45 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 47 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 47 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 50 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 50 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 51 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 52 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 3 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Newcastle Branch Library. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 15% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 184,400 kWh/yr. 665 29,130 5.5 Natural gas 399 GJ/yr. 399 8,463 19.8 Total 1,064 37,593 25.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 25.4 35.4 32.7 35.5 33.3 32.2 30.0 29.7 28.7 27.4 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 Pathway 2 25.4 30.7 27.4 29.1 9.8 5.1 Grid Decarbonization 25.4 35.4 32.7 35.5 33.3 32.2 30.0 29.7 28.7 27.4 25.7 25.2 24.8 24.4 24.2 23.8 23.7 23.5 23.4 23.3 23.1 Baseline GHGs 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 10-yr target (-50%)12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80)5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Three ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI).These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.18 1.03 0.84 29% 0.84 29% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.66 0.32 51% 0.32 51% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.14 58.40 7.32 74% 4.10 85% ECI ($/m²) $41.68 N/A $36.79 12% $36.79 12% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.18 1.03 0.54 55% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.66 0.32 51% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.14 58.40 5.65 80% ECI ($/m²) $41.68 N/A $23.47 44% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) -25,812 399 19.1 $3,869 $1,302,215 >50 -$1,235,456 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 LED Upgrade - Fixtures 56,412 0 1.7 $8,892 $32,222 3.3 $87,986 3 Rooftop Solar PV 19,838 0 0.6 $3,127 $43,897 12.1 $15,915 4 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 - - 3.9 - $69 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Newcastle Branch Library. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of December 2022 to November 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of January 2023 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 2. Building and Systems The Newcastle Branch Library is a one-storey, 902 m2 library located at 150 King Avenue West in Newcastle, Ontario. The building was constructed in 2009. The building is occupied by approximately six full time employees and up to 165 visitors people on a daily basis. The building is generally occupied for 10 hours on weekdays and 7 hours on weekends. Figure 2: Newcastle Branch Library exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a flat, TPO type roof and sloped roof with asphalt shingles. Exterior walls are finished with brick masonry. Primary entrance doors are aluminum framed with inset glazing with metal secondary doors. The windows are aluminum framed assemblies with double glazing. Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (left), exterior cladding, windows, and door (right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the thermal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Five rooftop units (RTUs) are located on the roof to service different areas of the building. They are on a daily schedule and controlled with individual digital thermostats with setpoints and set schedules. Electric heaters with integrated controls provide additional heat for the building entrances. Heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Entrance Heater 3 Entrance Entrance Ouellet - 4 kW 100% RTU 1 Roof Back Offices York ZH090N15P2BAA4B 180 MBH 80% RTU 1 Roof Community Room York ZJ048D10P2BAA1C 125 MBH 80.5% RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ060D10P2BAA1C 125 MBH 80.5% RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ036D10P2BAA1C 115 MBH 80.5% RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ048D10P2BAA1C 125 MBH 80.5% Figure 5: Rooftop unit (left) and entrance heater (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Space Cooling The five RTUs provide cooling to the building via ducting. Cooling is controlled via digital thermostat setpoints. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Roof Back Offices York ZH090N15P2BAA4B 26.1 kW ~2.98 COP RTU 1 Roof Community rm York ZJ048D10P2BAA1C 13.9 kW ~2.98 COP RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ060D10P2BAA1C 20.9 kW ~2.98 COP RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ036D10P2BAA1C 10.4 kW ~2.98 COP RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ048D10P2BAA1C 13.9 kW ~2.98 COP Figure 6: RTU (left), Digital thermostat (right) Ventilation The five RTUs provide tempered air to the different sections of the building. The building also has a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) located in the mechanical room that provides additional ventilation and energy savings. Washroom ceiling exhaust fans provide additional exhaust ventilation. Ventilation is controlled via digital thermostat set schedules. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Roof Back Offices York ZH090N15P2BA A4B 3 hp 80% RTU 1 Roof Community Room York ZJ048D10P2BA A1C 1.5 hp 80% RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ060D10P2BA A1C 1.5 hp 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ036D10P2BA A1C 1.5 hp 80% RTU 1 Roof Library York ZJ048D10P2BA A1C 1.5 hp 80% HRV 1 Mech Room Building Nu-Air NU800 0.5 hp 80% Ceiling Exhaust Fan 1 Washroo ms Washrooms - - 0.13 hp 80% Figure 7: Ceiling exhaust fan 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One electric domestic hot water (DHW) heater located in the mechanical room provides hot water for building water fixtures. System is serviced via a recirc pump used to distribute water throughout the building and well system. The building has a non-operational boiler that previously provided hot water to the building. In use DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Mech Room Building John Wood JW850SDE1-30 210 3kW 90% Recirc pump 1 Mech Room Building Grundfos UP 15 - 01 B5 0.025 kW 90% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 8: DHW tank 2.4. Lighting The most abundant lighting fixtures are fluorescent troffers in the library hall and LED strip lights in the library hall and community room. Other interior lights include pot lights. All interior lights are controlled by a switch or breaker. Exterior lighting includes wall packs and pole lights, controlled by a daylight sensor. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 gpm Community room Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 gpm Washrooms Faucet, lavatory, public 3 1.9 gpm Washrooms Toilet 3 1.6 gpf Family washrooms Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.9 gpm Family washrooms Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Staff washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.9 gpm Staff washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Electrical room Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 97031110-00 Unknown Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 67 01114 0 Exterior Whole Building Water (Well) N/A N/A Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy December 2022 – November 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas January 2023 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water N/A Well System N/A Well System – no utility connection 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy and Enbridge Gas supply the electricity and natural gas, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from December 2022 - November 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period. Electricity consumption appears to increase in the warmer months. More data would be required to verify if this is a recurring trend. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from January 2023 - December 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data . These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 184,800 kWh/yr. 665 29,130 5.5 Natural gas 399 GJ/yr. 399 8,463 19.8 Total 1,064 37,593 25.4 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity, the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12-month average rate was used. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate 12-month average Electricity - - $0.16/kWh Natural Gas $524.85/yr. $19.90/GJ - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Newcastle Branch Library's performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for libraries. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.18 1.03 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 28.14 58.40 ECI ($/m2) 41.68 WUI (m3/m2) 0.00 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity in the building. Cooling equipment and ventilation also consume a large fraction of electricity, while space heating, plug loads, and DHW consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Figure 13: Electricity end uses Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes all of the natural gas allocated to the building. Figure 14: Natural gas end uses Lighting 47% Cooling Equipment 22% Ventilation 17% Space Heating 7% Plug Loads 5% Domestic Hot Water 2% Space Heating 100% Space Heating Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The toilet consumes most of the water in the building. The lavatory faucets also consume a significant amount of water, while the kitchen sink consumes little water. Figure 15: Water end uses Toilet 62% Faucet, lavatory 37% Faucet, kitchen 1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calculating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Heat Pump RTUs Heat pump technology uses the vapour compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. In the case of rooftop units (RTUs), heat pumps transfer heat from the exterior air to the interior air during the heating season, or transfer heat from the interior air to the exterior air during the cooling season. Since heat is simply transferred from one space to another, instead of generated, this process is highly efficient. The building's five RTUs currently heat air using a gas-fired burner and cool air with a direct expansion system. This ECM explores replacing the existing units with heat pump models to increase efficiency and thereby decrease overall energy consumption. The recommended heat pump RTUs are equipped with electric backup heat to meet any demand not met by the heat pump. Though heat pumps can significantly lower the GHG reduction one should consider whether GHG savings justify the increase in utility costs and overall poor economic performance . Project Cost: $1,302,215 Annual Electricity Savings: -25,812 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 399 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 306 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,869 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$1,160 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 19.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 381 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,235,456 Internal Rate of Return: -16% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The existing gas burning efficiency is between 80%-81% for all RTUs while the proposed heating COP is 4.3. The estimated existing cooling COP is 2.98, while the proposed cooling COP is 3.37. • Heat pump modeling determines heating demand via climate analysis and determines the % of heat demand fulfillment based on the existing and recommended model. Any unmet heat demand is calculated as electrical consumption via the backup heating system. • The project cost was derived from RSMeans, and includes the supply and installation of new heat pumps, and related pipe work. Recommended models all are equipped with an economizer and supplementary electric heat. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 • Additional consideration will need to be given to the buildings electrical capacity before looking into this ECM further. Additional electrical consumption may require an upgrade to the buildings electrical systems which will results in additional hidden costs not included within this analysis. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. 4.4. LED Lighting Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $32,222 Annual Electricity Savings: 56,412 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $8,892 Simple Payback: 3.3 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 25 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $87,986 Internal Rate of Return: 32% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts) • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.5. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Newcastle Branch Library building is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $43,897 Annual Electricity Savings: 19,838 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,127 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$376 Simple Payback: 12.1 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 15 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $15,915 Internal Rate of Return: 8% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 15.4 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.6. Solar Carport (Additional Consideration) A solar photovoltaic (PV) carport system provides the building with on -site renewable energy generation. The building is a good candidate for a solar PV carport system due to its exterior parking area with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding such a solar PV carport system to the building’s parking area. This is considered additional as we are already recommending a solar option for the rooftop. Project Cost: $361,951 Annual Electricity Savings: 81,655 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $14,496 Simple Payback: 17.7 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 61 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$60,075 Internal Rate of Return: 3% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 63.4 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the carport location, local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar carport system. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm system compliance with relevant standards and requirements • Finalize system size and parameters • Obtain a formal quote from a solar contractor Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.7 Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measu re are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Newcastle Branch Library. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. . The portfolio wide minutes for this workshop are included alongside this report. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-Making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-Making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) -25,812 399 19.1 $3,869 $1,302,215 >50 -$1,235,456 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 LED Upgrade - Fixtures 56,412 0 1.7 $8,892 $32,222 3.3 $87,986 3 Rooftop Solar PV 19,838 0 0.6 $3,127 $43,897 12.1 $15,915 4 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 - - 3.9 - $69 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $69 3.9 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.18 1.03 0.84 29% 0.84 29% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.66 0.32 51% 0.32 51% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.14 58.40 7.32 74% 4.10 85% ECI ($/m²) $41.68 N/A $36.79 12% $36.79 12% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024- 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 - 2044 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) $1,302,215 Total cost ($) $1,302,215 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 1 202 4 202 5 202 6 202 7 202 8 202 9 203 0 203 1 203 2 203 3 203 4 203 5 203 6 203 7 203 8 203 9 204 0 204 1 204 2 204 3 204 4 Projected GHG 25.35.32.35.33.32.30.29.28.27.6.6 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 Baseline GHGs 25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25.25. 10-yr target (-50%)12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12.12. 20-yr target (-80%)5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.18 1.03 0.54 55% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.66 0.32 51% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 28.14 58.40 5.65 80% ECI ($/m²) $41.68 N/A $23.47 44% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) $1,302,215 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $32,222 Rooftop Solar PV $43,897 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $69 Total ($) $32,222 $43,897 $0 $1,302,215 $69 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 25.4 30.7 27.4 29.1 9.8 5.1 Baseline GHGs 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 5-yr target (-80%)5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 4 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 25,812 50,438 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 399 399 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 22 20 GHG Emission reduction (%) 85% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.024 0.022 Total yr 0 cost ($) $1,302,215 $ 1,378,404 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 51,419 $ 58,680 Net present value ($) -$1,235,255 -$ 1,108,047 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. For example, some measures which had >1tCO2e reduction in the year 2044 did not meet that criterium in 2029, which means that they were selected for Pathway 1, but not Pathway 2. In addition, since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 18: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187.5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,302 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $32.2K $43.9K $0 $1,302 $69 $0 $200.0K $400.0K $600.0K $800.0K $1,000.0K $1,200.0K $1,400.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Figure 19: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 25.4 35.4 32.7 35.5 33.3 32.2 30.0 29.7 28.7 27.4 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 Pathway 2 25.4 30.7 27.4 29.1 9.8 5.1 Grid Decarbonization 25.4 35.4 32.7 35.5 33.3 32.2 30.0 29.7 28.7 27.4 25.7 25.2 24.8 24.4 24.2 23.8 23.7 23.5 23.4 23.3 23.1 Baseline GHGs 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 10-yr target (-50%)12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80)5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Heat Pump RTU Upgrades (RTU 1-5) $1,302,215 $187,500 $1,114,715 Total Pathway 1 $1,302,215 $187,500 $1,114,715 Rooftop Solar PV $43,897 N/A $43,897 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $32,222 N/A $32,222 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $69 N/A $69 Total Pathway 2 $1,378,404 $187,500 $1,190,904 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 4 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 25,812 50,438 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 399 399 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 22 20 GHG Emission reduction (%) 85% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.024 0.022 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 1,114,715 $ 1,190,904 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 51,419 $ 58,680 Incremental Net present value ($) -$1,047,755 -$920,547 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 15% and 17% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing existing RTUs with heat pump units provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pump RTUs generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing RTUs, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and upgrading RTUs and lighting may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: While upgrades such as LED lighting offer immediate benefits, the installation of heat pump RTUs and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Increased Property Value: Sustainable upgrades, such as solar PV and energy-efficient HVAC systems, can increase the building’s market value and appeal to a growing segment of eco- conscious buyers or investors. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoi ng retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground floor Mech/electrical room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Cage 4 Ground floor Kitchen 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Ground floor Hallway 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 6 Ground floor Storage room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Community room 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 20 Ground floor Library hallway 1L-10in-FL-30W-Pot Light-x-Rcs 6 Ground floor Library hallway 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Washrooms 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Ground floor Washrooms 1L-4ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 3 Ground floor Family washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground floor Family washroom 1L-4ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 1 Ground floor Library hall 2L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 76 Ground floor Library hall 1L-MR16-LED-10W-Track-Ceil Sfc 8 Ground floor Library hall 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 83 Ground floor Library hall 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 4 Ground floor staff washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground floor Staff washroom 1L-4ft-T8 (2')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc 1 Ground floor Quiet study room 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Coordinator branch office 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 3 Ground floor Delivery entrance vestibule 3L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Ground floor Entrance vestibule 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-50W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 16 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-100W-Pole Light Ground floor Electrical room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang-Cage 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $2,160.72 14,079 February $2,196.25 14,240 March $2,133.72 13,608 April $2,246.37 14,480 May $2,323.64 14,707 June $2,948.92 18,253 July $2,965.88 18,623 August $2,810.76 17,773 September $2,782.12 17,221 October $2,273.91 14,144 November $2,377.42 14,720 December $1,910.18 12,952 Total $1,910.18 12,952 $27,212 171,847 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $1,737.25 83.75 February $1,096.87 50.92 March $1,619.35 83.30 April $1,012.81 43.32 May $558.35 27.13 June $1,091.99 44.12 July $131.96 2.66 August $76.07 2.28 September $125.41 2.89 October $109.47 1.67 November $416.50 25.57 December $487.32 31.31 Total $8,463 399 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Orono Library 127 Church St, Orono, Ontario L0B 1M0 Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Building and Systems ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Building Envelope ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 22 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 24 4.3. Boiler Electrification .................................................................................................................. 26 4.4. LED Lighting Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures (Additional Consideration) .................................. 27 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive (Additional Consideration) ............................................................. 28 4.6. Roof Insulation Upgrade (Additional Consideration) ................................................................ 29 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 30 4.8. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 31 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method ................................................................................................ 33 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 33 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 33 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 35 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 35 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 36 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.2 Pathway 2 .................................................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 40 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 43 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 44 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 46 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 46 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 48 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 48 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 50 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 52 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Orono Library. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 3% better than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 14,806 kWh/yr. 53 $2,752 0.4 Natural Gas 314 GJ/yr. 314 $4,950 15.6 Water 50 m³/yr. $50 0.0 Total 367 $7,752 16.1 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 16.1 16.9 6.5 7.9 6.8 6.2 5.1 5.0 4.5 3.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 Pathway 2 16.1 16.9 16.6 16.9 6.8 3.2 Grid Decarbonization 16.1 16.9 16.6 16.9 16.7 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.3 16.2 16.1 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 Baseline GHGs 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 10-yr target (-50%)8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. One ECM was identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.00 1.03 0.91 9% 0.91 9% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.91 0.83 9% 0.83 9% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.63 58.40 8.02 82% 4.48 90% ECI ($/m²) $20.93 N/A $47.11 -125% $47.11 -125% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5- yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.00 1.03 0.91 9% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.91 0.83 9% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.63 58.40 8.75 80% ECI ($/m²) $20.93 - $47.11 -125% The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boiler Electrification -78,467 314 14 -$10,170 $38,538 Never -$237,989 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Carbon Offsets - - 3.0 - $54 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Orono Library. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of December 2022 to November 2023 o Natural gas data for the period of December 2022 to April 2023 and June 2023 to March 2024 o Water data for the period of November 2022 to November 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 2. Building and Systems Orono Library is a two-storey, 368 m² public library located at 127 Church Street in Orono, Ontario. Constructed in 1882, the building is currently used as a community library. It includes the library itself, an office, a storage room, washrooms and other amenities. The mechanical room is located in the basement. The building is occupied by one employee and approximately 5 to 10 visitors daily. Operating hours are approximately 4.5 hours per day from Monday to Saturday. Figure 2: Orono library exterior from [south] (left), and simulated aerial view with red highlighting around in -scope building (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a sloped hip roof with asphalt shingle finish. The primary exterior wall cladding is red brick masonry. Metal framed swing doors with and without glazing are located at building entrances. Several double glazed, vinyl framed windows are located throughout the building. Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof ( left), door (center), window (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The main heating source for the building is a boiler located in the basement tied to baseboard radiators located throughout the building. Heat is also provided via a mini-split heat pump, with condenser unit along the exterior, providing heated air. Other supplementary heating is provided for the washroom and reception area via an electric wall heater and electric ceiling heater. The heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Boiler 1 Basement Building LAARS HH0400CN1 2CBDCX C11231022 - 400 MBH 81% Heat Pump 1 Exterior Building Comfort Aire A- VMH48PV-1 540F544301425 210150006 2023 14.1 kw 12.5 HSPF Electric Wall Heater 1 Washroom Washroom Stelpro - - 2003 1.5 kW 100% Electric Ceiling Heater 1 Reception Reception Caloritech OKB411C631 - - 1.5 kW 100% Figure 5: Boiler (left) and heat pump (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Space Cooling Space cooling is provided by the mini-split heat pump, with condenser located along the exterior. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Heat Pump 1 Exterior Building Comfort Aire A-VMH48PV- 1 540F544301 425210150006 2023 14.1 kw 22.4 SEER Figure 6: Heat pump Ventilation An exhaust fan is located in the washroom. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficien cy Exhaust Fan 1 Washroom Washroom - - 0.1 kW ~80% Figure 7: Washroom exhaust fan Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water An electric domestic hot water (DHW) heater located in the basement provides hot water for the building. The DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency DHW 1 Basement Building Rheem TE25R 897305803 1987 3 kW 100% Figure 8: DHW 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building consists of 6% high-pressure sodium, 6% incandescent, 9% compact fluorescent, 31% fluorescent, and 48% LED fixtures. Fixture types include ceiling - hung and surface-mounted strip lights, sconces, pot lights, floodlights, and track lights. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 9: Example lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Washroom Toilet 2 1.6 Gpf Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 2 1.5 Gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity (07460164) Exterior Whole Building Gas (4660330 SL) Back of building Whole Building Water - Basement Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills - December 2022 – November 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills - December 2022 – April 2023 and June 2023 to March 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Water Monthly utility bills - November 2022 to November 2022 All months in this period do not have associated data 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy and Enbridge Gas supply the electricity and natural gas, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The limited utility consumption data, covering just twelve months, makes it challenging to detect seasonal or recurring trends. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, hot water and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas With only fourteen months of utility consumption data available, identifying seasonal or recurring trends is challenging. The data shows a peak in consumption during the winter months, which is attributed to varying space heating demands. The baseload consumption is associated with the boiler, while the additional consumption reflects the increased heating required due to colder outdoor temperatures in winter. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Water Due to having only twelve months of utility consumption data, identifying seasonal or recurring trends is challenging. The water consumption is relatively steady all year around with spikes in consumption in the winter months. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets. Figure 13: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data . These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 14,806 kWh/yr. 53 $2,752 0.4 Natural Gas 314 GJ/yr. 314 $4,950 15.6 Water 50 m³/yr. $50 0.0 Total 367 $7,752 16.1 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kg CO₂e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kg CO₂e/m³ Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was calculated for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. In this case, marginal rates were not determinable by regression, and 12 -moth average utility rates were used. The 12-month average rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility 12-month average Electricity $0.19/kWh Natural Gas $14.06/Gj Water $6.05/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Orono Library's performance over the billing period is better than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for a public service library building. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline* Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.00 1.03 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 43.63 58.40 ECI ($/m2) 20.93 WUI (m3/m2) 0.13 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity. Figure 14: Electricity end uses Lighting 32% Space Heating 27% Plug Loads 23% Cooling Equipment 14% Domestic Hot Water 4% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Natural Gas Natural gas consumption is solely used to fuel the boiler heating system, which is one of the main heating sources for the building. 100% of the consumption is allocated to this end use. Figure 15: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The toilet consumes most of the water in the building. The lavatory faucets also consume a significant amount of water, while the kitchen sink consumes little water. lavatory faucets also consume a significant amount of water, while the kitchen sink consumes little water. Figure 16: Water end uses Space Heating 100% Space Heating Toilet 68% Faucet, lavatory 32% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the net present value, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 4.3. Boiler Electrification Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to an electric boiler. Project Cost: $38,538 Annual Electricity Savings: -78,467 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 314 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 31 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$10,170 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 13.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 331 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$237,989 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 81% to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of one electric boiler of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forw ard with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.4. LED Lighting Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in Appendix A. This ECM is an additional consideration due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $8,012 Annual Electricity Savings: 2,624 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $343 Simple Payback: 16.8 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$3,365 Internal Rate of Return: -2% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.5. Hydronic Heating Additive (Additional Consideration) Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal contact between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at Orono Library. This ECM is an additional consideration due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $2,625 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 25 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 25 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $287 Simple Payback: 6.6 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 10 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$41 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boiler(s). Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial building. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 1.6 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.6. Roof Insulation Upgrade (Additional Consideration) Adding insulation to the roof reduces heat transfer at that section of the building's envelope. Since less heat is lost, less energy is required to heat the building, resulting in natural gas savings. This ECM explores adding 4-inch thick poured loose-fill cellulose fiber insulation to Orono Library's roof. This ECM is best implemented in alignment with planned capital roof replacement, since the roof must be uncovered to add the insulation. This ECM is an additional consideration due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $7,968 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 8 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 8 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $87 Simple Payback: 40.9 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$5,848 Internal Rate of Return: -4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Energy savings were estimated by modelling the existing heat loss through the roof and the proposed heat loss after the addition of insulation. These calculations considered roof area, local weather, the existing and proposed R-values, and the existing heating system efficiency. The addition of R-30.4 insulation was modelled, resulting in a proposed effective R-Value of 67. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes the material and labour for installing solely the insulation. Reroofing costs are not included . Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Obtain formal quotes from qualified insulation contractors and material suppliers Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Orono Library. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boiler Electrification -78,467 314 14 -$10,170 $38,538 Never -$237,989 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Carbon Offsets - - 3.0 - $54 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $54 3.0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.00 1.03 0.91 9% 0.91 9% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.91 0.83 9% 0.83 9% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.63 58.40 8.02 82% 4.48 90% ECI ($/m²) $20.93 $47.11 -125% $47.11 -125% Table 22: GHG Reduction Pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024-2025 2026 2027 - 2044 Boiler Electrification $38,538 Total cost ($) $0 $38,358 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 16.1 16.9 6.5 7.9 6.8 6.2 5.1 5.0 4.5 3.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 Baseline GHGs 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 10-yr target (-50%)8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 20-yr target (-80%)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.2.2 Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction (5- yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.00 1.03 0.91 9% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.91 0.83 9% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 43.63 58.40 8.75 80% ECI ($/m²) $20.93 - $47.11 -125% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Boiler Electrification $38,538 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $54 Total ($) $38,538 $54 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 16.1 16.9 16.6 16.9 6.8 3.2 Baseline GHGs 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 5-yr target (-80%)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.3 Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 2 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) -78,467 -78,467 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 314 314 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 14 13 GHG Emission reduction (%) 90% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.039 0.035 Total yr 0 cost ($) $38,538 $38,592 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) -$1,588 -$1,778 Net present value ($) -$203,145 -$203,199 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 19: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $61.4K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $38.5K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $0 $0 $0 $38.5K $54 $0 $10.0K $20.0K $30.0K $40.0K $50.0K $60.0K $70.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 20: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 16.1 16.9 6.5 7.9 6.8 6.2 5.1 5.0 4.5 3.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 Pathway 2 16.1 16.9 16.6 16.9 6.8 3.2 Grid Decarbonization 16.1 16.9 16.6 16.9 16.7 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.3 16.2 16.1 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 Baseline GHGs 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 10-yr target (-50%)8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification $38,538 $61,403 -$22,865 Total Pathway 1 $38,538 $61,403 -$22,865 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $54 N/A $54 Total Pathway 2 $38,592 $61,403 -$22,811 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 2 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 78,467 - 78,467 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 314 314 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 14 13 GHG Emission reduction (%) 90% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.039 0.035 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) -$ 22,865 -$ 22,811 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) -$ 1,588 -$1,778 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 141,742 -$ 141,796 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 30% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Replacing the natural-gas boiler with an electric boiler could provide a more consistent and comfortable indoor temperature as the electric boiler is expected to be more efficient. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of an electric boiler contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of installing an electric boiler can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing an electric boiler may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Transition Period: The installation of an electric boiler may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: More reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: Energy-efficient upgrades provide an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward-thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of an electric boiler may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Threats Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of electric boilers, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of an electric boiler over traditional natural-gas boilers. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current onl y at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground Entrance 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Entrance 6L-Large-Candle-Inc-25W-Sconce-E12- Pend-Arch 1 Ground Computer lab 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-28W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang-Up/Down 2 Ground Adult Fiction 4L-Large-A19-LED-10W-Sconce-E26-Pend 1 Ground Adult Fiction 1L-8in-A19-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Adult Fiction 1L-8in-BR30-Inc-65W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Book checkout 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-28W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang-Up/Down 4 Ground Book checkout 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Puzzle area 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 1 Ground Puzzle area 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 2 Ground Child reading area 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Hallway 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground WR 2L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc-Van 1 2nd floor Hallway 3L-Med-Candle-Inc-25W-Sconce-E12-Pend- Arch 1 2nd floor Toy storage 1L-Med-PAR20-LED-9W-Track-Ceil Sfc 3 2nd floor Server room? 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 2nd floor Holiday Storage 1L-Med-PAR20-LED-9W-Track-Ceil Sfc 6 2nd floor Hallway 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 2nd floor Storage 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 2nd floor Stairs 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 2nd floor Public Service Storage 1L-Med-PAR20-LED-9W-Track-Ceil Sfc 5 Basement Basement 1L-Mini-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 Basement Basement 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Exterior Parking lot 1L-Med-HPS-175W-Flood 1 Ground Entrance 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Entrance 6L-Large-Candle-Inc-25W-Sconce-E12- Pend-Arch 1 Ground Computer lab 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-28W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang-Up/Down 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Ground Adult Fiction 4L-Large-A19-LED-10W-Sconce-E26-Pend 1 Ground Adult Fiction 1L-8in-A19-LED-10W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Adult Fiction 1L-8in-BR30-Inc-65W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Ground Book checkout 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-28W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang-Up/Down 4 Ground Book checkout 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Puzzle area 1L-4ft-LED-20W-Strip-Hang 1 Ground Puzzle area 1L-4ft-LED-30W-Strip-Hang 2 Ground Child reading area 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 Ground Hallway 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Ground WR 2L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc-Van 1 2nd floor Hallway 3L-Med-Candle-Inc-25W-Sconce-E12-Pend- Arch 1 2nd floor Toy storage 1L-Med-PAR20-LED-9W-Track-Ceil Sfc 3 2nd floor Server room? 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 2nd floor Holiday Storage 1L-Med-PAR20-LED-9W-Track-Ceil Sfc 6 2nd floor Hallway 2L-8ft-T12 (8')-FL-60W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 2nd floor Storage 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-34W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 2 2nd floor Stairs 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 2nd floor Public Service Storage 1L-Med-PAR20-LED-9W-Track-Ceil Sfc 5 Basement Basement 1L-Mini-A19-LED-9W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 Basement Basement 1L-Mini-A19-CFL-13W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Exterior Parking lot 1L-Med-HPS-175W-Flood 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $220 1,316 February $223 1,294 March $197 1,141 April $190 1,069 May $175 963 June $173 923 July $170 897 August $338 900 September $167 888 October $214 1,224 November $437 2,620 December $247 1,570 Total $247 1,570 $2,505 13,236 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $856 52 $691 48 February $994 62 $656 47 March $498 29 $118 37 April $429 27 May No Data No Data June $121 4 July $38 0 August $152 5 September $50 2 October $419 25 November $482 30 December $1,132 64 $530 37 Total $1,132 64 $4,569 272 $1,465 132 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $27 7 February $27 3 March $27 3 April $27 3 May $21 3 June $21 3 July $21 3 August $24 3 September $24 3 October $24 3 November $27 7 December $27 7 Total $55 13 $244 37 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Orono Operations Depot 3585 Taunton Road, Clarington, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Building and Systems ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Building Envelope ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 14 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 15 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 18 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 21 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 21 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters ...................................................................................... 25 4.4. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 26 4.5. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) .................................................................................... 27 4.6. Programmable Thermostats (Additional Consideration) .......................................................... 28 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 29 4.8. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 30 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 32 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 32 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 32 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 34 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 34 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 35 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 36 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 38 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 39 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 42 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 43 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 45 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 45 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 47 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 47 7.2. 7.2 Appendix B - Utility Data ..................................................................................................... 47 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 3 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Orono Operations Depot. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 185% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 48,296 kWh/yr. 174 $9,324 1.4 Propane 31,746 L/yr. 803 $19,238 49.1 Total 977 $28,563 50.6 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 50.6 53.2 52.5 53.2 52.7 52.4 51.8 51.7 51.5 51.1 8.7 8.0 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 Pathway 2 50.6 23.4 16.3 19.8 17.0 10.1 Grid Decarbonization 51 53 53 53 53 52 52 52 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Baseline GHGs 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 10-yr target (-50%)25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. One ECM was identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.05 0.72 2.09 -2% 2.09 -2% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.82 1.63 10% 1.63 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 106.27 21.10 18.38 83% 10.29 90% ECI ($/m²) $60.01 N/A $116.70 -94% $116.70 -94% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 2.05 0.72 1.77 14% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.82 1.63 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 106.27 21.10 21.20 80% ECI ($/m²) $60.01 N/A $98.57 -64% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Propane (L/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters -228,480 31,746 42.3 -$24,586 $47,035 Never -$357,290 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 35 kW 43,006 0 1.3 $8,631 $104,603 10.7 $62,414 2 Carbon Offsets - - 8.5 - $153 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Orono Operations Depot. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity consumption data for the period of January 2021 to March 2024 o Propane gas consumption data for the year of 2022 and 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 2. Building and Systems Orono Operations Depot is a single-storey, 476 m² warehouse and storage facility located at 3585 Taunton Road in Clarington, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1960 and is currently used as a warehouse/storage facility where equipment and vehicles are maintained, repaired, and stored. The building is occupied by approximately 18 full-time employees during the spring, summer, and fall months, and 13 full-time employees in the winter months. Operating hours are from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays, with weekend operations as required. Figure 2: Orono Operations Depot exterior from the south (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has a flat roof with an asphalt membrane. The exterior walls are finished with painted concrete masonry units (CMU), also known as concrete blocks. Metal framed swing doors with and without glazing are located at building entrances. Several double glazed, aluminum framed window assemblies are located throughout the building. The building also includes five (5) overhead doors for exit and entrance of the vehicles. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof (top left), door (top right), and window (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like at windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the t hermal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building is heated with a combination of electric baseboard heating units in the office, breakroom, and washroom, along with propane-powered radiant tube heaters in the truck bay area. Tube heaters with individual manual thermostat controls. The heatin g equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6 : Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Electric Baseboard Heater 3 Break room Break room Ouellet OFM1000BL - 2001 1 kW 100% Electric Baseboard Heater 1 Office Office Ouellet OFM1000BL - 2001 0.75 kW 100% Electric Baseboard Heater 1 Washroo m Washroo m Ouellet OFM0750BL - - 1 kW 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Radiant Tube Heater 4 Truck bay Truck bay Infrasav e IQ-80-N IQXXNX80LE 13XX - 80 MBH ~80% Figure 5 : Radiant tube heater (left) and baseboard heater (right) Ventilation Ventilation for the building is provided by exhaust fans installed in various locations. The ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency (%) Exhaust Fan 1 Truck bay Truck bay - - - - 1/2 hp ~79% Exhaust Fan 4 Building Building - - - - 1/4 hp ~79% Figure 6: Exhaust fans Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water An electric domestic hot water heater (DHW) provides hot water for the building plumbing fixtures. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8 : DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency DHW 1 DHW closet Building John Wood JW50SDE130 U0824F707193 2008 4.5 kW 100% Figure 7: DHW 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building consists of 20% fluorescent and 80% LED fixtures. The most common fixtures observed were strip lights, either surface-mounted or ceiling-hung. Control types are primarily toggle switches. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 8: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Washroom Urinal 1 1.0 Gpf Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 1.5 Gpm Women WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 1.5 Gpm Women WR Toilet 1 1.6 Gpf Tool Storage Clothes washer, residential, standard, top-loading 1 37.8 G/cycle Figure 9: Example water fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 10 :Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One January 2021 to March 2024 - Propane Invoices from fuel provider Ultramar 2022 & 2023 - Water N/A Well System N/A Well System 3.1. Historical Data Utility consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Based on the provided data, year-over-year consumption increased by 10% from 2022 to 2023 and again from 2023 to 2024. Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent pattern over the years. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Propane Based on the data provided, there was a 17% decrease in usage in 2023 compared to 2022. The propane tank is filled as needed with each billing period depending on building needs. As such, propane usage cannot be estimated on a monthly basis, and annual consumption values were used for analysis. Below is a total yearly consumption for propane based on provided billing information. Figure 11: Propane consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 11: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 48,296 kWh/yr. 174 $9,324 1.4 Propane 31,746 L/yr. 803 $19,238 49.1 Water No data - - - Total 977 $28,563 50.6 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Pr o p a n e C o n s u m p t i o n ( L ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 12 : Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kg CO₂e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Propane 1.548 kg CO₂e/L National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water N/A N/A Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate is typically used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate represents only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission, distribution, or delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other applicable federal and provincial taxes. This rate excludes all fixed charges, such as monthly or daily service and delivery fees, as well as demand charges. The marginal utility rates are estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity and propane, the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12- month average rate was used. The 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below . Table 13: Utility rates Utility 12-month average Electricity $0.20/kWh Propane $0.67/L 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking evaluates a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, allowing buildings of different sizes to be compared. Typically, buildings are compared to others in the same country or region and within the same general use category, as they are expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type, as provided by Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric and the associated benchmarks, where available. Orono Operations Depot's performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and GHGI for warehouse/storage-type building facilities. Table 14 : Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m²) 2.05 0.72 GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 106.27 21.10 ECI ($/m²) $60.01 N/A 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity Electricity consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering various factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. Since the rest of the building, aside from the truck bay area, is heated by electric baseboards, the space heating system consumes the most electricity. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 . Figure 12: Electricity end uses Propane Propane consumption is used exclusively for fueling the radiant tube heaters in the truck bay, with 100% of the consumption allocated to this end use. Figure 13: Propane end uses Space Heating 37% Plug Loads 22% Lighting 16% Domestic Hot Water 14% Mechanical 11% Space Heating 100% Space Heating Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. Figure 14: Water end uses Faucet, lavatory 28% Toilet 26% Clothes washer, residential 21% Urinal 20% Faucet, kitchen 5% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, because our analysis for them is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4.3. Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, propane consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than propane, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than propane. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from propane to electric radiant tube heaters. Project Cost: $47,035 Annual Electricity Savings: -228,480 kWh/yr. Annual Propane Savings: 31,746 L/yr. Total Energy Savings: -19 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$24,586 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$264 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 42.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 634 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$357,290 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from propane to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 16 electric radiant tube heaters to match similar size and output to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 4.4. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Orono Operations Depot building could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $104,603 Annual Electricity Savings: 43,006 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $8,631 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$856 Simple Payback: 10.7 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 32 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $62,414 Internal Rate of Return: 9% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 22% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 35 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.5. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $7,103 Annual Electricity Savings: 1,489 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $299 Simple Payback: 17.1 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$3,084 Internal Rate of Return: -2% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.6. Programmable Thermostats (Additional Consideration) Programmable thermostats facilitate automation of building temperature setpoints. By using scheduling functions, for example, the setpoint could be automatically lowered during the hours when the building is unoccupied. During low setpoint periods, the heating system operates less frequently, realizing electricity and propane savings. This ECM explores replacing the non-programmable thermostats in the building with programmable models. Project Cost: $3,286 Annual Electricity Savings: 889 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $178 Simple Payback: 14.0 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $417 Internal Rate of Return: 6% Savings and Cost Assumptions • A 5% reduction to the heating system's energy consumption was applied to model energy savings. Actual savings will depend on effective use of programming capabilities. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes the material and labour to install 4 thermostats. This cost may vary should the building in reality have more or fewer thermostats than estimated. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the existing heating system is compatible with the new programmable thermostats. • Obtain a formal quote from a mechanical contractor Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 15: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Orono Operations Depot. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. Appendix A includes further details on the energy model results, and Appendix B contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot be implemented both because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined in the BCAs. BCAs are included in Appendix C. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to sprea d costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the decision-making workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in Appendix E. Post the decision-making workshop the staff was provided with the Appendix D document and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years, and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 17: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Propane (L/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters -228,480 31,746 42.3 -$24,586 $47,035 Never -$357,290 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 35 kW 43,006 0 1.3 $8,631 $104,603 10.7 $62,414 2 Carbon Offsets - - 8.5 - $153 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 18: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $153 8.5 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 19: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10- yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.05 0.72 2.09 -2% 2.09 -2% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.82 1.63 10% 1.63 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 106.27 21.10 18.38 83% 10.29 90% ECI ($/m²) $60.01 N/A $116.70 -94% $116.70 -94% Table 20: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024- 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035- 2043 2044 Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters $47,035 Total cost ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,035 $0 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 Figure 15: GHG reduction Pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 50.6 53.2 52.5 53.2 52.7 52.4 51.8 51.7 51.5 51.1 8.7 8.0 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 Baseline GHGs 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 10-yr target (-50%)25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 20-yr target (-80%)10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 21: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 2.05 0.72 1.77 14% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.82 1.63 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 106.27 21.10 21.20 80% ECI ($/m²) $60.01 N/A $98.57 -64% Table 22: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters $47,035 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $153 Total ($) $47,035 $0 $0 $0 $153 Figure 16: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 50.6 23.4 16.3 19.8 17.0 10.1 Baseline GHGs 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 5-yr target (-80%)10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 23: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 3 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 228,480 - 185,474 Propane savings (GJ/yr) 803 803 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 46 40 GHG Emission reduction (%) 90% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.096 0.085 Total yr 0 cost ($) $47,035 $151,737 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $318 $2,945 Net present value ($) -$447,268 -$413,875 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 Figure 17: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32.5K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47.0K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $47.0K $104.6 $0 $0 $99 $0 $20.0K $40.0K $60.0K $80.0K $100.0K $120.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 18: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 50.6 53.2 52.5 53.2 52.7 52.4 51.8 51.7 51.5 51.1 8.7 8.0 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 Pathway 2 50.6 23.4 16.3 19.8 17.0 10.1 Grid Decarbonization 51 53 53 53 53 52 52 52 51 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Baseline GHGs 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 10-yr target (-50%)25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 24: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Electrification - Radiant Tube Heaters $47,035 $32,500 $14,535 Total Pathway 1 $47,035 $32,500 $14,535 Rooftop Solar PV $104,603 N/A $104,603 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $99 N/A $99 Total Pathway 2 $151,737 $32,500 $119,237 Table 25: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 3 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 228,480 - 185,474 Propane savings (GJ/yr) 803 803 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 46 40 GHG Emission reduction (%) 90% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.096 0.085 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 14,535 $119,237 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 318 $2,945 Incremental Net present value ($) -$414,768 -$381,375 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 7% reduction in NPV across all pathways when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV (additional consideration) contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco -conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of equipment electrification can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Equipment electrification requires managing electrical service capacity at the site, which may require careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities if upgrades are needed. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV (additional consideration) contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: Equipment electrification may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Marketing and Public Relations: Renewable energy generation (additional consideration) provides a visible opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward -thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV (additional consideration) may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in electric radiant tube heater sizes or solar technologies (additional consideration) could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of equipment electrification, or solar PV (additional consideration), particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards electrification and renewable energy, questioning the value over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance (additional consideration) can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long -term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current onl y at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 26: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Building Kitchen / Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 5 Building Office 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 2 Building WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Building Hallway 1L-2x4ft-LED-30W-Panel-Rcs 1 Building Women WR 1L-Mini-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Building Mech room 1L-Mini-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 Building Tool storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 4 Building Truck bay 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 32 Building Truck bay 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Building Change room mez 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 3 Building Truck bay 2L-8ft-T8 (8')-FL-59W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 Shed Shed 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 3 Shed Shed 1L-Mini-A19-LED-10W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc 6 Shed Exterior 1L-Med-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Half CO 3 Building Exterior 1L-Med-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Half CO 5 7.2. 7.2 Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 27: Electricity utility data 2021 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $1,381 8,113 $1,040 8,974 $1,547 7,496 February $1,189 6,999 $33 7,674 $1,407 6,838 March $966 4,994 $366 5,456 $972 6,789 April $716 4,187 $892 1,489 $329 3,791 May $430 2,785 $530 2,469 $646 2,998 June $400 1,976 $320 1,472 $515 2,374 July $416 1,931 $411 1,876 $409 1,873 August $401 1,767 $367 1,671 $457 2,114 September $390 1,906 $436 2,011 $604 2,840 October $562 2,754 $773 3,634 $682 3,204 November $960 4,724 $1,123 5,252 $1,134 5,298 December $1,221 6,010 $1,516 7,088 $1,284 5,911 Total $9,032 48,146 $7,806 49,066 $9,984 51,525 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Propane Table 28: Propane utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Yearly $19,238 34,619 $19,239 28,873 Total $19,238 34,619 $19,239 28,873 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre 62 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.7. Other .......................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 24 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 24 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 26 4.3. Electrification – Boilers .............................................................................................................. 28 4.4. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 29 4.5. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 30 4.6. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 32 4.7. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) .................................................................................... 33 4.8. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 34 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 35 4.10. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 36 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 38 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 38 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 38 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 38 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 40 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 40 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 41 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 44 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 45 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 48 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 49 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 51 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 51 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 53 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 53 7.2. Appendix B – Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 54 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 29% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 83,786 kWh/yr. 302 $13,583 2.5 Natural gas 711 GJ/yr. 711 $10,379 35.3 Water 44 m3/yr. - $44 0.0 Total 1,012 $24,006 37.9 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 37.9 42.4 41.2 42.5 41.5 17.4 14.4 13.9 12.5 10.6 8.2 7.5 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 Pathway 2 37.9 35.2 30.6 31.1 30.7 7.6 Grid Decarbonization 37.9 42.4 41.2 42.5 41.5 40.9 40.0 39.8 39.4 38.8 38.0 37.8 37.6 37.4 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.0 37.0 36.9 36.8 Baseline GHGs 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 10-yr target (-50%)18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Four ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways. One ECM was used for Pathway 1, while all four ECMs along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI),thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.68 0.82 7% 0.82 7% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.65 0.58 10% 0.58 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 32.89 37.20 7.12 78% 4.00 88% ECI ($/m²) $20.82 N/A $38.89 -87% $38.89 -87% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.68 0.50 43% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.65 0.45 31% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 32.89 37.20 6.60 80% ECI ($/m²) $20.82 $23.74 -14% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers - Electrification -177,032 711 30.0 -$21,279 $115,614 Never -$530,758 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 48,524 0 1.5 $8,328 $109,946 11.6 $49,315 3 Existing Building Commissioning 5,781 79 4.1 $2,008 $11,354 4.7 -$1,027 4 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 57 2.8 $730 $6,113 6.2 $339 5 Carbon Offsets - - 3.0 - $54 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to February 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of December 2022 to February 2024 o Water consumption data for the period of January 2023 to October 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a comprehensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre (SJWHC) is a single-storey, 1,151 m2 facility located at 62 Temperance Street, in Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1965. The SJWHC is part of the Clarington Library Museums & Archives services and serves as a public library. The mechanical heating equipment is located in the mechanical room. The building is estimated to have about 35 occupants per day. Occupied hours are generally 10am-4pm on Monday-Thursday, and Saturday. Figure 2: Building exterior from street (left), and aerial view of building (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are clad with red brick. Exterior doors include sliding glazed aluminum framed units at the front and a swing painted metal door at the side. This building has aluminum-framed double-glazed windows of various sizes. The roof is a typical flat-roof construction with modified bitumen finish. The roof condition could not be verified due to lack of access. Figure 3: Example envelope components; door (left), and window (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Space heating is provided by three natural gas-fired boilers, providing heat to radiant baseboard and wall heaters located throughout the building, and to the heating coils in the air handling units. No building automation system (BAS) is used in this facility. There are adjustable thermostats located in locked housing which require key access. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Serial number Year Rating Efficiency Boilers 3 Mech Room Building Slant/Fin GG- 399HES - 2021 399 MBH 80.7% Boiler Pumps 2 Mech Room Building Century - - - 1 hp 80% Figure 5: Natural gas boilers (left) and radiant heater (right) Figure 6: Analog thermostat with locking access Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Space Cooling Two condensing units provide space cooling via cooling coils in the AHUs. These are located outside the building and on the roof. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Condensing units 2 Exterior Building Daikin - ~3 Ton ~14 SEER Figure 7: Example condensing unit Ventilation Ventilation to the building is provided via two air handling units (AHUs) located in the mechanical room, as well as one exhaust fan in the mechanical room. Ventilation equipment seemed to be in good condition. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Rating Efficiency AHU-1 1 Mech Room Various Sheldons 7.5 hp 80% AHU-2 1 Mech Room Various Sheldons 3 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Mech Room Mech Room Coolair 1/2 hp 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Figure 8: Air handler (left) and exhaust fan (right). 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One electric DHW tank is located in the mechanical room and provides hot water to the entire building. DHW equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW heater 1 Mech Room Building Giant 152B-3F5M 4.5 kW 90% Figure 9: DHW heater 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is mainly fluorescent and halogen, with some fixtures upgraded to LED. Fixtures include panels, track lighting, and pot lights. The most common Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 fixture seen inside the building was a 2x4 ft fluorescent panel light. Exterior lighting includes sconces and wall packs. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 10: Example interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and a pre -rinse spray valve. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Office 1 Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Janitor Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 gpm Washroom - W Toilet 3 1.6 gpf Washroom - W Faucet, lavatory 2 1.5 gpm Washroom - M Toilet 2 1.6 gpf Washroom - M Urinal 1 1.0 gpf Washroom - M Lavatory 2 1.5 gpm Washroom - U Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Washroom - U Lavatory 1 1.5 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Figure 11: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 01087705-06 Exterior Unknown Electricity 1002305 Not located Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 67 01113 4 Exterior Whole Building Water 3588910000 Not located 2.7. Other Other systems in the building are catalogued in the table below. Table 12: Other equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Elevator 1 Main level Basement Ziehl-Abegg - 13 kW Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 12: Hydraulic elevator nameplate 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas December 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham January 2023 – October 2023 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas, and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption using available data. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevator, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Figure 13: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption during the period of available data. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating load s. The baseload consumption is attributed to space heating over the summer, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the other seasons. Figure 14: Natural gas consumption over time 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption for the period of available data. The water consumption does appear to increase into late spring and summer. Without multiple years of data, it is not possible to interpret any trends. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets, with differences between baseline and average presumed to be from increased occupancy/visitors. Figure 15: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 83,786 kWh/yr. 302 $13,583 2.5 Natural gas 711 GJ/yr. 711 $10,379 35.3 Water 44 m³/yr. $44 0.0 Total 1,012 $24,006 37.9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $8,428.90/yr $0.17/kWh Natural Gas $742.27/yr. $12.81/GJ Water $1,306.10/yr. $3.05/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's SJWHC performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for public ser vices buildings. Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 0.88 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 32.89 37.20 ECI ($/m2) 20.82 WUI (m3/m2) 0.04 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The ventilation system consumes the most electricity in the building at 32% of the total, with plug loads close behind at 30%. Lighting consumes about 19% of th e total electricity, cooling consumes about 9%, and other uses are each consuming 6% or less of the total electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 16: Electricity end uses Natural Gas Natural gas is only used in this building for the heating boilers. Figure 17: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. Ventilation 32% Plug Loads 30%Lighting 19% Cooling Equipment 9% Mechanical 6% Space Heating 3%Domestic Hot Water 1% Space Heating 100% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Figure 18: Water end uses Toilet 43% Faucet, lavatory 31% Urinal 15% Pre-rinse spray valve 6% Faucet, kitchen 5% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the net present value, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.3. Electrification – Boilers Organizations are exploring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers. Project Cost: $115,614 Annual Electricity Savings: -177,032 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 711 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 73 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$21,279 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 30.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 751 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$530,758 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 81 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 3 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.4. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southwestern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $109,946 Annual Electricity Savings: 48,524 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $8,328 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$1,005 Simple Payback: 11.6 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 1.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 36 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $49,315 Internal Rate of Return: 8% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 7° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 41 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.5. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interactions and reduced runtimes. Project Cost: $11,354 Annual Electricity Savings: 5,781 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 79 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 100 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $2,008 Simple Payback: 4.7 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 21 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,027 Internal Rate of Return: 2% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for medium office-type buildings with an average size of 74,190 ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.31/ft 2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6% and 12%, respectively. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.6. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal cont act between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfer rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the hydronic loop at Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre. Project Cost: $6,113 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 57 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 57 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $730 Simple Payback: 6.2 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 23 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $339 Internal Rate of Return: 6% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 5 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing both the Heating Additive and Boiler Electrification measures concurrently may result in overlapping energy savings, as these ECMs target similar heating efficiencies Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.7. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of halogen, incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. LED upgrade is partially done for this building – ECM explores replacing the remaining units. ECM is listed as additional due to Clarington response to Project Cost: $36,921 Annual Electricity Savings: 6,087 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,045 Simple Payback: 22.9 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 3 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$22,809 Internal Rate of Return: -6% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.8. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $15,708 Annual Electricity Savings: 33 kWh/yr. Annual Water Savings: 9 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $33 Simple Payback: >50 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$15,400 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 6 toilets, 1 urinals, and 2 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.9. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.10. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. These steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 19: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 20: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers - Electrification -177,032 711 30.0 -$21,279 $115,614 Never -$530,758 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 Rooftop Solar PV 48,524 0 1.5 $8,328 $109,946 11.6 $49,315 3 Existing Building Commissioning 5,781 79 4.1 $2,008 $11,354 4.7 -$1,027 4 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 57 2.8 $730 $6,113 6.2 $339 5 Carbon Offsets - - 3.0 - $54 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $54 3.0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 22: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.68 0.82 7% 0.82 7% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.65 0.58 10% 0.58 10% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 32.89 37.20 7.12 78% 4.00 88% ECI ($/m²) $20.82 N/A $38.89 -87% $38.89 -87% Table 23: GHG reduction Pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024-2028 2029 2030-2035 2036-2039 2040 - 2044 Boilers - Electrification $115,614 Total cost ($) $0 $115,614 $0 $0 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 37.9 42.4 41.2 42.5 41.5 17.4 14.4 13.9 12.5 10.6 8.2 7.5 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 Baseline GHGs 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 10-yr target (-50%)18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 20-yr target (-80%)7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 24: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.88 0.68 0.50 43% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.65 0.45 31% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 32.89 37.20 6.60 80% ECI ($/m²) $20.82 $23.74 -14% Table 25: Pathway 2 Capital Expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Boilers – Electrification $115,614 Rooftop Solar PV $104,862 Existing Building Commissioning $11,354 Hydronic Heating Additive $6,113 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $54 Total ($) $17,467 $104,862 $0 $0 $115,668 Figure 20: GHG Reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 37.9 35.2 30.6 31.1 30.7 7.6 Baseline GHGs 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 5-yr target (-80%)7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 26: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 177,032 - 5,409 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 710.8 710.8 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 33 30 GHG Emission reduction (%) 88% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.029 0.026 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 115,614 $ 237,997 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) -$2,577 $ 1,214 Net present value ($) -$ 458,155 -$ 291,191 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Figure 21: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $201.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $17.5K $104.9 $0 $0 $115.7 $0 $50.0K $100.0K $150.0K $200.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Figure 22: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 37.9 42.4 41.2 42.5 41.5 17.4 14.4 13.9 12.5 10.6 8.2 7.5 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 Pathway 2 37.9 35.2 30.6 31.1 30.7 7.6 Grid Decarbonization 37.9 42.4 41.2 42.5 41.5 40.9 40.0 39.8 39.4 38.8 38.0 37.8 37.6 37.4 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.0 37.0 36.9 36.8 Baseline GHGs 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 10-yr target (-50%)18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 27: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification $115,614 $201,289 -$85,675 Total Pathway 1 $115,614 $201,289 -$85,675 Rooftop Solar PV $104,862 N/A $104,862 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $11,354 N/A $11,354 Hydronic heating additive $6,113 N/A $6,113 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $54 N/A $54 Total Pathway 2 $237,997 $201,289 $36,708 Table 28: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 5 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) -177,032 -75,409 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 710.8 710.8 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 33 30 GHG Emission reduction (%) 88% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.029 0.026 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) -$ 85,675 $36,708 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) -$2,577 $1,214 Incremental Net present value ($) -$256,866 -$89,902 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 44% and 69% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively, when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing and electrifying boilers and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and undertaking boiler switch outs may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: The installation of new boilers or solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or electrified systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or electrification over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 29: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Main Ent. Lobby 2L-MR16-Hal-35W-Track-Ceil Sfc 5 Library Area-1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Panel-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 56 Area-2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Panel-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 60 Office 1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Panel-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 2 Office 2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Panel-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 2 Lower Level Main area 3L-MR16-Hal-35W-Track-Ceil Sfc 3 Lower Level Main area 2L-MR16-Hal-35W-Track-Ceil Sfc 2 Lower Level Main area 3L-MR16-Hal-35W-Track-Ceil Sfc 5 Lower Level Main area 1L-8in-2pin PL-FL-26W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc 1 Lower Level Kitchen 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Lower Level Storage 1L-5in-A19-Inc-25W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 1 Lower Level Artifacts storage -1 1L-7in-PAR30-Hal-39W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Lower Level Artifacts storage -2 1L-7in-PAR30-Hal-39W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Lower Level Artifacts storage -3 1L-7in-PAR30-Hal-39W-Pot Light-E26-Rcs 2 Lower Level Janitor’s Room 2L-MR16-Hal-35W-Track-Ceil Sfc 2 Lower Level WR- Women’s 2L-1x4ft-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 3 Lower Level WR-Men’s 2L-1x4ft-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 3 Lower Level WR-U 1L-5in-LED-14W-Pot Light-Rcs 4 Lower Level Mech Room 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-40W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 Lower Level Mech Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Ceil Sfc-Open 1 Lower Level Archives Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 Lower Level Artifacts Storage-1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Panel-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 24 Lower Level Artifacts Storage- 2(PPE) 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Panel-Med BiPin-Hang- Wrap 18 Lower Level Elevator room-1 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-40W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Report pg. 54 Lower Level Elevator room -2 2L-4ft-T12 (4')-FL-40W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 Lower Level WR- Women’s 2L-11in-A19-LED-14W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc 1 Exterior 1L-LED-50W-Sconce-Ceil Sfc-Square 7 Exterior 1L-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 2 7.2. Appendix B – Utility Data Electricity Table 30: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $971 6,226 $1,038 6,341 February $901 5,781 $1,052 6,312 March $881 5,788 $847 5,388 April $973 6,383 $958 6,086 May $1,143 7,430 $919 5,800 June $1,216 7,779 $1,321 8,116 July $1,322 8,510 $1,444 8,963 August $1,381 8,990 $1,386 3,234 September $1,213 7,809 $1,334 8,309 October $1,096 7,188 $1,499 9,472 November $1,124 7,759 $1,197 7,375 December $962 6,461 $987 6,071 Total $11,311 74,097 $13,764 80,821 $2,090 12,653 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Report pg. 55 Natural Gas Table 31: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $1,478 96 $1,335 105 February $1,492 97 $1,144 88 March $1,365 92 April $755 54 May $214 10 June $174 7 July $160 7 August $186 8 September $16 5 October $819 57 November $1,476 111 December $1,844 112 $1,357 103 Total $1,844 112 $9,491 645 $2,479 193 Water Table 32: Water utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $114 2 February $114 2 March $122 3 April $122 3 May $128 6 June $128 6 July $126 6 August $126 6 September $120 5 October $120 5 November December Total $1,223 44 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Report pg. 56 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway South Courtice Arena 1595 Prestonvale Road, Courtice, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 2 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Key Contacts .............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 13 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 18 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 21 2.7. Other (Ice Rink) .......................................................................................................................... 22 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 23 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 26 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 27 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 30 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 30 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 32 4.3. Electrification – Boiler (Space Heating) ..................................................................................... 34 4.4. Electrification – Boiler (Domestic Hot Water) ........................................................................... 35 4.5. High-Efficiency MUA .................................................................................................................. 36 4.6. Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters ...................................................................................... 37 4.7. REALice ...................................................................................................................................... 38 4.8. LED Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 39 4.9. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 40 4.10. Low Flow Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................... 42 4.11. Variable Frequency Drives on Pumps ........................................................................................ 43 4.12. Hydronic Heating Additive ......................................................................................................... 44 4.13. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 45 4.14. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 46 4.15. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 47 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 49 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 49 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 49 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 49 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 51 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 51 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 52 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 55 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 56 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 60 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 61 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 63 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 63 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 65 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 65 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 70 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 71 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the South Courtice Arena. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 54% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 2,332,594 kWh/yr. 8,397 $382,746 70.0 Natural gas 9,749 GJ/yr. 9,749 $155,761 484.8 Water 16,750 m3/yr. - $16,750 0.6 Total 18,146 $555,257 555.4 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Figure 1: GHG reduction Pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 554.8 681.7 647.4 482.5 339.8 313.6 264.6 257.4 234.2 203.7 165.3 153.4 144.1 136.9 130.6 122.6 119.2 115.4 113.3 110.3 106.5 Pathway 2 555 663 545 391 266 110.9 Grid Decarbonization 554.8 681.7 647.4 682.8 654.8 640.4 613.3 609.4 596.5 579.7 558.5 552.0 546.9 542.9 539.4 535.0 533.1 531.0 529.8 528.2 526.1 Baseline GHGs 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 10-yr target (-50%)277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, additional ECMs were considered and offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. 11 ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.54 1.65 2.22 13% 2.22 13% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.15 0.87 24% 0.87 24% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 77.61 55.50 23.09 70% 14.89 81% ECI ($/m²) $75.25 N/A $99.30 -32% $99.30 -32% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 2.54 1.65 1.32 48% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.15 0.62 46% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 77.61 55.50 15.50 80% ECI ($/m²) $75.25 N/A $60.68 19% The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers – Electrification (Space Heating) -1,042,147 4,118 173.5 -$111,720 $235,003 Never -$2,399,033 2 Boilers – Electrification (DHW) -721,527 2,922 123.7 -$76,293 $192,793 Never -$1,666,264 3 High Efficiency MUA 0 129 6.4 $1,922 $94,967 26.9 -$49,837 4 Radiant Tube Heaters – Electrification -130,410 1,942 92.7 $7,209 $66,166 5.5 $79,480 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 5 RealIce – For Two Pads 237,572 1,001 56.9 $54,270 $184,564 3.1 $790,865 6 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 94,907 0 2.8 $15,743 $188,058 9.8 $24,672 7 Existing Building Commissioning 142,288 963 52.2 $37,909 $70,594 1.7 $120,464 8 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 292 14.6 $15,453 $54,879 3.2 $94,507 9 VFD – Pumps (P3,4,5,6) 30,534 0 0.9 $5,065 $39,835 7.2 $4,885 10 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 329 16.4 $4,892 $13,088 2.3 $29,245 11 Rooftop Solar PV 426,079 0 12.8 $70,679 $1,024,556 12.6 $315,403 12 Carbon Offsets - - 63.8 - $1,148 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the South Courtice Arena. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to January 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of March 2022 to December 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of March 2022 to February 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 2. Building and Systems The South Courtice Arena is a two-storey, 7,156 m2 facility located at 1595 Prestonvale Road, in Courtice, Ontario. The building was constructed in 2003. The building houses two ice arenas as well as several offices and classroom areas. It also provides irrigation to adjacent soccer playing fields. The mechanical heating equipment is located throughout the building, including in the boiler room, the mechanical room, ceiling spaces, and rooftop. The ice plant has a dedicated mechanical room. The building welcomes approximately 1100 or more guests per day, and it is open year-round. General occupied hours are 6 AM to midnight. Figure 2: Municipality of Clarington’s South Courtice Arena exterior (left), and an aerial view (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are light coloured concrete block with some areas of metal ribbed siding. No deficiencies or damage were observed. The exterior doors include sliding glazed aluminum doors at the main entrance as well as swing glazed aluminum doors at some other entrances. Other exterior doors include painted metal doors and two overhead doors for equipment. This building has a large number of aluminum framed double glazed windows of various sizes. There is a single peaked low-slope roof over the two ice surfaces, in addition to a typical flat-roof construction over the other areas with EPDM finish. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 3: Example envelope components; door (left), and window (right) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating Two natural gas boilers supply hydronic heating loops that serve building-wide cabinet radiators, heating coils in the building’s HVAC system, and the common water loop for the water source heat pumps. The water is circulated through the system via primary and secondary pumps. A gas-fired AHU provides heating for the change room area, and natural gas radiant tube heating is used for the arena viewing area and Zamboni room. Other supplemental heating includes electric forced fan heaters in select locations. This building uses a building automation system (BAS). There is a separate BAS control for the ice refrigeration plant. Building setpoints are only operator adjustable. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Boilers 2 Boiler Room All Raypak H3 1336-N-2P 1,337 MBH 82% Radiant Tube Heaters 10 Arena Stands Arena Stands Schwank - 100 MBH ~80% Radiant Tube Heaters 5 Zamboni Room Zamboni Room Re-verber-ray DX2-20-50N 70 MBH ~80% AHU-1 1 Mech Room Hallways/ Change Rm EngA FWB-313/DJ-100-C 950 MBH 78.9% Heat Pumps 14 Various Various Climate Master TRH018AGC40CRSS 5 kW 100% Heat Pumps 3 Various Various Climate Master TRV048AHCG0CRTS 16 kW 100% Heat Pumps 6 Various Various Climate Master TCV096AHCGACBTS 30 kW 100% UH Fan 1 Mech Room Mech Room EngA H-6 1/6 hp ~80% Circ Pumps – HP Glycol Loop 2 Mech Room Various WEG BE37646/62 15 hp 91% Forced Fans 6 Various Various - - 1 hp ~80% Circ Pumps – Boiler Primary 1 Mech Room Various Brook Crompton PF4N002-5C 2 hp 87% Circ Pumps – Boiler Primary 1 Mech Room Various WEG - 2 hp 84% Circ Pumps – Boiler Primary 1 Mech Room Various WEG - 3 hp 90% Circ Pumps – Boiler Primary 1 Mech Room Various Brook Crompton H-0A182TC-N 3 hp 80% Pumps – HW Supply 2 Mech Room Various WEG - 10 hp 90% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 5: Natural gas boilers (left) and water-source heat pump (right) Figure 6: Natural gas radiant tube heaters: Zamboni room (left) and arena viewing stands (right) Figure 7: BAS screen for heat pumps (left) ice plant BAS home screen (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Space Cooling Multiple water-source heat pumps provide cooling to individual spaces throughout the building. Heat is rejected into the common water loop which is pumped to the cooling tower equipment on the roof. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Heat Pumps 14 Various Various Climate Master TRH018AGC40CRSS 6 kW 100% Heat Pumps 3 Various Various Climate Master TRV048AHCG0CRTS 16 kW 100% Heat Pumps 6 Various Various Climate Master TCV096AHCGACBTS 31 kW 100% Circ Pumps – HP Rejection Loop 2 Various Various WEG MAT 12727233 15 hp 93% Spray Pump – HP Cooling Tower 1 Roof Various CT - 15 hp ~80% Condenser Fan – HP Cooling Tower 1 Roof Various CT - 20 hp 80% Figure 8: Ceiling mounted heat pump model (left), floor mounted heat pump model (right) Ventilation A heat recovery air handling unit provides ventilation for the building via ceiling ducting. Heat pumps also provide ventilation through their compressor units. Various exhaust fans provide additional ventilation for the building, with larger units tied to CO sensors servicing the ice rinks. Ventilation equipment seemed to be in good condition. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency AH1-SF 1 MUA Room Hallways & CR’s EngA FWB-313/DJ- 100-C 20 hp 93% AH1-RF 1 MUA Room Hallways & CR’s EngA FWB-313/DJ- 100-C 15 hp 93% Dehumidifier 1 - Pad A&B Concepts & Design DH-160-12- DSOSSLOR 15 hp ~80% Dehumidifier 1 - Pad A&B Concepts & Design DH-160-12- DSOSSLOR 5 hp ~80% Exhaust Fans 3 Olympia Rm, PADs A/B Olympia Rm, PADs A/B - - 1.5 hp ~80% Exhaust Fans 7 Throughout Throughout Loren Cook - ¼ hp ~80% Figure 9: Air handling unit (left) and typical exhaust fan (right). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 2.3. Domestic Hot Water Domestic hot water service is provided by two natural gas boilers via a heat exchanger. The heated water is circulated to the building’s plumbing fixtures and Zamboni storage tanks via two DHW circulation pumps. DHW equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Boilers 2 Boiler Room All Raypak WH3 962-N- 2P 962 MBH 80% DHW circ pump 1 Boiler Room Various Brook Crompton 090W001080 1 hp 83% DHW recirc pump 1 Boiler Room Various Grundfos UPS26-99SFC 147 W 90% Figure 10: DHW recirculation pump 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is mainly fluorescent, with some LED fixtures. Types of fixtures include troffers and strip lights, with fluorescent troffers being the most common. Exterior lighting is LED and includes wall packs and pole lights, a nd is presumed to operate on photocells. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Figure 11: Example interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and showerheads. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow Rate Craft Room Faucet, lavatory, residential 1 3 gpm MF WR Toilet 1 1.6 gpf MF WR Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm PADA-CR6 Toilet 1 1.6 gpf PADA-CR6 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm PADA-CR6 Showerhead 3 2.5 gpm PADA-CR4 Toilet 1 1.6 gpf PADA-CR4 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Area Type Qty (#) Flow Rate PADA-CR4 Showerhead 3 2.5 gpm PADA-CR4 Fountain 1 2 gpm PAD B Fountain 1 2 gpm Main hallway Fountain 1 2 gpm Mens WR Toilet 2 1.6 gpf Mens WR Urinal 4 1 gpf Mens WR Faucet, lavatory, public 3 3 gpm PADB-WR1 Toilet 1 1.6 gpf PADB-WR1 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm PADB-WR1 Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm PADB-WR2 Toilet 1 1.6 gpf PADB-WR2 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm PADB-WR2 Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm PADB-WR3 Toilet 1 1.6 gpf PADB-WR3 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm PADB-WR3 Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm PADB-WR4 Toilet 1 1.6 gpf PADB-WR4 Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm PADB-WR4 Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm MF Womens WR Toilet 5 1.6 gpf MF Womens WR Faucet, lavatory, public 4 3 gpm Cocession Area Faucet, kitchen 2 3 gpm 2nd Floor Utility Faucet, kitchen 2 3 gpm 2nd Floor Faucet, kitchen 1 3 gpm 2nd Floor Toilet 2 1.6 gpf 2nd Floor Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm 2nd Floor Toilet 2 1.6 gpf 3rd Floor Faucet, lavatory, public 1 3 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Figure 12: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 20003671015 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 84 51 01 48999 2 Exterior Whole Building Water 2797610000 Unknown Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 2.7. Other (Ice Rink) The arena has an ice rink that requires various mechanical equipment to operate. This includes compressors, cooling tower, and circulation pumps connected to under -slab piping. A dehumidification unit treats the air in the arena PAD A & B changeroom areas to lower the humidity. This equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 12: Other equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service Area Make Model Year Rating Efficienc y Compressors 4 Compresso r Room Ammonia Loop Ventpak- HE - 2003 50 hp 94% Condenser Pump 1 Compresso r Room Ammonia Loop - - 2003 ~3 hp ~80% Subfloor Pump 1 Compresso r Room Rink Loop - - 2003 ~5 hp ~80% Glycol Pumps 3 Compresso r Room Rink Loop Baldor M2535 7-5 2003 30 hp 92% Compressor Jacket Pump 1 Compresso r Room Ammonia Loop - - 2003 ~1 hp 80% Spray Pump (CT) 1 Exterior Ammonia Loop WEG - 2003 15 hp 92% Cooling Tower 1 Exterior Ammonia Loop - - 2003 20 hp ~80% Dehumidifier Burner 1 Rooftop Ice Rink Concepts & Designs Inc DH- 160- 12- DSOSS LOR - 862 MBH ~80% Figure 13: Compressors (left) refrigeration control panel (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 13: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One March 2022 – January 2024 March 2022 and December 2023 have cost data but missing consumption data. September 2023 is missing cost data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 – December 2023 All months in this period have associated data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham March 2022 – February 2024 January and February 2024 have cost data but missing consumption data. 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption using available data. Electricity consumption varies throughout the year, but appears to be fairly consistent each month in 2022 compared to the same month in 2023, where data is available both year s. There appears to be very low consumption in December of 2022. The reason for this presumed anomaly is not understood. More data would be required to determine if this is a recurring trend. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevator, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as cooling. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Figure 14: Electricity consumption over time Natural gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption during the period of available data. Consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The basel oad consumption is attributed to the domestic water and space heating loads in the summer, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the other seasons. Figure 15: Natural gas consumption over time 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption for the period of available data. The water consumption is relatively consistent between the two years from March to August. The peaks in the summer months may be due to irrigation of the soccer fields and cooling tower makeup water for the building cooling system. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, typically attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and showers. Figure 16: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 14: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 2,332,594 kWh/yr. 8,397 $382,746 70.0 Natural gas 9,749 GJ/yr. 9,749 $155,761 484.8 Water 16,750 m³/yr. $16,750 0.6 Total 18,146 $555,257 555.4 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 15: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was calculated for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. Fixed and marginal rates could not be determined for electricity, natural gas, and water, so average rates are used. Average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 16: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Average utility rate Electricity - $0.17 kWh Natural Gas - $14.85/GJ Water - $4.15/ m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's South Courtice Arena performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 17: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 2.54 1.65 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 77.61 55.50 ECI ($/m2) 75.25 WUI (m3/m2) 2.34 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The ice plant system consumes the most electricity in the building at 30% of the total. The building cooling system consumes about 24% of the total electricity use. Lighting, plug loads, space heating, and ventilation follow at about 13%, 13%, 9%, and 8% of total, respectively. Remaining uses are each 3% or lower. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 Figure 17: Electricity end uses Natural gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes the most natural gas in the building at 66%, while DHW for the Zamboni and water fixtures consuming about 30% of the total Figure 18: Natural gas end uses Ice Rink Loops 40% Lighting 13% Plug Loads 13% Cooling Equipment 13% Space Heating 9% Ventilation 8% Mechanical 3%Domestic Hot Water <1% Space Heating 66% Domestic Hot Water 30% Mechanical 4% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The “other” category includes soccer field irrigation, ice making and ice resurfacing water, and cooling tower make up water, at about 38% of the total use. Showerhead and faucet consumption are each estimated at 21% of total. Remaining uses are estimated at 13% or lower, as shown. Figure 19: Water end uses Other 38% Showerhead 21% Faucet, lavatory 21% Toilet 13% Urinal 5% Fountain 2% Faucet, kitchen <1% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback has been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 4.3. Electrification – Boiler (Space Heating) In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but will increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers for space heating. Project Cost: $235,003 Annual Electricity Savings: -1,042,147 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 4,118 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 366 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$111,720 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 173.5 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 4,338 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$2,399,033 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 82 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. • Check with your utility provider about potential demand charges, as electric boilers can significantly increase peak power usage. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 4.4. Electrification – Boiler (Domestic Hot Water) In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but will increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric boilers for domestic hot water. Project Cost: $192,793 Annual Electricity Savings: -721,527 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 2,922 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 325 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$76,293 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 123.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 3,092 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,666,264 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 90%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 2 electric boilers of similar size to the current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 4.5. High-Efficiency MUA This ECM explores replacing the existing MUA with a high-efficiency model to reduce natural gas consumption. The existing MUA, installed 2003, has reached its end of useful service life (>15 yrs old), so this ECM can be implemented in alignment with capital replacement plans. Project Cost: $94,967 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 129 GJ/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,922 Simple Payback: 26.9 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 6.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 161 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$49,837 Internal Rate of Return: -1% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated natural gas savings are based on the difference in the thermal efficiency between the existing and new models. The existing model has a rated efficiency of 79%, while the proposed model is 91% efficient. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans and includes materials and labour for the installation of the new MUA. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Confirm the new MUA unit is properly sized for the building’s ventilation requirements • Ensure compatibility with the existing Building Automation System (BAS) • Evaluate roof or mechanical room load capacity if upgrading to a larger or heavier unit Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 4.6. Electrification – Radiant Tube Heaters In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, natural gas consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than natural gas, but will increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than natural gas. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from natural gas to electric radiant tube heaters. Project Cost: $66,166 Annual Electricity Savings: -130,410 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 1,942 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 1,473 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $7,209 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$930 Simple Payback: 5.5 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 92.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1,390 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $79,480 Internal Rate of Return: 17% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80 to 96%, and by switching the fuel from natural gas to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 23 electric radiant tube heaters to match capacity of the 15 current models. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas-fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 4.7. REALice Hot water is used for ice building and resurfacing in ice rinks to minimize air bubbles in the water, resulting in smooth ice. REALice is a system that removes air bubbles from the water mechanically, producing a similar effect at a lower water temperature. This results in savings in energy related to heating water. REALice is a small device which is installed on the incoming water line. It is powered by water pressure alone to create a high-velocity vortex that traps and removes air bubbles. In addition to realizing energy savings related to hot water consumption, RE ALice decreases energy consumption related to the ice plant compressor and dehumidification system due to decreased cooling and evaporation loads, respectively. This ECM explores integrating REALice the two sheets of ice in this facility. Project Cost: $184,564 Annual Electricity Savings: 237,572 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 1,001 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 1,856 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $54,270 Simple Payback: 3.1 yrs. Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 56.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1,138 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $790,865 Internal Rate of Return: 35% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The estimated energy savings are based on assumptions about water consumption and temperature. Ice building was assumed to be completed annually and fill the rink with ice 3/4” thick. Ice resurfacing was assumed to occur 9 times per day for 365 days of operation and use the entire capacity of a Zamboni tank. The existing water temperature is assumed to be 60 °C and the proposed water temperature is 20 °C. • The project cost was sourced from REALice. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Obtain actionable quote from REALice Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 4.8. LED Lighting Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of fluorescent and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non-LED lights to LED fixtures. Project Cost: $188,058 Annual Electricity Savings: 94,907 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $15,743 Simple Payback: 9.8 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 43 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $24,672 Internal Rate of Return: 7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 4.9. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interactions and run times. Project Cost: $70,594 Annual Electricity Savings: 142,288 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 963 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 1,476 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $37,909 Simple Payback: 1.7 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 52.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 261 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $120,464 Internal Rate of Return: 53% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for recreation-type buildings with an average size of 115,914 ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.50/ft2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6% and 10%, respectively. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 4.10. Low Flow Water Fixtures Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. Project Cost: $54,879 Annual Natural Gas Savings: 292 GJ/yr. Annual Water Savings: 2,678 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $15,453 Simple Payback: 3.2 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 14.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 146 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $94,507 Internal Rate of Return: 31% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. • Natural gas savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 18 toilets, 4 urinals, 10 showerheads, and 22 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. • Low-flow fixtures reduce hot water demand, directly decreasing the load on an electrified DHW boiler. This synergy can amplify overall energy savings by optimizing the performance of the electrified system under lower demand conditions. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 4.11. Variable Frequency Drives on Pumps For many circumstances where the load on a motor varies, energy consumption can be reduced by using a variable frequency drive (VFD) to reduce motor speed when appropriate. The VFD adjusts the motor speed, typically based on the instantaneous motor load. Typically, energy savings can range anywhere from 10 to 50 percent depending on the application. This ECM explores adding VFDs to the pumps for the heating water loop and the pumps for the chilled water loop. Project Cost: $39,835 Annual Electricity Savings: 30,534 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $5,065 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$360 Simple Payback: 7.2 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.9 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $4,885 Internal Rate of Return: 7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Currently, the P-3/P-4 pumps/motors operate an estimated 4,200 hours per year, and the P-5/P-6 pumps/motors operate an estimated 3,600 hours per year, at a constant 65% load factor. A low-speed variable motor profile was used to simulate pump/motor operation with the proposed VFDs, with an equivalent savings rate of 30%. • The project cost was sourced from RSMeans, and includes labour and materials for adding the VFDs. While it is possible to add a VFD to most pump systems without replacing the existing pump and motor, it is common to replace these components to ensure compatibility. The estimated cost does not include re-piping or integration with the building automation system. • Existing building commissioning ensures that the VFD pumps operate at their designed efficiency and are properly integrated into the building's HVAC system. This interaction maximizes energy savings by optimizing pump performance and overall system energy use. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • This ECM will require a design phase to confirm system suitability. For example, we will need to confirm that two-way zone valves are present. • Confirm VFD compatibility with the existing motors and system controls Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 4.12. Hydronic Heating Additive Hydronic heating system use water/glycol as the medium for heat transfer. These fluids have high surface tensions that detract from their heat transfer efficiency. Heating fluid additives reduce the surface tension of working fluids to improve thermal contact between the fluid and the inner wall of the piping system. This increases the thermal transfe r rate, improving the overall efficiency of the heating system. This ECM explores introducing heating additive to the space heating hydronic loop at South Courtice Arena. Project Cost: $13,088 Annual Electricity Savings: 0 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 329 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 329 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,892 Simple Payback: 2.3 yrs. Measure Life: 8 yrs. Annual GHGs: 16.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 131 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $29,245 Internal Rate of Return: 43% Savings and Cost Assumptions • 8% savings were applied to natural gas consumption from the boilers. Case studies from Endotherm, a hydronic heating additive supplier, have shown that consumption savings range from 8-12% for commercial buildings. • The material cost is sourced from Endotherm, and includes 11 gallons of additive. • The labour cost includes one hour of work at 300$/hr. • Implementing the hydronic heating additive and boiler electrification may result in overlapping energy savings, as both target improvements in space heating efficiency. The heating additive enhances thermal transfer within hydronic systems, potentially reducing the demand on the electrified boiler. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Schedule a free site assessment by a hydronic heating additive technician to evaluate the existing hydronic heating system to ensure compatibility with heating fluid additives and identify dosing requirements. • Finalize the volume of additive required and to determine if water treatment is required prior to installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 4.13. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The South Courtice Arena could be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large low slope arena roof with minimal obstructions on northwest and southeast slopes. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $1,024,556 Annual Electricity Savings: 426,079 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $70,679 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$9,352 Simple Payback: 12.6 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 12.8 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 320 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $315,403 Internal Rate of Return: 7% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 15° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 383 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 4.14. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 18: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.15. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the South Courtice Arena. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Community Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 19: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio-wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post the Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 20: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Boilers – Electrification (Space Heating) -1,042,147 4,118 173.5 -$111,720 $235,003 Never -$2,399,033 2 Boilers – Electrification (DHW) -721,527 2,922 123.7 -$76,293 $192,793 Never -$1,666,264 3 High Efficiency MUA 0 129 6.4 $1,922 $94,967 26.9 -$49,837 4 Radiant Tube Heaters – Electrification -130,410 1,942 92.7 $7,209 $66,166 5.5 $79,480 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 5 RealIce – For Two Pads 237,572 1,001 56.9 $54,270 $184,564 3.1 $790,865 6 LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures 94,907 0 2.8 $15,743 $188,058 9.8 $24,672 7 Existing Building Commissioning 142,288 963 52.2 $37,909 $70,594 1.7 $120,464 8 Low Flow Water Fixtures 0 292 14.6 $15,453 $54,879 3.2 $94,507 9 VFD – Pumps (P3,4,5,6) 30,534 0 0.9 $5,065 $39,835 7.2 $4,885 10 Hydronic Heating Additive 0 329 16.4 $4,892 $13,088 2.3 $29,245 11 Rooftop Solar PV 426,079 0 12.8 $70,679 $1,024,556 12.6 $315,403 12 Carbon Offsets - - 63.8 - $1,148 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 21: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $1,148 63.8 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 22: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 2.54 1.65 2.22 13% 2.22 13% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.15 0.87 24% 0.87 24% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 77.61 55.50 23.09 70% 14.89 81% ECI ($/m²) $75.25 N/A $99.30 -32% $99.30 -32% Table 23: GHG reduction Pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031-2044 Boilers – Electrification (Space Heating) - - - $235,003 - - - - Boilers – Electrification (DHW) - - - $192,793 - - - - High Efficiency MUA - - - - $94,967 - - - Radiant Tube Heaters – Electrification - - - - $66,166 - - - Total cost ($) $0 $0 $0 $427,796 $161,133 $0 $0 $0 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Figure 20: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 554.8 681.7 647.4 482.5 339.8 313.6 264.6 257.4 234.2 203.7 165.3 153.4 144.1 136.9 130.6 122.6 119.2 115.4 113.3 110.3 106.5 Baseline GHGs 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 10-yr target (-50%)277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 20-yr target (-80%)111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 55 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 24: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 2.54 1.65 1.32 48% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.15 0.62 46% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 77.61 55.50 15.50 80% ECI ($/m²) $75.25 N/A $60.68 19% Table 25: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 RealIce - $184,564 - - - Boilers – Electrification (Space Heating) - - $235,003 - - Boilers – Electrification (DHW) - - $192,793 - - High Efficiency MUA - - - $94,967 - Radiant Tube Heaters – Electrification - - - $66,166 - LED Upgrade – Remaining Fixtures $188,058 - - - - Existing Building Commissioning - - - - $70,594 Low Flow Water Fixtures $54,879 - - - - VFD – Pumps (P3,4,5,6) $39,835 - - - - Hydronic Heating Additive - - - - $13,088 Rooftop Solar PV - $1,024,556 - - - Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - - - $1,008 Total ($) $282,772 $1,209,120 $427,796 $161,133 $84,689 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 56 Figure 21: GHG reduction pathway 2 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 26: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 4 12 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) -1,894,084 - 285,077 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 9,111 9,746 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 448 444 GHG Emission reduction (%) 81% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.063 0.062 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 588,929 $2,165,651 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $279 $3,835 Net present value ($) -$3,096,277 -$980,038 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 555 663 545 391 266 110.95 Baseline GHGs 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 5-yr target (-80%)111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 57 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. Recall Pathway 1 equipment upgrades were kept in the early years of the 20 year timeline because they matched the natural equipment replacement timeline. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 58 Figure 22: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $259.9 $203.8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $427.8 $161.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $282.8 $1,209 $427.8 $161.1 $84.8K $0 $200.0K $400.0K $600.0K $800.0K $1,000.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 59 Figure 23: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 554.8 681.7 647.4 482.5 339.8 313.6 264.6 257.4 234.2 203.7 165.3 153.4 144.1 136.9 130.6 122.6 119.2 115.4 113.3 110.3 106.5 Pathway 2 555 663 545 391 266 110.9 Grid Decarbonization 554.8 681.7 647.4 682.8 654.8 640.4 613.3 609.4 596.5 579.7 558.5 552.0 546.9 542.9 539.4 535.0 533.1 531.0 529.8 528.2 526.1 Baseline GHGs 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 554.8 10-yr target (-50%)277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 277.4 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 60 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed decisions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 27: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Boilers - Electrification (DHW) $192,793 $129,963 $62,830 Boilers - Electrification (Space Heating) $235,003 $129,963 $105,041 High Efficiency MUA $94,967 $55,681 $39,286 Tube Heater - Electrification $66,166 $148,080 -$81,914 Total Pathway 1 $588,929 $463,686 $125,243 Existing building commissioning 70,594 N/A 70,594 Hydronic Heating Additive 13,088 N/A 13,088 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures 188,058 N/A 188,058 Low Flow Water Fixtures 54,879 N/A 54,879 Real Ice - For Two Pads 184,564 N/A 184,564 Rooftop Solar PV 1, 024,556 N/A 1,024,556 VFD-Pumps 39,835 N/A 39,835 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) 1,148 N/A 1,148 Total Pathway 2 2,165,651 463,686 1,701,965 Table 28: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 4 12 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 1,894,084 - 285,077 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 9,111 9,746 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 448 444 GHG Emission reduction (%) 81% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.063 0.062 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 125,243 $1,701,965 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $279 $ 3,835 Incremental Net present value ($) -$ 2,632,591 -$ 516,353 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 61 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 15% and 47% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV, low flow water fixtures, and equipment electrification contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of equipment electrification and ensuring electrical service capacity, installing LED lighting, integrating solar PV systems, and other efficiency upgrades can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long -term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV, lighting upgrades, managing electrical service for equipment electrification projects, along with other efficiency upgrades may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: While upgrades such as LED lighting offer immediate benefits, other efficiency upgrades such as equipment electrification or the installation of solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 62 Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or equipment electrification, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or equipment electrification over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 63 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduction pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 64 • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 65 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 29: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Main Floor Main Entrance 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 9 Main Floor Lobby 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 21 Main Floor Main Office 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 Main Floor Craft /Youth Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 12 Main Floor Main Office Storage 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 Main Floor Hallway 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 40 Main Floor Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Val 2 Main Floor Electrical Room 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang 1 PAD A Arena 6L-2x4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang-Cage 30 PAD A Arena 6L-2x4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang-Cage 10 Main Floor Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang 2 Main Floor Gymnasium 6L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang-Cage 6 Main Floor Gymnasium 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang-Cage 4 Main Floor Office -2 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs 2 PAD A Cr 7 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 7 PAD A Cr 6 -Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 3 PAD A Cr 6 -Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 PAD A Cr 6 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 7 PADA CR4- Entrance 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 1 PADA Cr4 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 6 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 66 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) PADA Cr4 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 3 PADA Cr4 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 PADA Cr 3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 6 PADA Cr3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 1 PADA Cr2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 6 PADA Cr2 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PADA Cr2 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 1 PADA Cr2 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 PADA Cr1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 5 PADA Cr2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 1 PADA Hallway 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 4 PADA Storage Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 4 Main Floor Mens WR 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Main Floor Mens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Val 6 PAD B Hallway 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 PAD B Arena 6L-2x4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-High Bay-Med BiPin- Hang-Cage 48 PAD B Cr1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 6 PAD B Cr1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 1 PAD B Cr1 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 1 PAD B Cr1 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PAD B Cr1 Wr 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 PAD B Cr2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 7 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 67 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) PAD B Cr3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 7 PAD B Cr4 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 7 PAD B Cr5 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 7 PAD B Cr6 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang- Cage 7 PAD B Storage Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 PAD B Hallway 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 3 PAD B Wr1 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PAD B Wr2 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PAD B Wr3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PAD B Wr4 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PAD B Olympia Room 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin- Hang-Cage 6 PAD B Olympia Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-25W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 2 PAD B Olympia Room 4L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 PAD B Olympia Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-25W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 PAD B Storage Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-25W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 PAD B Utility Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Cage 2 Mainfloor Assessibilty Coordinator 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 4 Mainfloor Meeting Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Cage 8 Mainfloor Facility Op Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 3 Mainfloor Womens WR 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Val 12 Mainfloor Concession Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Cage 4 Mainfloor Maintenance Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-25W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 68 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Mainfloor Concession Room - Storage 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Main Floor Stairwell 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 3 2nd Floor Main Area 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 2nd Floor Main Area 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 2nd Floor Elevator Lobby 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 2nd Floor WR Common 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Val 2 2nd Floor Office 1 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 6 2nd Floor Office 2 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 6 2nd Floor Mech Room Ahu 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 12 2nd Floor Storage Utility Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 3 2nd Floor Game Room 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 30 2nd Floor Upper Viewing Area 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 32 2nd Floor Compressor Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 15 2nd Floor Boiler Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 22 2nd Floor Boiler Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-20W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Cage 3 2nd Floor Utility Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 2nd Floor Washrooms 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 2nd Floor Washrooms 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Val 2 2nd Floor Stairwell (To Mech Room) 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 Main Floor Back Entrance 2L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 2 2nd Floor Washrooms 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 2nd Floor Washrooms 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Troffer-Med BiPin-Rcs- Val 2 Pad A Stairwell Area 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 69 Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Pad B Stairwell Area 1L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-44W-Strip-Med BiPin-Wall Sfc-Cage 2 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-80W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 5 Exterior Exterior 1L-Large-LED-100W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc-Full CO 23 Exterior Exterior 4L-LED-100W-Pole Light 4 Exterior Exterior 1L-11in-LED-100W-Pole Light-Cage 8 Exterior Exterior 6L-LED-100W-Pole Light-Open 8 Exterior Exterior 5L-LED-80W-Flood 4 Exterior Exterior 8L-LED-80W-Flood 7 Exterior Exterior 1L-LED-200W-Flood-Metric 8 Exterior Exterior 4L-LED-100W-Pole Light 6 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 70 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 30: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $23,772 180,535 $32,821 189,165 February $29,315 200,260 March $29,586 188,417 April $27,708 189,628 $30,895 196,297 May $33,934 221,185 $39,091 217,307 June $42,274 210,835 $44,511 227,280 July $44,579 228,947 $36,995 229,207 August $41,948 237,539 $30,949 213,023 September $22,533 203,725 No Data 224,014 October $22,837 195,129 $34,030 207,293 November $27,224 172,866 $32,365 184,768 December $27,787 79,546 $31,299 No Data Total $290,824 1,739,398 $362,809 2,268,402 $32,821 189,165 Natural gas Table 31: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $27,140 1,419 February $16,306 917 March $12,686 1,114 $15,028 920 April $8,825 739 $12,012 724 May $7,904 632 $8,273 493 June $5,489 355 $6,430 426 July $8,435 432 $5,757 471 August $9,007 462 $5,885 482 September $11,084 569 $6,563 541 October $15,496 794 $9,984 836 November $20,586 1,060 $12,366 1,041 December $18,197 939 $11,956 1,003 Total $117,709 7,097 $137,701 9,272 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 71 Water Table 32: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $4,025 1,081 February $4,025 1,081 March $8,057 2,198 $7,796 1,994 April $4,342 1,349 $4,527 1,340 May $4,342 1,349 $4,527 1,340 June $4,342 1,349 $4,527 1,340 July $7,376 2,340 $6,412 2,500 August $7,376 2,340 $6,412 2,500 September $2,322 656 $4,617 1,229 October $2,322 656 $9,233 1,229 November $2,322 656 $9,233 1,079 December $2,322 656 $8,556 1,079 Total $45,124 13,546 $73,889 17,793 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Tourism Centre 181 Liberty Street S, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) ...................................................................................................... 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 23 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Heat Pump (furnace supplement) ............................................................................................. 27 4.4. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 28 4.5. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) .................................................................................... 29 4.6. Considered Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 30 4.7. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 31 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 33 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 33 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 33 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 35 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 35 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 36 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 40 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 43 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 44 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 46 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 46 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 48 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 48 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data ............................................................................................................ 48 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Tourism Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 82% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 8,016 kWh/yr. 29 $1,442 0.2 Natural gas 132 GJ/yr. 132 $3,369 6.6 Water 109 m3/yr. - $109 0.0 Total 1,064 $4,921 6.8 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 6.8 7.2 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 Pathway 2 6.8 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 1.4 Grid Decarbonization 6.8 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 Baseline GHGs 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10-yr target (-50%)3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, greater offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Two ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for both pathways. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.58 0.87 0.89 44% 0.71 55% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.40 0.71 49% 0.71 49% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 66.95 33.20 22.55 66% 13.43 80% ECI ($/m²) $47.17 N/A $29.82 37% $21.31 55% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.58 0.87 0.71 55% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.40 0.71 49% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 66.95 33.20 13.24 80% ECI ($/m²) $47.17 N/A $21.31 55% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -7,053 96 4.6 $104 $15,448 Never -$13,083 2 Rooftop Solar PV 5,132 0 0.2 $868 $17,121 15.7 -$389 3 Carbon Offsets - - 0.6 - $11 N/A N/A Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 Carbon Offsets - - 1.1 - $20 N/A N/A Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Tourism Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of April 2022 to March 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 o Water consumption data for the period of April 2022 to December 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Tourism Centre is a two-storey, 102 m2 facility located at 181 Liberty Street S, Bowmanville, ON. The building was constructed in 2020. The Tourism Centre is used to provide information and guides for visitors in Clarington. The mechanical heating equipment is located inside the building and mechanical cooling equipment is located on the exterior of the building. The building is occupied by two full time employees daily. General occupied hours are 10am-5pm on Monday-Saturday. The building is closed on Sundays. Figure 2: Tourism Centre exterior (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building envelope The building has sloped roof composed of asphalt shingles. The exterior walls are finished with vinyl cladding. The main entrance door is metal with glazing. Other exterior doors are metal with no glazing. The windows are vinyl framed and double glazed . Figure 3: Example envelope components; roof and exterior cladding Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 4: Example door and sidelight window A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Figure 5: Example thermal images Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating One natural gas furnace located in the attic space provides primary heat to the building and is controlled with a digital thermostat. Two electric baseboard heaters provide local heat to the washroom and single office. Heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Year Rating Efficiency Furnace 1 Ceiling Building LuxAire 2021 80 MBH 80% Baseboard Heater 1 Washroom Washroom Ouellet - 0.75 kW 100% Baseboard Heater 1 Office Office Ouellet - 0.75 kW 100% Figure 6: Baseboard heater Space Cooling One condensing unit on the exterior of the building is installed and tied to the furnace to provide space cooling to the building. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Condensing Unit 1 Exterior Building Central Environmental Systems HAMC- F01BSA 3.5 kW 2.97 COP Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 7: Condenser Ventilation The furnace provides tempered air to the building with two ceiling fans are installed to increase the ventilation in the main hall. Two exhaust fans are installed in the washrooms to provide adequate ventilation. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Rating Efficiency Ceiling Fan 2 Main Hall Main Hall 0.05 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 2 Washrooms Washrooms 0.07 hp 80% Figure 8: Ceiling fan Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.3. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) One electric hot water tank located in the hallway provides heated water to the water fixtures in the building. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW 1 Hallway Building John Wood E50TE-30240 250 3 kW 90% Figure 9: DHW tank 2.4. Lighting The most abundant lighting technology in the building are LED and incandescent pendant and wall/ceiling surface sconces located throughout the interior of the building. Other interior lighting includes LED panel lights and pot lights. Interior lights are controlled by switches. Exterior lighting includes sconces, wall packs, and flood lights. Exterior lighting is controlled by daylight sensors. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 10: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 gpm Kitchen Faucet, kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Janitor Room Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 gpm Kitchen Dishwasher, residential, standard 1 5.0 G/cycle Exterior Irrigation 1 73.2 m3/yr Figure 11: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Account Number Location Whole Building Electricity 03116000-00 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas 91 00 61 65211 2 Exterior Whole Building Water 7425610000 Unknown Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas March 2022 – December 2023 Two months are missing from this data period. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham June 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 - March 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period. Electricity consumption appears to follow a consistent p attern year after year. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 12: Electricity consumption over time Natural Gas Natural gas data was collected and analyzed from March 2022 - February 2024. Two months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from this data period. Natural gas consumption appears to follow a seasonal trend, with peaks in consumption in winter months. This pattern is attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption is attributed to the domestic hot water boilers, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 13: Natural gas consumption over time 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Water Water consumption data was collected and analyzed from April 2022 – December 2023. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly water consumption from this data period. The water consumption is relatively unsteady all year around compared to the other utilities. It is possible that the building was unoccupied during the first few months of 2023. More data would be needed to observe any trends in the water use. The red dotted line displays the baseload water consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets. The grey line displays the average water consumption over the data period. Figure 14: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 8,016 kWh/yr. 29 $1,442 0.2 Natural gas 132 GJ/yr. 132 $3,369 6.6 Water 109 m³/yr. $109 0.0 Total 161 $4,921 6.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Natural Gas 49.73 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), part 2, Annex 6 (fuels) Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water (2008), tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $144.19/yr $0.17/kWh Natural Gas $1,127.65/yr $13.52/GJ Water $323.28/yr $3.34/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. The Tourism Centre's performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for offices. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.58 0.87 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 66.95 33.20 ECI ($/m2) 47.17 WUI (m3/m2) 1.07 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system and the plug loads consume the most electricity in the building. Space heating and cooling equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, while DHW, a nd ventilation consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Figure 15: Electricity end uses Plug Loads 26% Lighting 26% Space Heating 19% Cooling Equipment 18% Domestic Hot Water 8% Ventilation 3% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Natural Gas Natural gas consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating system consumes all the natural gas in the building. Figure 16: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. The irrigation system constitutes most of the water consumption in the building to. Other indoor appliances collectively consume 33% of the total water use. Space Heating 100% Space Heating Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Figure 17: Water end uses Irrigation 67% Pre-rinse spray valve 11% Toilet 9% Faucet, lavatory 6% Faucet, kitchen 4% Dishwasher, residential 3% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return ove r time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Heat Pump (furnace supplement) Heat pump technology uses the vapour-compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. Specifically, in this application, a heat pump would extract heat from the outdoor air and transfer it to the heating hydronic loop. Since heat is transferred, rather than directly generated, heat pump systems are highly efficient. This ECM explores installing a heat pump to complement the current heating system. The heat pump will provide heat to the building in temperatures as low as -18°C. For temperatures lower than that, the existing furnace will provide heating, and so it must remain integrated with the heating system as a backup heating source. Project Cost: $15,448 Annual Electricity Savings: -7,053 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 96 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 71 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $104 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$185 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 4.6 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 68 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$13,083 Internal Rate of Return: -13% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Savings were estimated based on the existing furnace consumption, the existing furnace efficiency rating, and a proposed average COP rating of 2.9 for the heat pump. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for the complete install. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.4. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Tourism Centre may be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $17,121 Annual Electricity Savings: 5,132 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $868 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$96 Simple Payback: 15.7 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.2 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 4 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$389 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof -mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 4 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.5. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of high-pressure sodium, incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. The replacement of the remaining non-LED fixtures is considered additional due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $3,956 Annual Electricity Savings: 1,143 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $193 Simple Payback: 15.2 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,343 Internal Rate of Return: 0% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 4.6. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.7. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Tourism Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. . The portfolio wide minutes for this workshop are included alongside this report. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -7,053 96 4.6 $104 $15,448 Never -$13,083 2 Rooftop Solar PV 5,132 0 0.2 $868 $17,121 15.7 -$389 3 Carbon Offsets - - 0.6 - $11 N/A N/A Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 Carbon Offsets - - 1.1 - $20 N/A N/A Carbon offsets were used in both pathways 1 and 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offsets – Pathway 1 $11 0.6 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 2 $20 1.1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.58 0.87 0.89 44% 0.71 55% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.40 0.71 49% 0.71 49% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 66.95 33.20 22.55 66% 13.43 80% ECI ($/m²) $47.17 N/A $29.82 37% $21.31 55% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024- 2025 2026 2027- 2034 2035 2036- 2043 2044 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $15,448 Rooftop Solar PV $17,121 Carbon Offsets $11 Total cost ($) $15,448 $17,121 $11 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 6.8 7.2 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 Baseline GHGs 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10-yr target (-50%)3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 20-yr target (-80%)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.58 0.87 0.71 55% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.40 0.71 49% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 66.95 33.20 13.24 80% ECI ($/m²) $47.17 N/A $21.31 55% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $15,448 Rooftop Solar PV $17,121 Carbon Offsets $20 Total ($) $15,448 $0 $17,121 $0 $20 Figure 19: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 6.8 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 1.4 Baseline GHGs 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 5-yr target (-80%)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 3 3 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 1,921 - 1,921 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 96 96 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 5 5 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.053 0.053 Total yr 0 cost ($) $32,579 $32,588 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 5,990 $ 5,978 Net present value ($) -$14,586 -$15,792 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 20: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $15.4K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17.1K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 Pathway 2 $15.4K $0 $17.1K $0 $20 $0 $2.0K $4.0K $6.0K $8.0K $10.0K $12.0K $14.0K $16.0K $18.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 Figure 21: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 6.8 7.2 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 Pathway 2 6.8 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 1.4 Grid Decarbonization 6.8 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 Baseline GHGs 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10-yr target (-50%)3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Rooftop Solar PV $17,121 N/A $17,121 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement $15,448 N/A $15,448 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 1) 11 N/A 11 Total Pathway 1 $32,579 $0 $32,579 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $20 N/A $20 Total Pathway 2 $32,588 $0 $32,588 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 3 3 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 1,921 - 1,921 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 96 96 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 5 5 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.053 0.053 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 32,579 $32,588 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $5,990 $ 5,978 Incremental Net present value ($) -$14,587 -$15,792 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Supplementing the existing furnace with a heat pump provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pumps generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, which may lead to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of installing a heat pump supplement and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: More reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Tourism Center Meeting Room 1L-A19-LED-14W-Sconce-E26-Pend-Circ 8 Tourism Center Meeting Room 1L-A19-Inc-25W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 12 Tourism Center Office 1 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 4 Tourism Center Office 2 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 Tourism Center Storage Room 1L-1x4ft-LED-20W-Panel-Rcs 2 Tourism Center Entrance 1L-A19-Inc-25W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 1 Tourism Center Entrance 1L-A19-CFL-13W-Sconce-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 Tourism Center Washroom 1L-6in-A19-CFL-13W-Potlight-E26-Rcs 2 Tourism Center Janitor 1L-A19-LED-14W-Sconce-E26-Pend-Circ 1 Tourism Center Back Hallway 1L-A19-LED-14W-Sconce-E26-Pend-Circ 1 Exterior Exterior 1L-A19-CFL-13W-Sconce-E26-Wall Sfc 3 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-HPS-70W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 2 Exterior Exterior 2L-A19-CFL-13W-Flood-E26-Ceil Sfc 1 7.2. Appendix B - Utility data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $94 502 $161 890 February $96 514 $147 787 March $82 431 $126 672 April $125 737 $91 469 May $93 526 $74 373 June $136 776 $129 668 July $166 983 $160 873 August $180 1,082 $121 641 September $130 749 $107 559 October $112 655 $88 452 November $107 703 $134 734 December $97 550 $128 705 Total $1,145 6,761 $1,306 6,921 $434 2,349 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $561 23 $504 32 February $417 17 $306 16 March $380 17 April $206 9 $224 8 May $143 4 $112 1 June $89 0 $95 0 July $78 0 $80 0 August $94 0 $92 0 September $123 2 $97 1 October $155 5 $191 8 November $474 18 $338 19 December $478 19 $330 18 Total $1,840 57 $2,918 112 $809 48 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $28 0 February $28 0 March $28 0 April $55 20 $63 11 May $55 20 $63 11 June $55 20 $63 11 July $101 24 $75 14 August $101 24 $75 14 September $101 24 $75 14 October $28 0 $36 3 November $28 0 $36 3 December $28 0 $36 3 Total $551 134 $606 85 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 50 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Visual Arts Ce ntre 143 Simpson Avenue, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 11 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 23 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Heat Pump (Furnace Supplement) ............................................................................................ 27 4.4. Rooftop Solar PV ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.5. Existing Building Commissioning ............................................................................................... 29 4.6. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) .................................................................................... 31 4.7. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration)................................................................ 32 4.8. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 33 4.9. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 34 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 36 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 36 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 36 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 38 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 38 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 39 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 43 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................. 46 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits .................................................................... 47 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 49 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 49 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 52 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 52 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 53 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Visual Arts Centre. SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 7% better than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 31,682 kWh/yr. 114 $5,029 1.0 Natural gas 353 GJ/yr. 353 $5,989 17.6 Water 166 m3/yr. - $166 0.0 Total 467 $11,184 18.5 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions . The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph and table below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 18.5 20.2 10.4 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.4 7.3 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 3.6 Pathway 2 18.5 8.3 7.0 7.3 7.0 3.6 Grid Decarbonization 18.5 20.2 19.8 20.3 19.9 19.7 19.3 19.3 19.1 18.9 18.6 18.5 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.1 Baseline GHGs 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 10-yr target (-50%)9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. While not always the case, the measures selected for each pathway are the same, except for the amount of carbon offsets. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, a greater quantity of offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Three ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.63 0.68 0.40 37% 0.34 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.54 0.23 58% 0.23 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.16 37.20 9.05 64% 4.50 82% ECI ($/m²) $14.97 N/A $13.15 12% $10.46 30% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.63 0.68 0.34 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.54 0.23 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.16 37.20 5.03 80% ECI ($/m²) $14.97 N/A $10.46 30% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -18,150 239 11.3 $654 $23,477 17.5 -$4,478 2 Rooftop Solar PV 12,405 0 0.4 $1,987 $40,187 16.2 -$2,473 3 Existing Building Conditioning 2,186 48 2.4 $1,058 $7,261 5.6 -$1,781 4 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 1 - - 2.4 - $43 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 2 - - 3.3 - $59 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Visual Arts Centre. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of March 2022 to February 2024 o Natural gas data for the period of December 2022 to November 2023 o Water consumption data for the period of April 2022 to February 2024 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems The Visual Arts Centre is a three-storey, 736 m2 facility located at 143 Simpson Avenue in Bowmanville, Ontario. The original building was constructed in 1905 and was used as a grain mill, with conversion to the Visual Arts Centre happening in 1976. The Visual Arts Centre is an art gallery and art education studio delivering services to area residents and the wider Durham Region. The main heating system is a furnace located in the mechanical room. The building is occupied by up to 40 people daily. General occupied hours are 10am-4pm on Friday-Sunday and 10am-9pm on Tuesday-Thursday. Figure 2: Visual Arts Centre exterior from southwest (left), and aerial view (right), (Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The exterior walls are red brick. There is metal roofing over the single -storey sloped roof. The type of roof on three-storey section could not be verified due to lack of access. The windows are a mix of original painted wood frame single pane double -hung windows and newer PVC window inserts in refinished original wooden frames. The building has painted metal swings doors. Figure 3: Example envelope components; door (left), and window (right) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating A natural gas condensing furnace is located in the mechanical room and provides heat for the building. Supplemental heating is provided by a unit heater located on the main floor and a recessed electric wall heater at building entrance. No building automation system (BAS) is used in this facility. Heating equipment is catalogued below. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency Furnace 1 Mech. Room Building International Comfort Products N9MSB1202420C1 2014 120 MBH 93% Unit Heater 1 Main Floor Main Floor Nortek Global UDAP-172 - 145 MBH 83% Electrical Wall heater 1 Foyer Foyer Ouellet - - 3 kW 100% Figure 5: Natural gas furnace (left) and natural gas unit heater (right) Space Cooling Cooling is provided to the building via an exterior condensing unit tied into the furnace system. Cooling equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Space cooling equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency Condensing Unit 1 Outdoor Building Keeprite C2A348GKA100 4 Ton ~3.45 COP Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 6: Air conditioning coil installed in furnace ducting (left), condensing unit (right) Ventilation The furnace blower is the main ventilation source and is assisted by two exhaust fans and a ceiling fan. Ventilation equipment seemed to be in good condition. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Rating Efficiency Exhaust Fan 1 Kiln Room Kiln Room Marathon Electric 1/6 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Washroom Washroom - ¼ hp 80% Furnace Blower 1 Mech. Room All Int. Comfort Products 2 hp 80% Ceiling Fan 1 Main Floor Main Floor - ¼ hp 80% Figure 7: Wall exhaust fan (left) and ceiling exhaust fan (right). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One DHW tank is located in the mechanical room and provides hot water to the building’s plumbing fixtures. DHW equipment appears to be in operational condition. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 9: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Rating Efficiency DHW Heater 1 Mech. Room All Rheem PRO415TM 3 kW 100% Figure 8: DHW heater (left) and nameplate (right). 2.4. Lighting The lighting technology in the building is mainly LED, and includes strip lights, troffers, and track lights. The most common fixture seen inside the building was a strip light. Exterior lighting includes wall packs. Control types include switches with occupancy sensors for interior lighting and a photocell sensor for the exterior wall packs. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 Figure 9: Example of interior and exterior lighting fixtures 2.5. Water Fixtures The building is equipped with typical water fixtures such as toilets, faucets, and a pre-rinse spray valve. Generally, the fixtures appeared to be in operational condition. The fixtures are described in the table below. Table 10: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Washrooms Toilet 5 1.6 gpf Washrooms Urinal 1 1.0 gpf Washrooms Faucet 3 3.0 gpm Studio Faucet, kitchen 1 3.0 gpm Studio Pre-rinse spray valve 1 2.6 gpm Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 Figure 10: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 11: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Meter Number Location Whole Building Electricity 03051603-03 Exterior Whole Building Natural Gas - Exterior Whole Building Water 6549910000 Not Located Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 12: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Elexicon Energy March 2022 – February 2024 May 2023 is missing consumption data. Natural gas Monthly utility bills from utility provider Enbridge Gas December 2022 – November 2023 July 2023, September 2023 missing data. Water Quarterly utility bills from utility provider The Regional Municipality of Durham April 2022 – February 2024 All months in this period have associated data. 3.1. Historical Data Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, and the Regional Municipality of Durham supply the electricity, natural gas and water, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside f igures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption during the period of available data. Electricity consumption appears to relatively consistent for a given month, across the two years. Significant peaks occur in July, August, and November. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation and plug loads. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Figure 11: Electricity consumption over time Natural gas The graph below shows the monthly natural gas consumption from the available data. This pattern would be attributed to variable space heating loads. The baseload consumption would be attributed to minimum heating requirements in summer months, and the consumption above that is attributed to the heat required due to colder outdoor temperatures in the winter. Figure 12: Natural gas consumption over time Water The graph below shows the monthly water consumption during the period of available data. The water consumption is significantly higher summer months, which could be due to increased visitor traffic during summer holidays. The red dotted line displays the b aseload water 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Na t u r a l G a s C o n s u m p t i o n ( G J ) 2022 2023 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 consumption, attributable to occupants using water fixtures such as toilets and faucets at this minimum consistent level throughout the year. Figure 13: Water consumption over time 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 31,682 kWh/yr. 114 $5,029 1.0 Natural gas 353 GJ/yr. 353 $5,989 17.6 Water 166 m³/yr. $166 0.0 Total 467 $11,184 18.5 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 3, Annex 13 Natural Gas 49.729 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sink in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Wa t e r C o n s u m p t i o n ( m ³ ) 2022 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Water 0.038 kgCO2e/m3 Maas, Carol. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. November 2008. Tables B-1 and D-3 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. The fixed and marginal utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility Fixed utility rate Marginal utility rate Electricity $22.03/yr $0.16/kWh Natural Gas $799.16/yr. $14.90/GJ Water $319.88/yr. $3.24/m3 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's Visual Arts Centre performance over the billing period is better than the benchmark EUI and better than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 0.63 0.68 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 25.16 37.20 ECI ($/m2) 14.97 WUI (m3/m2) 0.23 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The plug loads category includes use of the ceramic kilns, and is the highest consumption. The lighting system has the second highest consumption at about 31% of the total. Domestic hot water consumes about 13% of the total, with ventilation, space heating, and space cooling equipment consuming relatively lower amounts of electricity. Figure 14: Electricity end uses Plug Loads 37% Lighting 35% Domestic Hot Water 15% Ventilation 6% Cooling Equipment 4% Space Heating 3% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 Natural gas The figure below shows the proportion of natural gas consumed by the building’s different end uses. Space heating is the only system consuming natural gas in this building. Figure 15: Natural gas end uses Water Water consumption was allocated to different end uses by multiplying the equipment flow rate by the estimated usage, while considering building occupancy and baseload and variable consumption. Values for use duration were taken from the LEED v4 indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. It was mentioned that the pre-rinse spray valve is used mostly for artwork or miscellaneous uses. The pre-rinse spray valve is estimated to consume 35% of the total use, with lavatory faucets and toilets making up the next highest uses, at 33% and 22%, respective ly. The remaining uses come in at 8% of the total or less. Figure 16: Water end uses Space Heating 100% Pre-rinse spray valve 35% Faucet, lavatory 33% Toilet 22% Urinal 8% Faucet, kitchen 2% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presented in the report Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback has been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non - carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.3. Heat Pump (Furnace Supplement) Heat pump technology uses the vapour-compression cycle to transfer heat from one medium to another. Specifically, in this application, an air-source heat pump would extract heat from the outdoor air and transfer it to the interior heated air distribution ducts. Since heat is transferred, rather than directly generated, heat pump systems are highly efficient. This ECM explores installing a heat pump to complement the current heating system. The heat pump will provide heat to the building in temperatures as low as -20°C. For temperatures lower than that, the existing furnace will provide heating, and so it must remain integrated with the heating system as a backup heating source. Project Cost: $23,477 Annual Electricity Savings: -18,150 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 239 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 174 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $654 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$286 Simple Payback: 17.5 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 11.3 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 283 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$4,478 Internal Rate of Return: 3% Cost and Savings Assumptions • Savings were estimated based on the existing furnace consumption, the existing furnace efficiency rating, and a proposed average efficiency rating of 320% heating and 410% cooling for the heat pump. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for the complete install. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and determine if any necessary electrical upgrades are required before installation. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.4. Rooftop Solar PV A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Visual Arts Centre building may be a good candidate for a solar PV system due to a south facing low slope roof, part of a western facing low slope roof, and part of an eastern facing low slope roof, all with minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $40,187 Annual Electricity Savings: 12,405 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,987 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$259 Simple Payback: 16.2 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 9 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$2,473 Internal Rate of Return: 4% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 15° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 10.6 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.5. Existing Building Commissioning Over time buildings undergo changes to their equipment and occupancy, which challenge original mechanical, electrical, and control systems, hampering optimal performance. Existing building commissioning (EBCx) involves a systematic evaluation of opportunit ies to improve overall energy efficiency. A BC Hydro study found that in 450 buildings where EBCx was implemented an average 7% decrease in overall energy consumption was realized with a simple payback period of 1.7 years. EBCx often resolves issues that occurred during the design and construction phases, and addresses deficiencies that have developed over time. The primary focus of EBCx is to reduce the energy consumption of HVAC systems by making improvements to the building automation system. Other energy intensive systems or systems with complex operating strategies or controls, like lighting and refrigeration, are also examined. The top ten EBCx measures are: 1. Reduce equipment runtime 2. Optimize economizer operation 3. Eliminate simultaneous heating and cooling 4. Optimize supply air temperature 5. Optimize zone / setback temperature set points 6. Eliminate unnecessary lighting hours 7. Optimize ventilation rates 8. Volume control for pumps and fans 9. Add / optimize chilled water temperature reset 10. Eliminate passing (leaky) valves This ECM explores the broadly plausible cost and savings of implementing an EBCx program with a focus on equipment interactions and runtimes. Labour Cost: $7,261 Annual Electricity Savings: 2,186 kWh/yr. Annual Natural Gas Savings: 48 GJ/yr. Total Energy Savings: 55 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: $1,058 Simple Payback: 5.6 yrs. Measure Life: 5 yrs. Annual GHGs: 2.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 12 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$1,781 Internal Rate of Return: -4% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Savings and Cost Assumptions • The costs and energy savings represented are based on the BC Hydro EBCx case study results for medium office-type buildings with an average size of 74,190 ft2. On average these buildings had an EBCx cost of $0.31(0.50)/ft 2, and electricity and natural gas savings of 6.9(7)% and 12%, respectively. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Prioritize EBCx after other recommended ECMs are implemented • Identify the systems to be assessed (HVAC, lighting, water, controls, etc.). • Develop an EBCx plan with key focus areas Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 4.6. LED Lighting (Additional Consideration) Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of metal halide, fluorescent, a nd LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. LED Lighting was not considered for the pathways due to remaining fixtures required for specific lighting requirements.Error! Not a valid link. Project Cost: $6,531 Annual Electricity Savings: 2,930 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $469 Simple Payback: 11.1 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 1 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$190 Internal Rate of Return: 5% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 4.7. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional Consideration) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. This ECM is an additional consideration due to its negligible GHG reduction. Project Cost: $14,108 Annual Electricity Savings: 1,172 kWh/yr. Annual Water Savings: 43 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $327 Simple Payback: 26.4 yrs. Measure Life: 10 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.0 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 0 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$11,058 Internal Rate of Return: -18% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for faucets. • Electricity savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 5 toilets, 1 urinals, and 4 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 4.8. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.9. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections with in the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for the Visual Arts Centre. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements . The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The minutes for this workshop are included in the Portfolio package. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and natural gas. For natural gas, the emission factor used was 49.73 kg CO2e/GJ. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i.e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement -18,150 239 11.3 $654 $23,477 17.5 -$4,478 2 Rooftop Solar PV 12,405 0 0.4 $1,987 $40,187 16.2 -$2,473 3 Existing Building Conditioning 2,186 48 2.4 $1,058 $7,261 5.6 -$1,781 4 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 1 - - 2.4 - $43 - - Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 4 Carbon Offsets – Pathway 2 - - 3.3 - $59 - - Carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO₂e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 1 $43 2.4 Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $59 3.3 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21 Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 0.63 0.68 0.40 37% 0.34 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.54 0.23 58% 0.23 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.16 37.20 9.05 64% 4.50 82% ECI ($/m²) $14.97 N/A $13.15 12% $10.46 30% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028-2036 2037 2038-2043 2044 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement - $23,477 - - - - Rooftop Solar PV - - - - $40,187 - Existing Building Conditioning - - $7,261 - - - Carbon Offsets - - - - - - $43 Total cost ($) $0 $23,477 $7,261 $0 $40,187 $0 $43 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 17: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 18.5 20.2 10.4 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.4 7.3 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 3.6 Baseline GHGs 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 10-yr target (-50%)9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 20-yr target (-80%)3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performanc e at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 0.63 0.68 0.34 47% TEDI (GJ/m2) 0.54 0.23 58% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 25.16 37.20 5.03 80% ECI ($/m²) $14.97 N/A $10.46 30% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Heat Pump – Furnace Supplement $23,477 - - - - Rooftop Solar PV - $40,187 - - - Existing Building Conditioning - - $7,261 - - Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) - - - - $81 Total ($) $23,477 $40,187 $7,621 $0 $81 Figure 18: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 18.5 8.3 7.0 7.3 7.0 3.6 Baseline GHGs 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 5-yr target (-80%)3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 3 4 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) 12,941 12,941 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 239 239 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 15 15 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.020 0.020 Total yr 0 cost ($) $ 70,925 $70,984 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $4,759 $4,768 Net present value ($) $ 28,421 $28,362 Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 Figure 19: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $23.5K $7.3K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40.2K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $30.7K $40.2K $0 $0 $59 $0 $5.0K $10.0K $15.0K $20.0K $25.0K $30.0K $35.0K $40.0K $45.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 Figure 20: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 18.5 20.2 10.4 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.4 7.3 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 3.6 Pathway 2 18.5 8.3 7.0 7.3 7.0 3.6 Grid Decarbonization 18.5 20.2 19.8 20.3 19.9 19.7 19.3 19.3 19.1 18.9 18.6 18.5 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.1 Baseline GHGs 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 10-yr target (-50%)9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 5.2.4. Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Rooftop Solar PV $40,187 N/A $40,187 Heat Pump - Furnace Supplement $23,477 N/A $23,477 Existing building commissioning (EBCx) $7,261 N/A $7,261 Total Pathway 1 $70,925 $0 $70,925 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $59 N/A $59 Total Pathway 2 $70,984 N/A $70,984 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 3 4 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) 12,941 12,941 Gas savings (GJ/yr) 239 239 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 15 15 GHG Emission reduction (%) 80% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.020 0.020 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 70,925 $70,984 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $4,759 $4,768 Incremental Net present value ($) $28,421 $ 28,362 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis reveals no change in NPV across all pathways compared to the absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 5.2.5. Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Improved Indoor Comfort: Supplementing existing natural gas furnace with heat pump unit provides enhanced climate control by offering both heating and cooling capabilities, resulting in more consistent and comfortable indoor temperatures year-round. Reduced Maintenance Costs: Heat pumps generally have fewer mechanical components than traditional HVAC systems, leading to potential reductions in maintenance requirements and costs over time. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of adding a heat pump and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV and installing a heat pump may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: While upgrades such as heat pump supplement offer seasonal benefits, the installation of a heat pump and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: More reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the ti me of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduct ion pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 51 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 52 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Main Floor Entrance 1L-4ft-LED-14W-Strip-Wall Sfc-Val 2 Main Floor Arts room -1 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang-Linear 44 Main Floor Hallway 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 2 Main Floor WR-1 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 1 Main Floor WR-2 4L-2x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Troffer-Med BiPin- Rcs 1 Main Floor WR-3 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 1 Main Floor Arts room -2 1L-4ft-LED-10W-Strip-Hang-Linear 21 Main Floor Kitchen 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 1 2nd floor Arts room -3 4L-4ft-PAR20-LED-20W-Track-E26-Ceil Sfc 3 2nd floor Arts room -3 3L-4ft-PAR20-LED-20W-Track-E26-Ceil Sfc 10 2nd floor Arts room -3 2L-4ft-PAR21-LED-20W-Track-E26-Ceil Sfc 2 2nd floor Arts room -3 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc 1 2nd floor Loft gallery 1L-PAR30-LED-30W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc- Open 7 2nd floor Stairs 1L-PAR30-LED-30W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc- Open 2 Basement Pottery room 4L-8ft-T8 (4')-LED-14W-Strip-E26-Ceil Sfc 10 Basement Hallway 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 2 Basement Kids’ art room 1L-4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Open 11 Basement Kids’ art room 1L-11in-T12 (4')-FL-20W-Strip-Med BiPin- Ceil Sfc-Open 4 Basement Kids’ art room 1L-8ft-T8 (8')-LED-40W-Strip-Med BiPin-Ceil Sfc-Wrap 1 Basement Mech Room 1L-PAR30-LED-30W-Keyless-E26-Ceil Sfc- Open 1 Basement Stairwell 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 3 Basement Storage 1 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 1 Basement Storage 2 2L-1x4ft-T8 (4')-LED-15W-Panel-Ceil Sfc 2 Exterior 1L-MH-70W-Sconce 8 Exterior 1L-LED-40W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 5 Exterior 2L-MH-70W-Flood-Wall Sfc 1 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 53 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $336 2,151 $343 2,079 February $422 2,744 $393 2,386 March $312 2,040 $447 2,916 April $327 2,154 $385 2,483 May $288 1,885 $396 No Data June $378 2,347 $450 2,832 July $529 3,279 $550 3,352 August $787 5,174 $571 3,491 September $330 2,003 $416 2,551 October $414 2,730 $372 2,330 November $441 3,118 $535 3,355 December $315 2,111 $321 1,969 Total $4,120 26,842 $5,202 30,174 $736 4,464 Natural Gas Table 30: Natural gas utility data 2022 2023 Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) Cost ($) Consumption (GJ) January $1,067 67 February $810 49 March $708 43 April $478 31 May $158 5 June $103 1 July No Data No Data August $164 6 September No Data No Data October $355 20 November $708 48 December $953 54 Total $953 54 $4,550 270 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 54 Water Table 31: Water utility data 2022 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) Cost ($) Consumption (m3) January $43 5 $47 6 February $43 5 $47 6 March $23 6 April $163 36 $46 6 May $132 34 $47 5 June $132 68 $47 5 July $93 21 $133 33 August $93 43 $133 33 September $18 1 $37 4 October $18 1 $37 4 November $18 1 $40 3 December $18 1 $40 3 Total $682 206 $669 110 $94 12 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca GHG Reduction Pathway Yard 42 178 Clarke Townline, Bowmanville, ON Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by Sustainable Projects Group 3122 114 Ave SE, Calgary, AB | www.suspg.com | 1-855-888-8355 Final Submission: 05-09-2025 Copyright Copyright Notice: © 2025, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. All Rights Reserved. This project was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Key Contacts ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Building and Systems .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation .............................................................................................. 12 2.3. Domestic Hot Water .................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.5. Water Fixtures ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Meters ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Historical Data ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Baseline...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3. Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................ 18 3.4. End Uses .................................................................................................................................... 19 4. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 21 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................................... 21 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices ................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Tube Heater Electrification ........................................................................................................ 25 4.4. LED Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 26 4.5. Rooftop Solar ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.6. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional) ....................................................................................... 28 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures .............................................................................. 29 4.8. Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 30 5. GHG Pathways ..................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) ................................................................. 32 5.1.1. Identifying Measures ............................................................................................................. 32 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs ..................................................................................................... 32 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing ................................................. 34 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways ............................................................................................................. 34 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 35 5.2.1. Pathway 1 .............................................................................................................................. 36 5.2.2. Pathway 2 .............................................................................................................................. 38 5.2.3. Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 39 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis ................................................................................................. 42 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................ 43 6. Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 45 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects ............................................................ 45 7. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 47 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory ................................................................................................ 47 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data ........................................................................................................... 47 8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 4 Executive Summary The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Yard 42 SPG conducted a site audit as part of the GHG reduction pathway report to assess current energy performance. The audit consisted of a site visit and data analysis based on observations made by the site auditor as well as information provided by on-site personnel. The building is currently performing 42% poorer than the average for buildings of this type in Canada based on the building’s baseline energy usage intensity (EUI) compared to the national benchmark. The building’s average annual consumption, cost, and GHG emissions are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Energy performance Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 41,301 kWh/yr. 149 $11,801 1.2 Propane 19,055 L/yr. 482 $12,027 29.5 Total 631 $23,828 30.7 The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. The pathways prescribed by the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) are: 1) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 2) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are hereafter referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. The graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 5 Figure 1: GHG reduction pathways 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 30.5 32.8 32.2 32.8 32.3 32.1 9.0 8.7 7.8 6.6 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 Pathway 2 30.5 31.7 31.3 31.7 11.1 6.2 Grid Decarbonization 30.5 32.8 32.2 32.8 32.3 32.1 31.6 31.5 31.3 31.0 30.6 30.5 30.4 30.3 30.3 30.2 30.2 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.0 Baseline GHGs 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 10-yr target (-50%)15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 6 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. Since the electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2024 and 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029 than in 2024 and 2044. That means that for Pathway 2, offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. Three ECMs were identified and used within the GHG pathways along with carbon offsets used for Pathway 2. The implementation of all recommended ECMs would reduce the building’s energy use intensity (EUI), Thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI), greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and energy cost intensity (ECI). These results are outlined in the table below. Table 2: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.92 1.24 5% 1.24 5% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.03 0.97 6% 0.97 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 63.50 30.80 10.54 83% 5.75 91% ECI ($/m²) $49.23 N/A $99.71 -103% $99.71 -103% Table 3: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.92 1.15 12% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.03 0.97 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 63.50 30.80 12.85 80% ECI ($/m²) $49.23 N/A $92.13 -87% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 7 The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. Table 4: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Tube Heater - Electrification -125,732 19,055 25.7 -$23,073 $39,521 Never -$424,393 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 LED Upgrade - Fixture 14,097 0 0.4 $4,073 $8,213 1.9 $46,491 3 Rooftop Solar PV 12,707 0 0.4 $3,671 $29,723 7.4 $43,123 4 Carbon Offsets - - 3.9 - $70 - - Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 8 1. Introduction The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Yard 42. The purpose of this report is to assess energy consumption with the intent to inform sound energy management decisions. The audit process involves the following stages: • Creating an inventory of in-scope building components • Developing an understanding of building systems, operation, and history • Compiling utility data • Determining utility baselines and benchmarking • Calibrating an energy model including all in-scope end-uses • Providing insight and recommendations for energy management This analysis draws on the following sources of information: • Observations, notes, and pictures taken by SPG during the site assessment • Communication, written and oral, with on -site personnel • Documentation provided by the client including: o Electricity data for the period of January 2023 to April 2024 o Annual propane data for 2022 and 2023 This study is subject to following limitations: • The information made available to SPG, as described above, was considered. Where/if key information was not available, attempts to find the information from published resources or best-guess assumptions guided by professional judgement and/or experience were made as needed. • The accuracy of the information provided to SPG was not independently verified. All provided information was taken at face value. • The information gathered by SPG during the site assessment was limited to the spaces that were accessible given the conditions at the time of visit. Information about inaccessible or concealed elements was inferred or estimated, when possible, but in some cases may not have been considered. • The site visit was limited to a visual, non-destructive survey. The survey is subject to practical limitations; all items may not have been individually confirmed. The viewing of items was prioritized based on their perceived importance to ensure a compreh ensive yet efficient evaluation. • Unless more contextual information was provided, the equipment operating conditions during the site visit were assumed to be representative of normal operation. • The scope of the audit is limited to the following systems: o Building envelope: exterior walls, doors, windows o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 9 o Mechanical systems: motors, pumps o Domestic hot water (DHW) o Lighting o Water: fixture flow rates and quantities 1.1. Key Contacts We acknowledge and thank all parties who have supported and contributed to this work. For project inquiries, please contact the following persons: Table 5: Key contacts Name Organization Role E-mail Tegan Gallilee-Lang SPG Energy Team Manager tegang@suspg.com Lance Giesbrecht SPG Operations Manager lanceg@suspg.com Natalie Ratnasingam Municipality of Clarington Key Contact nratnasingam@clarington.net Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 10 2. Building and Systems Yard 42 is a two-storey, 484 m2 repair services facility at 178 Clarke Townline in Bowmanville, Ontario. The building was constructed in 1980. The building is used as an automobile repair shop and office. Space heating equipment is located throughout the building and the domestic hot water heater is located in the mechanical/electrical room. The building is occupied by approximately 20 people daily. General hours of operation are 7am – 10pm. Figure 2: Yard 42 exterior from front (left), and simulated aerial view (right, Google Earth, 2024) 2.1. Building Envelope The building has sloped, metal roofing. Due to limited roof access the condition of the roof is unknown. The exterior walls are finished with metal cladding. The doors are metal framed with inset glazing. Several overhead doors are located along exterior used for vehicle entry and exit. Windows are punched aluminum framed and double paned. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 11 Figure 3: Example envelope components; Windows and cladding (left), overhead door (top right), and door and cladding (bottom) A thermal camera was used to view the building envelope and identify areas of poor performance. Images were captured of such areas, if discovered, and of areas showing typical performance. The thermal images show some heat loss, represented in yellow and red colours. Some heightened heat loss is normal at points in the envelope with lower thermal resistance, like windows and doors. No major areas of concern were noted when reviewing the ther mal images. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 12 Figure 4: Example thermal images 2.2. Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Space Heating The building has electric baseboard heaters located throughout the building with four propane tube heater to provide space heating to the workshop. Heating equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 6: Space heating equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Rating Efficiency Baseboard Heater 1 Washroom Washroom 1 kW 100% Baseboard Heater 2 Ground Floor office Ground Floor office 1 kW 100% Baseboard Heater 1 Top Floor Office Top Floor Office 1 kW 100% Baseboard Heater 1 Locker Room Locker Room 0.75 kW 100% Baseboard Heater 1 Top Floor Washroom Top Floor Washroom 0.75 kW 100% Tube Heaters 4 Workshop Workshop 60 MBH 80% Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 13 Figure 5: Baseboard heater (left) and tube heaters (right) Space Cooling The building does not have any space cooling equipment. Ventilation Two exhaust fans are installed in the building. One in the workshop and one in the washroom. Ventilation equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 7: Ventilation equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Rating Efficiency Exhaust Fan 1 Workshop Workshop 1 hp 80% Exhaust Fan 1 Top Floor Washroom Top Floor Washroom 0.5 kW 80% Figure 6: Exhaust fan Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 14 2.3. Domestic Hot Water One electric hot water heater is located in the mechanical/electrical room to provide heater water to the buildings plumbing fixtures. DHW equipment is catalogued in the table below. Table 8: DHW equipment Equipment Qty (#) Location Service area Make Model Year Rating Efficiency DHW heater 1 Mechanical/electrical Room Whole Building Bradford White RE240 S8 2023 3 kW 90% Figure 7: DHW heater 2.4. Lighting The most common lighting technology in the building includes mostly fluorescent hanging troffer lights. Other common fixtures found in the interior of the building are strip lights. Exterior lighting includes LED wall packs and a pole light. Control types include switches for interior lighting and a daylight sensor for the exterior. A complete lighting schedule is included in Appendix A. Figure 8: Example lighting fixtures Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 15 2.5. Water Fixtures The water fixture inventory is presented in the table below. Table 9: Water fixtures Area Type Qty (#) Flow/flush rate Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 gpm Washroom Urinal 1 1.0 gpf Upstairs Washroom Toilet 1 1.6 gpf Upstairs Washroom Faucet, lavatory, public 1 2.2 gpm Upstairs Washroom Showerhead 1 2.5 gpm Upstairs Office Faucet, Kitchen 1 2.2 gpm Figure 9: Example water fixtures 2.6. Meters The following utility meters were identified: Table 10: Utility meter inventory Meter Description Utility type Number Location Whole Building Electricity 306724349 Exterior Whole Building Propane 4369487-OD N/A Whole Building Water (Well System) N/A N/A Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 16 3. Performance The building’s energy and water performance were evaluated by analyzing utility data. The following table summarizes the source information: Table 11: Utility data sources Utility Data type Utility provider Period Notes Electricity Monthly utility bills from utility provider Hydro One January 2023 – March 2024 No months are missing from this data period. Propane Propane refill bill Superior Propane January 2022 and January 2023 The actual billing period does not occur over a specified period of time. Each billing period is assigned when the propane tank is filled. The compiled utility data does therefore not accurately represent actual consumption in each calendar month or year. Water N/A Well System N/A Well System – No utility connection 3.1. Historical Data Hydro One and Superior Propane supply the electricity and propane, respectively, to the building. Utility data from the billing reports forms the basis of this energy analysis. The consumption trends are described below, alongside figures depicting monthly consumption. The tabulated monthly utility data is included in Appendix B. Electricity Electricity data was collected and analyzed from January 2023 - March 2024. No months are missing from this data period. The graph below shows the monthly electricity consumption from this data period. Electricity consumption appears to decrease in the summer months. More data would be needed to verify if this is a recurring trend. The baseload consumption is assumed to be attributed to loads which do not vary seasonally, such as ventilation, elevators, and plug loads. Consumption above the baseload is assumed to be attributed to seasonal energy uses, such as heating, cooling, and greater usage of lighting in the winter. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 17 Figure 10: Electricity consumption over time Propane Propane data was collected from January 2022 and January 2023. Propane tank is filled as needed with each billing period depending on building needs. As such, propane usage cannot be estimated on a monthly basis, and annual consumption values were used for analysis. Below is a total yearly consumption for propane based on provided billing information. Table 12: Propane Consumption 2022 / 2023 Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) 2022 20,054 L/yr. 508 $10,552.03 2023 12,388 L/yr. 451 $17,808.6 3.2. Baseline The baseline annual consumption, cost and GHG emissions for each utility were calculated based on the average annual value for the entire period of available data. These results are presented in the table below. Table 13: Baseline consumption, cost and GHGs Utility Consumption Energy (GJ/yr.) Cost ($/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e/yr.) Electricity 41,301 kWh/yr. 149 $11,801 1.2 Propane 19,055 GJ/yr. 482 $11,545 29.5 Total 631 $23,346 30.7 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 El e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n ( k W h ) 2023 2024 Average Baseload Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 18 Emission Factors The following table outlines the emission factors used to calculate GHGs for the baseline. Table 14: Emission factors Utility Emission factor Source Electricity 0.030 kgCO2e/kWh National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2022), annex 13 (electricity) Propane 1.548 kgCO2e/GJ National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (2023). Part 2, Annex 6 Utility Rates An estimated marginal utility rate was used for each utility type. The marginal utility rate is the rate representing only consumption-variable utility charges. This may include consumption charges, consumption-variable transmission/distribution/delivery charges, carbon taxes, municipal fees, and other federal and provincial taxes as applicable. This rate excludes all fixed charges such as monthly or daily service and delivery charges, and demand. The marginal utility rates were estimated using a linear regression analysis. The statistical relationship between cost and consumption was assessed to differentiate fixed and consumption-variable cost components. Only the most recent 12 months of utility data are typically included in this calculation, so that the marginal rate is reflective of current pricing. For electricity and propane, the marginal and fixed utility rates were not determinable through regression. As such a standard 12- month average rate was used. The marginal and 12-month average utility rates for the building are outlined in the table below. Table 15: Utility rates Utility 12-month average Electricity $0.29/kWh Propane $0.70/L 3.3. Benchmarking Benchmarking is the evaluation of a building’s performance by comparing it to other buildings with similar characteristics. Building performance is expressed per unit area, so that buildings of different sizes may be compared. Buildings are typically compared with others in the same country or region and the same general use category, since these will be expected to have similar energy sources and requirements. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 19 Baseline values for energy use intensity (EUI), greenhouse gas emission intensity (GHGI), energy cost intensity (ECI), and water use intensity (WUI) are provided. The benchmark values for EUI are Canadian national median values by property type, and the benchmark values for GHGI are Canadian regional median values by property type from Energy Star Portfolio Manager (2023). The table below outlines the baseline results for each metric, and the associated benchmarks, where they are available. Clarington's Animal Shelter’s performance over the billing period is worse than the benchmark EUI and worse than the benchmark GHGI for public services buildings. Table 16: Baseline performance and benchmarks Metric Baseline Benchmark EUI (GJ/m2) 1.30 0.92 GHGI (kgCO2e/m2) 63.50 30.80 ECI ($/m2) 48.24 WUI (m3/m2) 0.00 3.4. End Uses Utility consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. Electricity The figure below shows the proportion of electricity consumed by the building’s different end uses. The lighting system consumes the most electricity in the building. Plug loads and cooling equipment also consume a large fraction of electricity, while space he ating, DHW, and ventilation consume relatively lower amounts of electricity. The plug loads end use was estimated based on the difference between the consumption in other categories and the total estimated annual electricity consumption. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 20 Figure 11: Electricity end uses Propane Propane consumption was allocated to different end uses by considering a variety of factors, including equipment specifications, controls, schedules, typical runtimes, and utility baseload and variable consumption. The figure below shows the proportion of propane consumed by the building’s different end uses. The space heating tube heaters consume all the propane in the building. Figure 12: Propane end uses Lighting 44% Plug Loads 36% Space Heating 12% Domestic Hot Water 6%Ventilation 2% Space Heating 100% Space Heating Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 21 4. Energy Conservation Measures An array of ECMs were identified which would improve energy and/or water performance and reduce building GHGs in order to hit the GHGs pathways reduction goals. A wide variety of ECMs were considered, and only measures that could be implemented based on the building’s unique characteristics were thoroughly investigated. One or more measures for additional consideration are also outlined. These are measures which were investigated but are not recommended for implementation within the pathways. This may be because there is no business case for the project, we have alternate ECMs recommended, they result in low GHG savings, or because our analysis is low confidence, because we have insufficient information to recommend the project, because the project directly conflicts with a recommended project, or as specified. 4.1. Evaluation of Energy Conservation Measures The results shown in this section outline year one savings for individual ly implemented ECMs. The metrics used to quantify each ECM and select details about the analysis methods are described below: Cost This metric describes the project's implementation cost, in Canadian dollars. The costs are class C, budgetary estimates (-25 to +25%). The actual project cost will be determined at the time of project initiation, to reflect current pricing, and in many cases following the completion of a detailed design. The cost estimates include the labour and materials for the project, but unless otherwise indicated, do not include engineering, design, travel, or other costs. Maintenance costs were also accounted for in cases where the proposed measures result in increased maintenance savings compared to the existing equipment. These costs were applied on an annual basis and have been factored into the financial analysis presen ted in the report. Utility Savings This metric describes the reduction in annual energy or water consumption the project is estimated to achieve. Any negative savings, such as for electrification projects, represent an increase in utility consumption. Interactive Effects Each project has first been analyzed individually, with savings calculated as if no other projects are implemented. If multiple projects are implemented, the total savings may be reduced if multiple projects affect the same system. These interactions have been estimated using a generalized approach, described below. The savings of each ECM are assigned as either a fixed-quantity reduction or a percentage reduction of the baseline consumption of a piece of equipment or group of equipment. This determination is made by an analyst based on the type of equipment and the t ype of measure Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 22 being proposed. Where multiple ECMs impact the same equipment, the fixed reductions are summed together and then the percentage reductions are multiplied together, to determine the estimated interactive savings. Savings for groups of equipment are applied proportionally to all units within the group based on their baseline consumption. These interactions include if major equipment is electrified and how that would result in a change to the other ECM savings. Interactions between the system directly associated with an ECM and other systems, such as changes in internal heat gain due to a lighting upgrade, have typically not been considered. Measures for additional considerations were not accounted for when calcu lating interactive effects. Cost Savings This metric describes the estimated cost savings the project will achieve based on the utility consumption savings in the first year of the cashflow analysis. The cost savings ($/yr.) are calculated by multiplying the utility savings by the marginal utilit y rate. Note that the cost savings in subsequent years of the cashflow analysis change based on the modelled utility rate escalation, as described below. GHG Emission Savings (Year One) This metric describes the amount of GHG savings the project is estimated to achieve. It is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (tCO2e). To calculate emissions savings, the fuel savings (kWh or GJ/yr.) are multiplied by the emission factor (tCO2e/kWh or GJ). ECM lifetime GHG emissions savings are based on this annual savings value multiplied by the measure life, thus projected decreases in the electricity grid emission factor are not accounted for. These results within this section show the year one savings based on 2024 emissions factors. Pathways include results from dynamic emissions that change over time. These factors can be found in 5. GHG Pathways Simple Payback This metric is the number of years it would take for the cost savings to be equal to the implementation cost. In other words, it is the length of time to earn back the project's cost. The lower the simple payback, the better. Note that the simple payback h as been calculated considering utility rate escalation but without any discount rate applied to future cashflows. Net Present Value (NPV) Similar to simple payback, the NPV describes the financial feasibility of the project. In contrast to simple payback, it considers the opportunity cost, or the value that a certain amount of money today would have if it were to achieve a specified rate of return over time. The NPV encompasses the project cost and the annual cashflow analysis savings discounted at a rate of 5% per year, over the lifespan of the project. The higher the NPV, the better, and a value greater than zero is generally considered a worthwhile investment. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 23 Utility Rate Escalation The simple payback and the NPV account for utility cost escalation. Based on the GHG emission rate for each utility, that utility’s marginal rate identified for the first year of the cashflow analysis is broken into a carbon tax component and a non-carbon tax component. The carbon tax component is increased based on the federal and/or provincial legislated carbon tax escalations to 2030, as applicable. Projected changes to the provincial electricity GHG emission intensity are accounted for in how this carbon tax component changes for electricity. The non- carbon tax component is escalated at a constant rate of 3.5% per year. Each identified ECM is described in detail below. 4.2. No Cost ECMs / Best Practices While some ECMs require financial investments, others are simple, no-cost actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce energy use. These qualitative measures focus on fostering awareness and improving operational and occupant practices to promote sustainability and cost savings. Below are some general no-cost measures that can be applied to the building. Maintain HVAC Setpoints Set HVAC systems to appropriate temperature ranges based on seasonal requirements. ASHRAE Standard 55 - Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy provides guidance for determining acceptable thermal conditions, taking into account factors such as air temperature, humidity, occupancy, air speed, and clothing insulation. Standard setpoints for typical buildings are outlined below: • Winter: Occupied - 20–22°C • Winter: Unoccupied - 15–18°C. • Summer: Occupied - 23–26°C • Summer: Unoccupied – 26-28°C These ranges aim to maintain thermal comfort for the majority of building occupants, typically achieving around 80% acceptability, while reducing heating and cooling loads. The unoccupied winter setpoints are low enough to reduce heating loads but still prevents risks like freezing pipes or excessive energy waste. The unoccupied summer setpoints higher than occupied temperatures, which helps minimize the energy required for cooling when the space is not in use. It is important to note that these values serve as general guidelines and may need adjustment for specialized facilities, such as healthcare or industrial buildings, to meet specific operational or comfort requirements. Optimize Equipment Scheduling Review the operational schedules of equipment, lighting, and HVAC systems to ensure they are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 24 only running when needed. For instance, if programmable thermostats or other smart controls are present make sure to utilize scheduling capabilities to reducing unnecessary energy use during unoccupied hours. Engage Occupants in Energy Conservation Encourage building occupants to actively participate in energy-saving practices, such as turning off lights, computers, and other equipment when not in use. Many devices consume energy even when not in active use, a phenomenon known as "phantom load." Unplugging chargers, electronics, and appliances when they are not needed can eliminate this waste. Open blinds or adjust window coverings to make better use of daylight, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Simultaneously, ensure lights near windows are switched off when not required. Additionally, ensure doors and windows are closed in conditioned spaces to maintain optimal indoor temperatures. This simple action prevents unnecessary energy loss. Clear signage and regular reminders can help reinforce these behaviors. Perform Regular Cleaning of Filters and Vents Keep air filters and ventilation grills clean and free of debris. Blocked vents reduce airflow efficiency and force systems to work harder, increasing energy consumption. Monitor and Track Energy Usage Regularly check utility bills and monitor energy usage patterns to identify areas of excess consumption. Awareness of energy trends can help prioritize efforts for savings. This can be further helped by installing submeters within your building. Submetering provides detailed insights into energy consumption by tracking usage at the equipment or area leve l. This fosters informed decision-making, promotes accountability, and encourages mindfulness among occupants, which can help reduced utility costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 25 4.3. Tube Heater Electrification In an effort to reduce GHG emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, organizations are exploring building electrification. Although electrification will increase electricity consumption, propane consumption will be eliminated. This will reduce GHG emissions, since electricity is less carbon intensive than propane, but increase the cost of energy, since electricity is more expensive than propane. This may be an acceptable outcome depending on the organization's priorities. This ECM examines the impact of switching from propane to electric tube heaters. Project Cost: $39,521 Annual Electricity Savings: -125,732 kWh/yr. Annual Propane Savings: 19,055 L/yr. Total Energy Savings: 30 GJ Annual Utility Cost Savings: -$23,073 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$248 Simple Payback: Never Measure Life: 20 yrs. Annual GHGs: 25.7 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 514 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: -$424,393 Savings and Cost Assumptions • Changes in fuel consumption were estimated by changing the efficiency of the system from 80% to 100%, and by switching the fuel from propane to electricity. • The project cost includes the purchase and installation of 6 electric tube heaters in place of the existing 4 propane units. The cost does not include electrical redesign, or any other reconfiguration work associated with switching from a gas -fired to an electric system. An engineering review will have to be undertaken prior to moving forward with this project. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Undertake an engineering review and a model options analysis to investigate multiple design options. This will involve additional out of scope exploratory investigation • Complete a detailed engineering design to obtain specific design parameters for the new system, stamped drawings, RFP documentation, and actionable pricing Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 26 4.4. LED Lighting Light emitting diode (LED) fixtures produce more light per unit power than any other type of light source. Therefore, upgrading to LED fixtures reduces electricity consumption. The existing lighting system uses a combination of incandescent, fluorescent, and LED fixtures for interior and exterior lighting. This ECM explores replacing the existing non -LED lights to LED fixtures. Lighting audit information can be seen in 7.1 Appendix A – Lighting Inventory Project Cost: $8,213 Annual Electricity Savings: 14,097 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $4,073 Simple Payback: 1.9 yrs. Measure Life: 15 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 6 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $46,491 Internal Rate of Return: 55% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The energy savings estimated for the LED lighting upgrades were calculated using the estimated annual hours of operation of each light fixture and the difference in wattage between the existing fixture and the proposed LED fixture. • The presented cost is inclusive of all project expenses, such as materials, labour, travel, rentals, etc. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify if existing fixtures and wiring can support LED retrofits (especially with older ballasts). • Verify voltage compatibility (e.g., 120V, 277V, or 347) • Consider color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI) for appropriate lighting quality Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 27 4.5. Rooftop Solar A solar photovoltaic (PV) system provides the building with on-site renewable energy generation. The Newcastle Branch Library building is a good candidate for a solar PV system due to its large flat roof with southern exposure and minimal obstructions. This ECM explores adding a solar PV system to the building’s roof. Project Cost: $29,723 Annual Electricity Savings: 12,707 kWh/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $3,671 Annual Maintenance Cost Savings: -$244 Simple Payback: 7.4 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.4 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 10 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $43,123 Internal Rate of Return: 15% Savings and Cost Assumptions • The system was modelled using PVWatts software from NREL. A roof-mounted array with a tilt angle of 20° is represented and includes a 14% de-rate for snow cover and system losses. Considering the available roof space and the building's annual electricity consumption, a 15.4 kW DC system was chosen. • The model calculates potential annual electricity production based on the array location, typical local weather data, and other system parameters. The theoretical maximum performance is modelled. Real electricity production may vary. • The project cost is based on SPG's experience with similar projects and includes the materials and labour for installing the solar array. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • The condition and structure of the roof will need to be assessed prior to project implementation to determine if it can support the additional load. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 28 4.6. Low Flow Water Fixtures (Additional) Upgrading water fixtures to models with low flow/flush rates would reduce water consumption while still meeting water delivery needs. For fixtures that deliver hot water (faucets and showerheads), fuel consumption associated with the DHW system will also be reduced. This ECM explores replacing eligible water fixtures in the building with low flow models. This ECM is considered additional due to its negligible GHG savings. Project Cost: $967 Annual Electricity Savings: 2,030 kWh/yr. Annual Water Savings: 48 m³/yr. Annual Utility Cost Savings: $586 Simple Payback: 1.5 yrs. Measure Life: 25 yrs. Annual GHGs: 0.1 t CO₂e Lifetime GHG Reduction: 2 tonnes CO₂e Net Present Value @5%: $11,219 Internal Rate of Return: 67% Savings and Cost Assumptions • Water savings were calculated based on estimated fixture usage and the existing and proposed flow rates. The proposed rates are 1.28 GPF for toilets, 0.5 GPF for urinals, and 1.5 GPM for showerheads and faucets. OR Water savings are not included since water data was not available. • Electrical savings were calculated based on typical cold water/hot water ratios and the efficiency of the existing DHW system. • The project cost includes the materials and labour for installing 1 showerheads, and 3 faucets. The costs were derived from RSMeans and fixture vendors. Implementation Strategy / Next Steps A comprehensive standard implementation strategy is outlined at the end of this section with ECM specific steps included below: • Verify that the building's water pressure is within the recommended range for low-flow fixtures (typically 30–80 psi). Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 29 4.7. Considered Energy Conservation Measures During our review, we evaluated a range of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) for each building. However, certain measures were not pursued further due to various factors. Common reasons for exclusion included: the absence of the relevant systems or equipment in the building, the measure already being implemented or the asset having been recently upgraded, the measure being unsuitable due to equipment or asset sizing, the identification of a more appropriate alternative measure, information inaccessible, or the expectation of poor payback periods or negligible energy or GHG savings. A comprehensive list of the ECMs considered is provided below. Table 17: Considered energy conservation measures Considered Energy Conservation Measures Air Curtains Through-wall HRVs Boiler Setpoint Reduction Variable Frequency Drives BAS Vending Misers CarbinX Ventilation Heat Recovery Cogged V-Belts Wall Insulation Condensing Boiler Water Flow Sensor Condensing Furnace Window Upgrade Condensing Water Heater Chiller Fluid Additive Condensing Unit Heater(s) Rooftop Unit Upgrade DHW Recirc pump timer Door Weatherstripping Electrification Demand Control Ventilation Elevator regenerative drive Propane Burner Replacement for Boilers Efficient direct expansion AC Variable Compressor Upgrade Existing Building Commissioning Reflective Roof Membrane/Paint Heat pump(s) (Boiler supplement) AHU Load Reduction Heat pump(s) Combined Heat and Power Heat pump RTU(s) Outdoor Reset Boiler Control High-Efficiency Chiller DHW Heater Automatic Timer High-Efficiency MUA Peak Shaving Generator Humidity sensor switch Rainwater Recovery Hybrid Electric Water Heater Ventilation Rate Reduction Hydronic Heating Additive Domestic Hot Water Setpoint Reduction Instantaneous Water Heater(s) DDC Control system Upgrade Intelligent Parking Outlets Wood Fired Boiler Irrigation Controller DHW Heater Upgrade - Electric LED Lighting HVAC Load Reduction (HLR) Lighting controls Ice Plant Replacement Liquid Pool Covers Compressed Air Study Low Flow Water Fixtures Low Loss Steam Traps Near-Condensing Boiler AI Shading (Smart shades) Pipe Insulation Unit Ventilator Upgrades (VRF) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 30 Considered Energy Conservation Measures Programmable Thermostats Thermal Heat Pumps REALice Perimeter Hydronic Heating System Roof Insulation Permafrost NMR RTU Application Rooftop solar Solar Water Heater Solar Air Heater Thermal Mass BAS Optimization Solar Carport Solar Facade 4.8. Implementation Strategies The successful implementation of the Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) outlined in this report is critical to achieving the targeted energy and GHG savings. Below is a standardized approach for implementing each ECM. While this process is generally consistent across all ECMs, specific considerations and details for each measure are provided in the next steps sections within the ECM descriptions. Feasibility Assessment Before proceeding with any ECM, a thorough feasibility study is conducted to assess its potential impact on the building’s energy profile. This includes: • A review of building systems to confirm compatibility with the proposed ECM. • Ensure feasibility of projects and determine timelines and installation plans tailed to each ECM. • Risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of any operational disruptions or system failures during or after implementation. System Integration & Procurement The next phase involves procurement and planning for integration: • Equipment sourcing: Identify suppliers and contractors for equipment, materials, and technology needed to implement the ECM. • Compatibility checks: Ensure that all components are compatible with existing systems, and that any necessary electrical, mechanical, or software upgrades are included in the procurement process. • Vendor coordination: Contact vendors to determine quoting, sizing and delivery of equipment and materials. Installation & Execution This phase involves the actual installation of the ECM: • Project management: Coordinate all installation activities, ensuring schedules are adhered to and any potential disruptions to operations are minimized. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 31 • Compliance & quality assurance: All installations are performed following local building codes, industry regulations, and best practices to ensure safety and operational efficiency. • Testing during installation: Immediate testing of each component to verify that it is performing as expected, and make necessary adjustments before full operation. Commissioning & Optimization After installation, we recommend the ECM undergoes commissioning to ensure optimal performance. This process would include: • System testing: A thorough evaluation of the ECM’s operation in real-world conditions, adjusting settings to maximize energy savings. • Fine-tuning: Optimization of system settings, including any software updates, to ensure that the ECM is operating at peak efficiency. • Performance monitoring setup: Integrate monitoring systems to track real-time performance and verify that the desired energy savings and operational benefits are achieved. Ongoing Monitoring & Maintenance To ensure sustained energy efficiency and system performance, regular monitoring and maintenance are critical: • Staff training: Ensure staff understand the operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures for the new systems. • Scheduled maintenance: Set up routine inspections and preventive maintenance to ensure that all systems continue to operate as intended. • Energy performance reviews: Regularly assess the ECM’s performance against energy- saving targets and make adjustments as necessary to improve performance. • Optimization updates: Based on ongoing performance data, recommend system adjustments or upgrades to maximize energy savings over time. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 32 5. GHG Pathways The Municipality of Clarington retained Sustainable Projects Group (SPG) to draft a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study for Yard 42. This study is funded in part by the Green Municipal Fund’s (GMF) program of the same name. As such, the methodology for this project is aligned with the program’s requirements. The goal of this project is to outline two GHG reduction pathways, targeting emissions from the built environment. These pathways are presented as a sequence of measures, each with an associated implementation cost and year, which will result in target GHG reductions. These plans do not represent a commitment by the Municipality of Clarington to achieve said reductions, but rather are intended to inform organizational decision-making. The completion of this study is also a prerequisite for applying for a Co mmunity Buildings Retrofit GHG reduction pathway capital project. This funding program is discussed in detail in the funding section of this report. The pathways prescribed by the GMF are: 3) A 50% reduction in 10 years, and an 80% reduction in 20 years (minimum performance), and 4) An 80% reduction in 5 years (short-term deep retrofit). The pathways are referred to as Pathway 1 and Pathway 2. 5.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method (Steps Completed) The basic method for drafting the pathways was to identify GHG reduction measures, estimate the implementation cost and GHG reduction for each measure, refine the list of measures based on those findings, and assign implementation timing to each measure. T hese steps are discussed in detail in the following sections. 5.1.1. Identifying Measures GHG reduction measures were identified based on SPG’s understanding of the buildings, and breadth of experience with energy conservation and decarbonization projects. SPG’s understanding of the buildings stems from discussions with operations and building staff, reviewing available documentation such as HVAC evaluations and building drawings, and site visits, which occurred in March 2024. The scope of the site visits was similar to an ASHRAE level II commercial energy audit. In addition, Clarington staff had the explicit opportunity to identify measures of interest during a design workshop on June 12, 2024. The portfolio wide minutes for this workshop are included alongside this report. 5.1.2. Estimating Cost and GHGs The implementation cost for the reduction measures is in Canadian dollars and is inclusive of materials and labour for each project, and exclusive of travel costs, unless otherwise noted. Costs were sourced from the 2024 RSMeans cost database, unless otherwise indicated. Costs Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 33 are Class C (+/-25%) and should be interpreted for solely budgetary purposes. Costs are presented as year 0 (2024) values; inflation for future years has not been accounted for. Only GHGs resulting from fuel consumption (including electricity) in the buildings were considered. The GHG reduction for each measure was calculated by multiplying the proposed fuel savings of the measure by the fuel’s emission factor. The fuels consumed by the subject buildings are electricity and propane. For propane, the emission factor used was 1.55 kg CO2e/L. The electrical grid emissions intensity for Ontario is projected to change during the period of study, so we used emission factor projections, i .e., different factors for each year, for electricity. These are outlined in the table below. Table 18: Electricity emission factors by year Year Electricity emission factor (kg CO2e/kWh) 2024 0.030 2025 0.084* 2026 0.070 2027 0.085 2028 0.073 2029 0.067 2030 0.055 2031 0.053 2032 0.048 2033 0.041 2034 0.032 2035 0.029 2036 0.027 2037 0.025 2038 0.023 2039 0.022 2040 0.021 2041 0.020 2042 0.019 2043 0.019 2044 0.018 *with the decommissioning of nuclear plants in the coming years the emissions factor of Ontario’s electrical grid is expected to increase in the short term before it begins to decrease again All factors are sourced from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (2021). The reference scenario projections were used, which is the conservative option. The reference scenario projections describe emission factor predictions based on existing plans and policies. Environment and Climate Change Canada has another set of projections, the ‘additional measures’ projections, which represent an ambitious scenario, where grid intensity targets are Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 34 met despite a lack of current legislative backing. If this projection becomes the reality, fewer GHG reduction measures would be required in GHG reduction pathways. The method for calculating fuel savings was different for each measure. These are defined in the Energy Conservation Measures section. Generally, fuel savings were derived based on existing fuel consumption by the subject equipment. Existing fuel consumption was estimated using energy models and calibrated against historic utility data. The portfolio -wide submission includes Appendix AA, which provides additional details on the energy model results, and Appendix BB, which contains the energy models themselves. 5.1.3. Selecting Measures and Assigning Implementation Timing Once the measures had been described quantitively, measures were chosen to be included or excluded from the reduction pathways. Measures with GHG reductions below 1 tCO 2e were not included. These measures generally had a high abatement rate ($/tCO2e reduced), which means that there was a large cost for a very low GHG reduction. Since there was low impact and high cost, we did not include those measures in the pathway. When two measures were exclusive, the measure with the highest GHG reduction was included. An example of exclusive measures is two measures which cannot both be implemented because they are both proposing to replace the same piece of equipment in different ways. Additional ECMs were removed from consideration after further discussion of the ECMs at both workshops. All other measures were included in the pathways. After all measures had been explored, occasionally one or both pathways were shy of the 80% reduction target. In those cases, to reach the target, we included the purchase of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets should only be considered an option to achieve GHG reductions once the exploration of all other measures has been exhausted. When used, carbon offsets were budgeted only in the last year of the respective pathway, with the intent that if used in Pathway 1, which has a longer timeline, the pathway will be reevaluated to investigate new opportunities for GHG reduction, perhaps to reflect emerging technologies. For measures replacing existing equipment, we assigned implementation years based on the replacement timing outlined on the 2023 Building Condition Assessments provided. All other measures were arbitrarily assigned implementation years, with a loose goal to spread costs evenly across the pathway timeline. Some feedback about implementation timing was provided during the Decision-making Workshop with Clarington staff. The minutes for that meeting are included in portfolio wide submission Appendix CC. Post th e Decision-making Workshop the staff was provided with a summary document located in Appendix DD and provided additional updates during an internal review period. 5.1.4. Comparing Pathways Once the pathways were formulated, they were characterized by a variety of metrics to facilitate comparison. One such metric is the NPV. The GMF refers to this by another name: the incremental life cycle cost. The NPV is the net sum of spending and savings incurred as a result Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 35 of implementing all the measures included in each pathway. It accounts for capital costs and utility costs, accounts for increasing carbon taxes, assumes that every measure will be implemented in year zero, assumes that every measure has a life of 20 years , and assumes that utility costs will inflate by 3.5% each year. The carbon tax rates were sourced from the Canada Revenue Agency (2023) and are only projected to 2030. 5.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results The pathways are presented in this section in two formats: as a graph of GHG emissions over time, and as a capital plan. The identified ECMs used within the pathways, if implemented individually in year one, are outlined in the table below. ECMs are further outlined in Section 4 of this report. Table 19: ECM summary ECM Annual Savings Finance Electricity (kWh/yr.) Natural Gas (GJ/yr.) GHGs (t CO₂e) Utility Cost Project Cost Simple Payback (yrs.) Net Present Value @5% Pathway 1 ECM(s) 1 Tube Heater - Electrification -125,732 19,055 25.7 -$23,073 $39,521 Never -$424,393 Pathway 2 Expanded ECM(s) 2 LED Upgrade - Fixture 14,097 0 0.4 $4,073 $8,213 1.9 $46,491 3 Rooftop Solar PV 12,707 0 0.4 $3,671 $29,723 7.4 $43,123 4 Carbon Offsets - - 3.9 - $70 - - Additionally, carbon offsets were used in Pathway 2 in order to reach the 80% reduction goal. Carbon offsets are credits which can be purchased to compensate for GHG emissions. They are not a direct reduction effort; rather, they enable the purchaser to fund GHG reduction projects to make up for their own unavoidable emissions. The number of offset s to be purchased was determined by evaluating the gap between proposed and target emissions reductions, given the scenario where all reasonable measures are implemented. The rate used for offsets is $18 per tCO2e. This rate is orders of magnitude lower than the overall abatement rate for the project, but should not be considered as a proper abatement rate, since purchasing offsets is not an actual GHG reduction measure, as discussed in a previous section. Table 20: Carbon Offsets Pathway Cost ($) GHG Reduction (tCO2e) Carbon Offset – Pathway 2 $70 3.9 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 36 5.2.1. Pathway 1 Table 21: Pathway 1 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 10 Years Potential reduction (10-yr) Performance at 20 Years Potential reduction (20-yr) EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.92 1.24 5% 1.24 5% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.03 0.97 6% 0.97 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 63.50 30.80 10.54 83% 5.75 91% ECI ($/m²) $49.23 N/A $99.71 -103% $99.71 -103% Table 22: GHG reduction pathway 1 capital expenditure plan (2024-2044) Measure 2024-2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 - 2044 Tuber Heaters - Electrification $39,521 Total cost ($) $39,521 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 37 Figure 13: GHG reduction pathway 1 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Projected GHG 30.5 32.8 32.2 32.8 32.3 32.1 9.0 8.7 7.8 6.6 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 Baseline GHGs 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 10-yr target (-50%)15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 20-yr target (-80%)6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 38 5.2.2. Pathway 2 Table 23: Pathway 2 results Performance metric Baseline performance Benchmark Performance at 5 Years Potential reduction EUI (GJ/m²) 1.30 0.92 1.15 12% TEDI (GJ/m2) 1.03 0.97 6% GHGI (kg CO₂e/m²) 63.50 30.80 12.85 80% ECI ($/m²) $49.23 N/A $92.13 -87% Table 24: Pathway 2 capital expenditure plan (2024-2029) Measure 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $70 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $8,213 Rooftop Solar PV $29,723 Tube Heaters - Electrification $39,521 Total ($) $37,936 $0 $0 $39,521 $70 Figure 14: GHG reduction pathway 2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Projected GHG 30.5 31.7 31.3 31.7 11.1 6.2 Baseline GHGs 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 5-yr target (-80%)6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Projected GHG Baseline GHGs 5-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 39 5.2.3. Comparison The table below presents a comparison of each pathway. Table 25: Pathway comparison Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 4 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) -125,732 -113,025 Propane savings (GJ/yr) 482 482 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 28 24 GHG Emission reduction (%) 91% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.057 0.050 Total yr 0 cost ($) $39,521 $77,527 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $219 $ 1,813 Net present value ($) -$424,393 -$331,916 Both pathways have the same target GHG reduction. However, the measures selected for each pathway are somewhat different. The electricity emission factor is higher in 2029 than it is in 2044, the same electricity consumption produced more GHGs in 2029. That means that for Pathway 2, more offsets had to be purchased to offset the gap between proposed emission reductions and the reduction target. The first graph below illustrates the variation in capital expenditures between the two pathways, highlighting the costs and replacement schedules for each ECM as well as like for like replacement costs for select equipment. Only equipment with associated ECMs replacements is included. The second graph below depicts the GHG emissions trajectory over time for Pathways 1 and 2, compared against Ontario's projected grid decarbonization and the building’s baseline emissions. Pathway 2 demonstrates significant early reductions due to its more aggressive mitigation strategies, while Pathway 1 shows steady progress over time. The red line represents emissions reductions attributed solely to grid decarbonization, and the dashed lines mark the baseline GHG level, a 10-year reduction target (-50%), and the 5-year / 20-year reduction target (-80%). This comparison underscores the effectiveness of proactive measures in accelerating emissions reductions whilst showing the initial spike in consumption as a result of the projected increased emission factor of Ontario’s electrical grid. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 40 Figure 15: Pathway capital expenditure comparison 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Like for Like $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33.4K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39.5K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pathway 2 $37.9K $0 $0 $39.5K $70 $0 $5.0K $10.0K $15.0K $20.0K $25.0K $30.0K $35.0K $40.0K $45.0K CA P I T A L E X P E N D I T U R E YEAR Like for Like Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 41 Figure 16: Pathway GHG emission reduction comparison 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Pathway 1 30.5 32.8 32.2 32.8 32.3 32.1 9.0 8.7 7.8 6.6 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 Pathway 2 30.5 31.7 31.3 31.7 11.1 6.2 Grid Decarbonization 30.5 32.8 32.2 32.8 32.3 32.1 31.6 31.5 31.3 31.0 30.6 30.5 30.4 30.3 30.3 30.2 30.2 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.0 Baseline GHGs 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 10-yr target (-50%)15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%)6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 GH G E m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 e ) Year Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Grid Decarbonization Baseline GHGs 10-yr target (-50%)5-yr & 20-yr target (-80%) Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 42 5.2.4 Incremental Life Cycle Analysis Incremental cost refers to the additional expenditure required to implement a specific pathway compared to a baseline or business-as-usual scenario. This analysis helps in understanding the financial implications of each option and for making informed deci sions based on cost- effectiveness and potential return on investment. The Municipality of Clarington provided a series of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) that included like-for-like replacement costs for specific equipment. Where applicable, the incremental cost for each ECM was calculated as the difference between the ECM project cost and the corresponding like-for-like replacement cost. The metrics below are based on these incremental costs. Table 26: Absolute and incremental costs ECM Name Yr 0 cost ($) Like-for-Like yr 0 cost ($) Incremental yr 0 cost ($) Tube Heaters - Electrification $39,521 $33,432 $6,089 Total Pathway 1 $39,521 $33,432 $6,089 Carbon Offsets (Pathway 2) $70 N/A $70 Rooftop Solar PV $29,723 N/A $29,723 LED Upgrade - Remaining Fixtures $8,213 N/A $8,213 Total Pathway 2 $77,527 $33,432 $44,095 Table 27: Incremental pathway results Pathway 1 2 Measures (#) 1 4 Electricity savings (kWh/yr) - 125,732 - 113,025 Propane savings (GJ/yr) 482 482 GHG Emission reduction (tCO2e/yr) 28 24 GHG Emission reduction (%) 91% 80% GHGI (tCO2e/yr/m2) 0.057 0.050 Total yr 0 incremental cost ($) $ 6,089 $ 44,095 Abatement cost ($/tCO2e) $ 219 $ 1,813 Incremental Net present value ($) -$390,961 -$298,484 Upgrading to efficient technologies and implementing new energy-saving strategies is 792% more expensive than like-for-like equipment replacements. However, this analysis also reveals a 8% and 10% reduction in NPV for Pathways 1 and 2 respectively when compared to absolute year 0 project costs. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 43 5.2.5 Summary of Non-Energy / Qualitative Benefits In addition to the direct energy savings associated with energy conservation measures (ECMs), there are a range of non-energy and qualitative benefits that can have a significant impact on the overall performance and value of the building or facility. The following analysis highlights these non-energy benefits. Strengths Lower Maintenance: Electrifying the tube heaters results in ewer moving parts and no combustion reduce maintenance costs compared to propane heaters. Safety: Electrification eliminates the risks associated with propane, such as leaks, explosions, or carbon monoxide buildup. Precision Control: Electric equipment is generally easier to integrate with smart thermostats and control systems for zone heating and energy optimization. Enhanced Aesthetic and Lighting Quality: The upgrade to LED lighting not only provides better illumination but also improves the visual appeal of spaces with more modern, crisp, and uniform lighting, creating a more inviting environment for occupants. Sustainability and Green Image: The installation of solar PV contributes to a cleaner energy profile for the facility, supporting sustainability goals and enhancing the organization’s environmental reputation, which can attract eco-conscious customers and employees. Weaknesses Upfront Capital Investment: The initial cost of replacing tube heaters, installing LED lighting, and integrating solar PV systems can be significant, potentially creating budget challenges despite long-term savings and benefits. Implementation Complexity: Installing solar PV, upgrading tube heaters and lighting may involve complex coordination between contractors, requiring careful planning to minimize disruptions to ongoing operations and user activities. Variable Energy Production: While solar PV contributes to energy savings, its performance is dependent on weather conditions and daylight, which may lead to variability in energy generation, especially in regions with less consistent sunlight. Transition Period: While upgrades such as LED lighting offer immediate benefits, the installation of heat pump RTUs and solar PV may involve downtime or temporary performance issues during the transition phase. Dependency on Electricity: In case of power outages, heating will be completely unavailable unless a backup system is in place. Limited Output: Electric heaters may struggle to match the rapid heat production capacity of propane in very large spaces. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 44 Opportunities Enhanced User Satisfaction: Improved lighting and more reliable indoor climate control can contribute to higher customer or employee satisfaction, which may lead to greater retention or attraction of these groups. Marketing and Public Relations: The combination of energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy generation provides an opportunity to market the building or facility as a forward - thinking, environmentally responsible property, potentially attracting customers and employees who value sustainability. Increased Property Value: Sustainable upgrades, such as solar PV and energy-efficient HVAC systems, can increase the building’s market value and appeal to a growing segment of eco- conscious buyers or investors. Potential for Further Incentives: The package of energy-efficient upgrades may qualify the organization for local, provincial, or federal incentives, rebates, or tax credits related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, improving the financial feasibility of the project. Integration with Renewables: Electric heaters pair well with solar or wind power systems, reducing operating costs. Educational and Community Engagement: The installation of solar PV and energy-efficient systems may serve as an educational tool for the community, showcasing the organization's commitment to sustainability and offering learning opportunities for local schools or businesses. Threats Technological Obsolescence: Rapid advancements in HVAC or solar technologies could render some components of the package less cutting-edge or less cost-effective over time, affecting the perceived value of the investment. Regulatory Changes: Potential changes in energy regulations or building codes could impact the financial viability or benefits of solar PV or heat pump systems, particularly in the case of shifting incentives or mandates. Stakeholder Resistance to Change: While the energy and financial benefits are significant, some stakeholders may prioritize the upfront cost or remain resistant to the shift towards renewable energy, questioning the value of solar PV or heat pump systems over traditional options. Dependency on External Factors: Solar PV performance can be affected by external factors such as shading, environmental conditions, or even policy changes related to renewable energy incentives, which could threaten its long-term performance. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 45 6. Funding Opportunities The section below outlines funding opportunities which the Municipality of Clarington may leverage to support implementation of the pathways noted in this report. Note that program funding is not guaranteed, and programs may close due to funding limitations. Therefore, the opportunities presented should be considered current only at the time of report submission. Further, there may be future opportunities not listed here which may support ongoing retrofit projects. 6.1. FCM GHG Reduction Pathway Retrofit Capital Projects This funding is offered through the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) GMF for applicants who have completed a GHG Reduction Pathway Feasibility Study. This program offers funding to support the implementation of one or more phases of a GHG reduction pathway. Eligible projects may focus on a pathway for a single building or portfolio of buildings. Website https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/funding/capital-project-ghg-reduction-pathway-retrofit Eligibility Canadian municipal governments may apply for community buildings projects. The funding application must include at least one retrofit phase identified in the pathway, or a combination of GHG reduction measures identified in the pathway that are appropriately sequenced to achieve near net zero GHG emissions within 20 years. For municipalities that have completed the GHG reduction pathway feasibility study, there are no limits on the number of projects eligible for funding, provided that all projects are part of the same GHG reduction pathway. Note that municipalities may apply for subsequent phases in the future, subject to funding availability. Amount This program offers a combined grant and loan for up to 80% of eligible costs, up to $5 Million per project. Loans are provided at competitive market rates. Eligible costs include: • Consulting costs to write the application, to a maximum of $5,000, incurred up to 90 days before application submission • Administrative costs • Advertising costs • Financial audit costs • Capital expenditures • Equipment rental • Facility and equipment rental for meetings • Professional and technical services • Salaries • Transportation/travel • Taxes • In-kind Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 46 Application To apply, the municipality must submit: • A pre-application and application form, • A project workbook, and • Required supporting documents, including: o Letters from confirmed sources of funding o Letter of confirmation of consultation with provincial government o Project team organizational chart and resumes o Evidence of municipal support (i.e., council resolution, letter of support) o Completed feasibility study and energy model o Engineering cost estimate o Audited financial statements for past 3 years o Executive summary of environmental assessment of project, if required GMF project officers can guide the municipality through the application process, and SPG offers consulting services to support completing application requirements. Note that costs to complete the application (up to $5,000) are eligible for reimbursement as part of the application funding. Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 47 7. Appendices 7.1. Appendix A - Lighting Inventory Table 28: Lighting inventory Section Room Fixture Qty (#) Offices Mechanical Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Offices Washroom 1L-4ft-LED-15W-Strip-Ceil Sfc 1 Truck Bay Truck Bay 4L-4ft-T5 (4')-FL-54W-Troffer-Hang 14 Offices Hallway 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Offices Downstairs Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 3 Offices Upstairs Office 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 4 Offices Change Room 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 2 Offices Washroom 2L-4ft-T8 (4')-FL-32W-Strip-Med BiPin-Hang 1 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-HPS-150W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 4 Exterior Exterior 1L-Med-LED-30W-Wall Pack-Wall Sfc 1 Exterior Exterior 1L-MH-250W-Pole Light 1 7.2. Appendix B - Utility Data Electricity Table 29: Electricity utility data 2023 2024 Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) Cost ($) Consumption (kWh) January $1,292.93 4,630 $1,305.60 4,530 February $1,189.68 4,115 $1,419.36 4,968 March $957.94 3,375 $1,313.69 4,536 April $865.95 3,074 May $827.82 2,900 June $883.63 3,173 July $810.80 2,836 August $815.65 2,828 September $703.22 2,441 October $895.64 3,066 November $983.60 3,454 December $1,275.40 4,452 Total $11,502 40,343 $4,039 14,034 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 48 Propane Table 30: Propane utility data 2022 2023 Cost Consumption (L) Cost Consumption (L) Yearly Total $10,552 20,054 $12,388 17,809 Total $10,552 20,054 $12,388 17,809 Sustainable Projects Group – GHG Reduction Pathway Report pg. 49 8. References Energy Star. (2023). Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type. Canadian Energy Use Intensity by Property Type (energystar.gov) Energy Star. (2022). Canadian Regional Median Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity (nrcan.gc.ca) Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). National Inventory Report 1990-2020: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. En81-4-2019-1-eng.pdf (publications.gc.ca) U.S. Green Building Council (2022). LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator. LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator | U.S. Green Building Council (usgbc.org) Canada Revenue Agency (2023). Fuel Charge Rates. Fuel Charge Rates - Canada.ca