Topic: Energy

District energy system pipes

District Energy Systems

District energy systems (DES) centralize the production of heating or cooling for a neighbourhood or community. District steam heating plants in North America go back over a century; now, district systems are one of the potential solutions to our energy and emissions challenges.

Diagram of how a district energy system works. Image: City of Vancouver.
Diagram of how a district energy system works. Image: City of Vancouver.

Most district energy systems generate heat at a central plant, or extract heat from other sources. The heat is transferred to a fluid and distributed via underground pipes to buildings where it is used for space and water heating. The fluid is then returned to the source to be reheated and recirculated. Some systems also provide space cooling in a similar way. They may deliver energy services with greater efficiencies and lower emissions than individual furnaces, boilers, electric baseboards, and water heaters fueled by oil, natural gas, propane, or electricity.

Examples:

Complementary measures

  • Land use planning that encourages compact, complete communities.
  • A Community Energy Plan to develop strategies for energy infrastructure within a broader energy and emissions plan. The CEA created a Community Energy and Emissions Planning guide which describes the purpose and content of a community energy and emissions plan, its benefits, and how to go about creating one.
  • Resource Management Plans and wastewater energy recovery, encourage energy inputs from several sources (such as refrigeration-heat from an ice-rink, sewer heat, biomass, etc.) providing more opportunities for carbon-neutral energy.

What district energy can do

District energy systems have the potential to reduce the size of heating and cooling infrastructure, reduce emissions, and even reduce costs.

  • District energy can take advantage of load diversification (the different daily energy demand patterns of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses) reducing the size of the infrastructure needed to service them. With a range of users and sharing of heating and cooling flows, overall peak demand is flattened. In the North Vancouver (City), the Lonsdale Energy Corporation system is operated with a fraction of the boiler capacity that would have been needed if each building was equipped with its own conventional boiler system.
  • District energy systems can be cost effective due to economies of scale, longer amortization of equipment and lower financing costs.
  • District energy can enable the use of major local alternate/renewable energy sources. For example, they can incorporate geoexchange or sewer heat recovery. Because of the cost effective aspects described above, this can make the development of more capital intensive renewable energy sources more feasible. These sources can potentially reduce emissions significantly due to heating and cooling.

For a neighbourhood, development or connected building, large-scale implementation of renewable sources via district energy systems has the potential to displace most or virtually all of the demand for conventional heating energy sources such as gas. Even district systems that use gas for peak heating needs can reduce emissions significantly.

New vs. existing developments

District energy systems probably have the greatest potential in reducing the emissions from new developments, as the cost of building district infrastructure is generally lower for new construction compared to retrofitting, and buildings can be designed for compatibility. Vancouver’s Southeast False Creek sustainable community project is an example of this.

However, there is also potential for new or even existing local government buildings and facilities to connect with a district system. For example, swimming pools and arenas are energy intensive and can complement each other, and/or improve the load diversity of a district system that includes other energy uses such as residential and commercial buildings. Revelstoke’s biomass district heat system provides low pressure steam to energize the dry kilns for a sawmill (the source of the wood residue biomass) and provide hot water through an in-ground piping system to several buildings in downtown Revelstoke.

System Economics

The economics of district energy are very site-specific. As a rough rule of thumb, a neighbourhood will be a good candidate if it has some of the following characteristics:

  • Several large buildings or building complexes (such as hospitals, hotels or colleges)
  • A mix of uses (such as a town or village centre)
  • Moderate and higher residential densities (such as multi-family units or apartments)
  • Relatively small spacing between buildings and a grid street layout
  • A source of relatively cheap energy (such as waste heat from an existing boiler or sewage treatment facility)
  • Few electric resistance heating systems in existing buildings (these cannot be easily retrofitted)

Management

A Neighbourhood Energy Utility (NEU) is the institutional structure that underpins a district system if it crosses property boundaries. An NEU may be owned and operated by different parties, including developers, private utilities, and/or local governments. Historically, most local governments are not in the energy utility business; however, as district energy/NEU’s offer a potential revenue stream, many local governments are either looking at expanding their existing systems, or initiating new ones.

Often, an NEU evolves via business discussions with private energy utilities and developers. These discussions may also involve local governments where there is interest to pursue it.

Learn more:

  • The Community Energy Association’s Utilities & Financing includes more detailed information on local government ownership and operation of heating utilities.
  • Regulation of District Energy Systems examines the services, financials, governance, and rate-setting frameworks for nine diverse systems in British Columbia. The report outlines risks associated with system development and provides recommendations on how policy makers and regulators can reduce these risks, while ensuring that systems reduce emissions, improve efficiencies, and deliver reasonably priced energy services.

Life Cycle Costing

Looking closely at your bottom line

Life cycle costing (LCC) helps local governments look beyond initial capital costs and assess infrastructure strategically over its entire life. LCC can significantly strengthen fiscal performance as well as contribute to large greenhouse gas reductions.

Barrier: first cost orientation

A major barrier to advancing premium efficiency infrastructure and renewable energy is that consumers, including many sophisticated private and public institutions, focus on the initial capital cost and simple payback. Taking this perspective, an infrastructure investment with slightly lower capital costs but high long term costs may be preferred over one with slightly higher capital costs, significantly lower long term costs, and potentially significantly lower emissions.

Looking Long Term

Rather then evaluating projects on initial cost, LCC considers the total cost of owning, operating and maintaining infrastructure over its useful life (including fuel, energy, labour, and replacement components).

LCC is particularly useful for evaluating premium efficiency infrastructure and renewable energy opportunities since their initial costs are often higher, but they tend to have lower operating and maintenance costs over the life of the project.

By overlooking the purchase of premium efficiency products because of their initially higher costs, local governments may save money in the short term but end up paying more for the project through higher energy costs and other operating costs over the life of the project.

Given the importance of fiscal performance, LCC analysis has made some of the most important contributions to advancing local government climate change programs. LCC has applications across a wide range of sectors:

  • Fleets, decisive in determining new vehicle acquisitions
  • Civic Buildings, relevant for premium efficiency targets for new and existing stock
  • Equipment, relevant for office equipment and machinery
  • Land use and transportation planning, notably as it pertains to infrastructure needs and costs
  • Residential and commercial Buildings

Community Examples

  • City of Dawson Creek: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Tool 1
  • City of Dawson Creek: Life Cycle Cost Analysis Tool 2

The first tool provides an example of how the tool can be used to compare three vehicles that use different fuel types. The second tool is an actual analysis that the City did when deciding which vehicle to purchase.

Clear Savings

Buildings

The potential savings from investments in green buildings is 10 times the initial investment according to a US state sponsored Sustainable Building Task Force. For example, an initial upfront investment of up to $100,000 to incorporate green building features into a $5 million project would result in a savings of $1 million in today’s dollars over the life of the building. [1]
Construction accounts for only 8% of a civic building’s cost over its 30-40 year life; operation and maintenance accounts for 92%, according to a study by the City of Hamilton. [2] LCC takes operation and maintenance costs into account, revealing the true cost of the investment over its useful life.

Vehicles

After conducting a life cycle costing analysis, the Township of Langley replaced older high emissions vehicles with newer different models. The 5% reduction in fuel and repair costs more than offset the additional capital investment.

Development

In low-density, single-use developments, local governments often generate less in development fees and property tax than they spend in services like emergency and waste removal, and infrastructure costs such as roads, water mains and sewers. A Southwestern Ontario analysis found for every $1 dollar raised in development fees and property taxes $1.40 needs to be spent on servicing. This problem is more thoroughly explored under asset management. [3]

Life Cycle Analysis vs. Life Cycle Costing

LCC is complementary but not the same as life cycle analysis (LCA). LCA is used to estimate the wide range of environmental impacts or costs of a project over its entire life, literally from cradle to grave. LCA is particularly useful in selecting projects with lower greenhouse gas emissions.

[1] Kats, Greg et al. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: Report to the California Sustainable Buildings Task Force.

[2] City of Hamilton, Corporate Buildings & Real Estate Department. (February 20, 2001). State of the City’s Infrastructure (Council Presentation)

[3] Diamond, Jack. (May 18, 2008). “Sprawl is our ‘inconvenient truth:’ Increasing densities do not have to compromise livability,” in Globe and Mail.

Energy Efficient Equipment Policy

The impact of an energy efficient equipment

Equipment such as appliances, office equipment, consumer electronics, and other hardware comprise a significant proportion of electricity use – and plug load is the fastest growing sector of electricity consumption in buildings [1]. Such equipment is frequently and easily replaced. Local governments can adopt a Energy Efficiency Equipment Policy to purchase only energy efficient products. This mandate will minimize the environmental impacts of energy generation, and reduce electricity bills.

Likewise, retrofitting a building’s water fixtures is relatively low-cost and easy to perform. Reducing the flow rate of fixtures saves on hot water heating, and reduces the energy used in water treatment, distribution and wastewater conveyance. Additionally, improving water efficiency will help BC communities adapt to climate change, which is predicted to bring lengthier droughts .

Implementing an Energy Efficient Equipment Policy

Local governments can implement an Energy Efficient Equipment Policy as part of a larger Civic Green Building Policy to learn more about Energy Star certified products.

Certain types of specialized equipment may not have Energy Star rated models available. In such cases, specify that the energy consumption of equipment be considered.

Making Energy Efficient Behaviour Easy

Besides purchasing energy efficient products, local governments can make it easier for staff to save energy at work. Identify what office equipment can be turned off when not in use. Label these machines. Connect them to a common power bar to be shut off easily during evenings.

By configuring computers to enter low-power modes when not in use, substantial energy savings can be made. Energy Star provides resources to implement an IT power management initiative.

Water Conservation

Local governments occupying older buildings may currently use very high flow water fixtures. New fixture designs allow for substantial reductions in water usage. First, assess water consumption. If deemed necessary, conduct a retrofit of fixtures to low flow models.

Strategies

Local governments should consider the following when developing efficient equipment policies:

  • Equipment replacements may either be comprehensive, or be integrated into capital replacement cycles.
  • Life cycle cost analysis comparing and contrasting capital investments is a powerful way of illustrating the benefits of implementing an efficient equipment policy. Energy Star Procurement provides sample procurement language and “savings calculator” spreadsheets, a user friendly life cycle costing tool.
  • Close coordination between senior levels of government, buildings operation departments, and finance departments, can ensure the best financing for equipment replacement strategies.
  • Substantial savings can be realized by purchasing multifunctional devices; for example, those that integrate the functions of printers, photocopiers, faxes and scanners.

Learn more:

References

  1. Suozzo, Margaret. Energy-Efficient Office Equipment. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Onsite Renewable Energy Policy

Saving Money, Building Markets – Implementing an Onsite Renewable Energy Policy

The availability and use of onsite renewable energy technology for buildings in BC has grown significantly. While renewable energy may come from an increasing variety of sources, not all of these sources are suitable for onsite production. On-site renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, is a way to power your building while reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies have an important role in meeting household energy needs throughout the community.

Micro-renewable energy can generally be broken into two classes:

Space conditioning (heating and cooling) and hot water systems. Such technologies include solar thermal and geo exchange systems. Many of these systems are very cost competitive, and superior to conventional systems from a life cycle cost perspective.
Renewable electricity systems. Examples include solar photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, and biomass combustion. Not always, but generally these systems have longer paybacks because of BC’s low cost of electricity, and technology maturity.

Onsite Renewable Policy in Community Buildings

Onsite renewable generation policies community wide can complement similar policies for civic buildings. Various European [1], and now US, jurisdictions have policies mandating the incorporation of renewable energy systems into new construction and renovation. These policies have been very successful, as they have led to strong growth in renewable industries, and decreased costs due to economies of scale and installation experience. National governments, such as Britain, Germany and Spain, are following suit.

Example Communities

Solar Colwood: a demonstration of a whole community moving towards energy conservation and renewable clean energy
Burns Lake: installed a biomass heating system at the Tom Forsythe arena
Nanaimo: replacing its old water reservoir with one that incorporates energy recovery equipment

[1] European Renewable Energy Council. (2007) Key Issues – Regulations.

Developing an Onsite Renewable Policy

An onsite renewable energy policy for the community can be encouraged through a resolution at board/council. It could serve as part of a wider green building policy, embedded in an Official Community Plan or a Regional Growth Strategy.

Creating and Implementing Effective Policy

Onsite renewable energy may be promoted through a variety of policy tools. Local Governments may create policies requiring that a certain percentage of all new or renovated buildings’ energy use be supplied by onsite renewable energy. Requiring a small minimum percentage, perhaps 5-10%, will allow buildings in less favourable conditions to meet the standard. Designers of buildings on renewable rich sites will be more cognizant of their resources, and may substantially exceed this minimum cost-effectively.

The most commonly cited example of this type of policy is the Merton Rule from the United Kingdom, which requires landowners of new developments 1000 square metres or more to generate 10 percent of energy used onsite from renewable sources. Initiated in the London Borough of Merton in 2003, the City of London created an identical requirement in 2004. (Pembina Institute. 2010A: p16). This type of policy may encourage that buildings meet Credit 2 of the LEED Canada Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations.

Local governments may also encourage onsite renewable energy, rather than require it, through the use of policy tools such as fast tracking. As part of their Sustainability Initiative the City of Port Coquitlam offers developers the opportunity to be fast tracked through the rezoning process and building permit applications if they incorporate green technology into their designs.

Policies encouraging onsite renewable energy can be prescriptive or performance based, and may vary according to building type, size, and climate zone. Policies that are based on performance can be advantageous when they encourage architects, engineers, and builders to choose innovative yet cost effective measures appropriate for a particular building and its location.

The T’Souke First Nation west of Victoria, three photovoltaic systems, with a total capacity of 75 kW, comprise the largest solar PV project to date in British Columbia. The energy generated supplies both community members and band buildings.

Using DPAs to Promote Renewable Energy Community-Wide

A growing number of Local Governments in BC are using Development Permit Area (DPA) to mandate onsite renewable energy use in the wider community. DPAs are regulations on development in particular neighbourhoods specified in Official Community Plans. The BC Local Government Act (Section 919.1) enables Local Governments to mandate GHG reduction measures in DPA guidelines, as well as the character of built form.

This legislative basis provides an excellent opportunity to include an onsite renewable energy policy in the guidelines. For instance, in Richmond, BC the Broadmoor Neighbourhood Service Centre used development permit guidelines to promote onsite renewable energy in the Broadmoor Neighbourhood Service Area. For more information see the Service Centre’s Master Plan and the Broadmoor Neighbourhood Service Centre Guidelines.

Removing Local Barriers to Renewable Energy

As more and more citizens seek to adopt green technologies in their own homes, Local Governments may want to review existing bylaws and policies to determine if they create barriers to renewable energy initiatives. For instance, height restrictions may preclude the building of wind turbines; noise restrictions may prevent heat pumps and wind turbines; character and form restrictions (such as bylaws that prevent aesthetically unpleasing rooftop instalments) may preclude solar generators. For example, the District of North Vancouver has exempted building energy conservation design elements from height restrictions in its Zoning Bylaw. Additionally, the Canadian Wind Association has developed a model bylaw for Local Governments to use that allows for small wind turbine generation.

More commonly, Local Governments are adopting regulations that ensure buildings not designed with onsite renewable energy are built so as to allow for future renewable energy retrofits. For instance, many Local Governments are taking action to ensure that all new construction is built so that Solar Hot Water may be easily installed. Over 26 Local Governments around BC have adopted the Provincial Solar Hot Water Ready Regulation, administered through SolarBC, which ensures buildings are constructed with the ability to accommodate future solar hot water retrofits.

Finally, Local Governments may work to ensure that local building inspectors are up-to-date with onsite renewable technology, and inform them of Council’s support for such initiatives. If inspectors are not familiar with the technology, they may be hesitant to ratify onsite renewable energy initiatives throughout the community.

Policy Examples

Port Coquitlam – The Sustainability Initiative outlines policies used to promote green technologies community wide.
Richmond –The Broadmoor Neighbourhood Service Guidelines (Bylaw 8579), which promotes onsite renewable energy in the area. A more concise version of the bylaw exists as the Broadmoor Neighbourhood Service Centre Master Plan.
District of North Vancouver – The Section 407 of the Zoning Bylaw outlines building structures or portions that are exempt from height restrictions, including energy conservation design elements.

Further Information and Examples

Merton Rule: Official UK website outlining information pertaining to the Merton Rule.
Small Wind Siting and Zoning Study: Development of Siting Guidelines and a Model Zoning By-law for Small Wind Turbines (Under 300 KW) (2006): A model bylaw developed by the Canadian Wind Energy Association.
Jurisdiction Options for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings (2010): A policy resource for Local Governments prepared by the Pembina Institute.
Economic Instruments for On-site Renewable Energy Applications in the Residential/Farm Sector (2007): A sector-specific policy resource for Local Governments prepared by the Pembina Institute
Powering Our Communities (2007): A module of the Renewable Energy Guide for Local Governments in British Columbia.
Heating Our Communities (2007): A module of the Renewable Energy Guide for Local Governments in British Columbia.
Policy and Governance Tools (2007): A module of the Renewable Energy Guide for Local Governments in British Columbia September

Dawson Creeck (courtesy of picturebc.ca: Peace Photographics)

Official Community Plan (OCP)

A blueprint for a healthy, sustainable community

The Local Government Act authorizes the development of Official Community Plans (OCPs) in BC (Sections 471 to 478). An OCP is a local government plan that provides objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management within the area covered by the plan. OCPs are significant because, after their adoption, all bylaws and works undertaken by a Council or Board must be consistent with the plan. Every OCP will be slightly different but each will address core aspects of a community such as:

  • Proposed land use and density
  • Transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure
  • Environmentally sensitive areas, parks and open space
  • Housing needs and policies
  • Public facilities, including schools, health care, etc.
  • Neighbourhood character
  • Social policies
  • Economic development
  • Targets, policies and actions for the reduction of emissions
  • Development permit areas
  • Building and landscape design guidelines

In a small community, an OCP will typically have more information and play a more central role in governance with policies, regulations and guidelines, including extensive detail on many issues. For a larger community, an OCP will more often be an overarching, vision and policy document that is accompanied by a wide range of policy, plans and regulatory documents that cover each issue in more detail.

Tackling climate change through an OCP

An OCP is possibly the most important plan in a community for reducing emissions. It establishes:

  • Key policy goals for a community, including climate goals and targets
  • Land use patterns throughout the community that will shape how complete any neighbourhood is
  • The transportation network of a community that will influence whether people walk, cycle and take transit or drive their car – and associated emissions implications
  • Housing types available in each neighbourhood that will affect transportation options and quality of life
  • Commercial and industrial development that is the foundation of a community’s economy and influences where jobs are located throughout a community
  • The policy foundation for infrastructure planning that will determine how efficient and sustainable water, waste-water and energy systems are, based on the OCP’s land use patterns
  • A key focus point for community engagement and education where climate and community issues can be linked and discussed
  • Community-wide emissions reduction targets, policies and actions to help mitigate the impacts of climate change
  • The network of greenways, vegetation and park spaces that influence local neighbourhood lifestyles, vegetation to reduce the heat island effect, and promote walking and cycling
  • Design objectives and guidelines for buildings and landscape proposed within prescribed Development Permit Areas. These can include objectives and requirements for energy efficiency and emissions reductions.
  • Development information requirements including information required regarding energy efficiency, emissions for a proposed project
  • Incentives that the municipality may offer to encourage emissions reductions including policies for density bonusing
  • Many other aspects of a community, including the leadership role a local government will play in its own operations around fleet management or premium efficiency building targets.

OCPs are typically updated every 5 to 10 years, but their long-term vision means they set a course for many decades.

Cross cutting actions

  • Community vision is strengthened with climate action initiatives. Congestion, air pollution, community livability, community economic development and local government fiscal performance are all part of integrated framing that ensures climate action plans support other fundamental community priorities.
  • Climate planning through an OCP or climate planning plus an OCP. Under the Local Government Act, local governments are required to include targets, policies and actions for the reduction of emissions in their OCPs. Many local governments undertake more extensive, energy and emission planning processes independently that would then be integrated into an OCP. Ultimately, some concerted energy and emission planning following by action is important to make significant reductions and ensure communities are protected from energy price volatility. High level climate change targets, goals and actions can be acknowledged in one section of an OCP. These targets and goals, then, should be integrated into other parts of the OCP. Some of the cross cutting opportunities include:
    • Establish climate protection and energy sustainability as fundamental considerations in meeting the community’s economic, social and environmental goals
    • Set a target to inform development of more detailed policies and actions
    • Establish a climate and energy working group to advise council or board on opportunities and build relationships with key partners in the community, utilities, neighboring communities, and senior levels of government
    • Establish some innovative financing measures to hurdle a major barrier to taking action.

Land use actions

Land use planning is at the very top of an energy planning hierarchy. Over the medium to long term, land use decisions are likely to have a cumulative impact on energy use and emissions. A climate-friendly OCP can be achieved by addressing land use patterns to ensure the following:

  • Development is directed to areas of existing infrastructure to maintain compact development that supports a diversity of transportation choices from walking, cycling, transit as well as the car
  • Mixed use neighbourhoods that include a wide diversity of housing, amenities, schools, open space, commercial / retail development and job opportunities. Mixed use is a primary building block for a healthy community.
  • Addressing the evolution of current single use areas (such as single-detached unit subdivisions) to include a greater mix of uses in key areas
  • A nodes and corridors structure focusing density in village/urban centers connected by corridors of denser development to support the most sustainable transportation options. These corridors should be easily accessible by a range of transportation options and ideally serviced by convenient and frequent transit. This structure can be set out far in advance of growth into various areas with appropriate phasing based on infrastructure.
  • Densities that support convenient frequent transit service in a local transit network, where applicable. As a rule of thumb, 20 to 40 units/hectare or 50 to 80 residents and jobs combined typically supports basic (every 30 minutes) and frequent transit service (every 15 minutes or less). [1]
  • Support for infill and redevelopment, including brownfield redevelopment
  • Office, institutional, educational and other high employment density areas that are located only in central areas that can be easily connected by transit and active transportation networks to most residential areas (to shift commuting trips to non-auto modes)
  • Industrial lands that are located to support green (and innovative district) infrastructure systems and that are easily accessed by transit where job densities are higher
  • A network of green areas that link parks and greenways with agricultural or sensitive and protected natural areas, providing a network of paths, local food opportunities and recreation potential. Putting ecological targets in the OCP enables benchmarking and can contribute to a better understanding of ecological resilience.

Transportation actions

Transportation is responsible for close to 50% of emissions in many communities. An OCP will establish a policy and land use framework for a community’s transportation system – often supported with detailed transportation plans. Transportation patterns in a community are primarily an outcome of land use patterns – people travel between areas of activity – but major transportation investments can also shape land use.

“Compact development can result in a 7 to 10% reduction in total transportation CO2 emissions by 2050 relative to continuing sprawl.” [2]

The transportation elements of an OCP need to establish vision, policy and investment commitments that will significantly change the amount and mode of travel from higher emission patterns to those that will support a significant reduction in emissions.

For instance, for a community growing at 1.5% per year between now and 2020, the transportation plan needs to be built around a scenario of a 50% reduction per person if the community plans to meet a 33% reduction overall by 2020 (growth ~ 17% over 11 years + 33% reduction target = 50%). Reductions can be achieved through increased fuel and vehicle efficiencies, but also through support of pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure as well as careful planning and development.

Transportation elements for an OCP that can support emission reductions include:

  • Establishing the overall transportation network plan of highways, streets, transit corridors, bicycle routes, greenways, pedestrian paths and others to ensure all residents have reasonable access to non-automobile modes of transport for commuting, accessing school and shopping
  • Clearly establishing a low-emissions modal priority of pedestrians, bicycles, transit and goods movement over the automobile for policy, design and capital investment
  • Establishing policies for complete street design that support narrower streets, traffic calming design, bicycle and pedestrian support, and ecologically sound stormwater management
  • Addressing parking policies to keep parking ratios as low as possible to increase housing affordability and apply gentle pressure to use alternatives to the car.

Buildings actions

Local governments, with the exception of the City of Vancouver, do not have the authority to change building code requirements. Local governments are, however, able to indirectly and significantly influence energy efficiency through a variety of conventional policies and bylaws that can be addressed at a high level through an OCP. Building elements for an OCP that can support emission reductions include:

  • Build capacity through education and recognition programs for staff, developers, builders and the public, including promoting incentives offered by utilities and senior governments
  • Develop partnerships with developers interested in innovation to strengthen knowledge inside and outside local government
  • Establish building efficiency and emissions targets to guide the design and performance of new development projects
  • Encourage heritage preservation and re-use of existing buildings where possible
  • Develop incentives for energy improvements such as density bonusing, revitalization tax exemptions, building permit rebates, development cost charge adjustments, and permit fast tracking
  • Develop regulations for density and form, efficiency and renewable requirements through development permit areas.

For further information see Energy Efficiency and Buildings: A Resource for Local Governments.

Infrastructure actions

An OCP can provide the framework to determine where infrastructure development will occur and how it will be implemented. As such, the OCP can address a range of infrastructure issues related to supply, demand management, phasing, policies and inter-jurisdictional agreements for energy, water, wastewater and solid waste. Sustainable infrastructure delivery should consider full life-cycle costing, environment impact and natural resource depletion.

The OCP will primarily establish high level policies and strategies and subsequent infrastructure plans will be developed for each area.

Opportunities to address low emission infrastructure opportunities in an OCP include:

  • Limit the outward expansion of the settled areas of the community (compactness) to reduce need to expand infrastructure networks
  • Establish energy and emissions targets for infrastructure systems against which options can be evaluated
  • Adopt practical analytical and decision making tools into infrastructure planning and procurement such as life cycle analysis and integrated resource management
  • Integrate local renewable, low emission energy sources and systems into existing infrastructure such as micro-hydro, waste to energy systems, biogas recovery systems, sewer heat recovery, geo-exchange and geothermal systems and the distribution of energy through district energy systems. The OCP should include policies defining levels of support for energy efficient and renewable energy infrastructure and new utilities developed by the municipality, developers, large utilities and other levels of government within the municipality.
  • Develop water supply policies and practices that support efficiency targets along with other sustainable water management policies
  • Develop rainwater (stormwater) management policies and practices to reduce the burden on infrastructure and enhance ecological and amenity values, including reducing impermeable areas
  • Develop wastewater policies and practice, including priorities for treatment and re-use, renewable/low emission energy sources, energy recovery/generation, resource recovery, and strategies for centralized or decentralized systems and siting
  • Develop solid waste policies and practices that reduce emissions including waste reduction, recycling, composting, and managing landfill gas, as well as resource recovery and environmental protection.

Local government operations actions

An OCP does not frequently address local government operations directly. However, some OCP strategies can benefit areas of local government operations indirectly and vice versa. For example:

  • Building capacity through leading by example: By taking a leadership role in green buildings, fleets and infrastructure, local governments build knowledge inside city hall and out in the community that can be extended to community wide programs. This leadership also raises awareness of the potential for innovation.
  • Community water conservation: Conserving water can reduce energy consumption and emissions from water and wastewater infrastructure, and reduce the size of constructed systems.
  • Greening the fleet: Compact community planning, community waste reduction and backyard composting programs can reduce emissions from fleet operations.

References

  1. Transit Supportive Guidelines (Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, 2012)
  2. Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen., 2008. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute, 9.

Plan2Adapt

Climate change impacts do not affect every region of British Columbia in the same way. The Plan2Adapt tool generates maps, plots, and data describing projected future climate conditions for regions throughout British Columbia.

It is designed to help you assess climate change in your region based on a standard set of climate model projections. It is similar to the Regional Analysis Tool and uses the same data to generate its output. With a simpler user interface and fewer configurable options Plan2Adapt is designed to serve the needs of those involved in local and regional community planning.

After exploring the projected climate changes for your region, you may also want to visit Retooling for Climate Change, a website for examining climate change impacts in preparation for adaptation in BC.

Resources from Waste: Strategies for Local Governments

Local governments can maximize the environmental, social and economic benefits of recovering waste resources generated by infrastructure through planning and management. Integrated resource recovery is one approach and set of tools that local governments can use to facilitate this planning and management.

Integrated resource recovery can potentially:

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
  • Reduce pollution and apply waste from municipal, industrial and resource sectors toward beneficial uses
  • Reduce demand for new resources and infrastructure by providing local sources of clean energy, nutrients and water
  • Delay or offset the purchase or expansion of infrastructure
  • Generate new economic opportunities, new sources of revenue and offset future costs

The integrated resource recovery approach and set of tools are detailed in the resources from waste guide:

For more detailed information on integrated resource recovery facilities and initiatives, please consult the Integrated Resource Recovery Inventory (PDF).

District Energy Inventory For Canada

The 2016 District Energy Inventory for Canada (2014 data) presents a snapshot of the thermal energy network across the country.

It identifies operating district energy systems across the country (up from 128 last year), increasing the comprehensiveness of this inventory. To date, detailed data have been gathered from 80 facilities (up from 67 last year), providing deeper insight into the nature of district energy systems in Canada. These data enable better analysis of the types of service provided, governance structures, district energy customers, a variety of operating data, recent and/or planned growth and facility employment.

The development of this inventory fills a gap in the reporting of information about district energy systems. Moving forward, CIEEDAC and its partners plan to administer the district energy questionnaire on a regular basis to keep information current (possibly having an annual survey related only to fuel use and energy supplied, with a less frequent but more detailed questionnaire), develop relationships with the respondents to boost the response rate, investigate additional research questions and present more regional and disaggregated information.

Motivating communities to retrofit their homes: The potential of thermal imaging in BC

This report reviews the technique of thermal imaging as a means of revealing heat loss from single family homes, its current applications in Canada and abroad, and the potential of coupling its use with community-based initiatives to improve uptake rates of energy efficiency retrofits and conservation. By allowing homeowners to see the energy loss (via infrared images) that would otherwise be invisible, thermal imaging provides a powerful visual tool that can engage and trigger a deeper understanding of retrofit needs and opportunities, on both personal (residential) and community (neighbourhood or city) levels.

The paper concludes with 30 sector-specific recommendations to support provincial and local governments, utilities, neighbourhood groups, and academic institutions working in partnership to encourage home energy retrofits. These include opportunities to:

  • Encourage the wider use of expert-guided thermal imaging to motivate householders to take action in retrofitting their homes;
  • Provide support (e.g. expertise, communications, policies, etc.) for community leaders and groups interested in leading neighbourhood-scale energy retrofit programs for both single-family homes and multi-unit family buildings;
  • Tie existing incentive programs to the use of thermal imaging technologies and promote a more comprehensive retrofit strategy that can track and support retrofit activities over time;
  • Explore and test innovative funding mechanisms, such as the coordination of bulk purchases of thermal imaging or retrofit supplies, to support community-led thermal imaging initiatives; and
  • Foster continued research to measure the effectiveness and limitations of thermal imaging tools and community-led programs in BC in helping to reduce GHG emissions.

Methods for Measuring the Economics of Community Energy Plans

The value proposition for Community Energy Plan (CEP) implementation is compelling: opportunities to strengthen local economies, reduce current and future energy costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and create local jobs. The ability to demonstrate this economic potential, through economic analysis, is a critical ingredient for securing the required investment and the political, staff, and stakeholder support for CEP implementation. Economic analysis can also help with developing a CEP that maximizes economic, environmental, and social benefits.

This report introduces six major methods of economic analysis: community energy cost, financial feasibility, levelized unit energy cost, marginal abatement cost curve, community socioeconomic benefits, and cost-benefits. Each method includes advice on consideration in interpretation of results, the need for specialized expertise, the approximate cost and level of effort, and data requirements. Each method is also illustrated with an example drawn from a Canadian CEP analysis.