Energy Efficiency Housing PDF

A Study of
Energy Efficiency Measures for

Part 9 Housing in the
Ontario Building Code
for the
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing
by
Lio & Associates
June 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 5
Scope and Objectives of this Study 5
Scope of the Current OBC Energy Efficiency Requirements 5
Energy Efficiency Measures 9
Capital Costs 11
Energy Performance Simulations 11
Lifecycle Cost Analysis 12
Impact and Barrier Analysis 12
2. Capital Costs 13
Builder Roundtable: Reporting Capital Costs 13
Foundation Options 14
Ceiling Options 17
Main Wall Options 18
Window Options 19
Furnace Options 20
Builder Impacts 21
Capital Cost Summary Zone 1 23
Capital Cost Summary Zone 2 24
Domestic Hot Water Heater Rental Costs 25
Air Conditioners 25
Lighting Capital Costs 26
3. Energy Consumption 27
Energy Performance Simulations 27
Domestic Hot Water Heater Energy Consumption Savings 39
Lighting Energy Consumption Savings 39
Set-back Thermostats Consumption Savings 39
Envelope Air Tightness Energy Savings 40
EnerGuide Ratings 40
EnerGuide Airtightness and Air Conditioning 44
4. Life Cycle Costs 46
Energy Price Rates 46
Interest Rates 47
Life Cycle Costing 48
Lighting Life Cycle Costs 56
Peak Savings 56
5. Impact Analysis 58
Windows 58
Lighting 63
Heating 66
Summary of Barriers and Opportunities 70
6. Conclusions and Reccommendations 59
Conclusions 59
Recommendations 60
Appendix - Typical HOT-2000 Energy Performance Simulation
Introduction
Chapter
1
Currently, the Ontario Building Code (OBC) leads building regulation in Canada by
addressing energy efficiency in buildings in numerous ways. In fact, resource conservation
and environmental integrity are identified in the Building Code Act, 1992 as purposes of
the Code. The Building Code includes numerous requirements for energy efficiency in low
rise residential buildings within the scope of Part 9. These will be the subject of this study.
The Government of Ontario is dedicated to moving forward on its commitment to achieve

a reduction in peak electricity demand by 2007 and to create a culture of conservation.
The Government of Ontario is also supportive of measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) identified in the federal climate change action plan. To help achieve
these goals, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is considering changes that
could be made to the Building Code to improve the energy efficiency of buildings therefore
reducing electrical consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
NOTE TO THE READER: This report assumes the reader possesses a detailed
understanding of the building code and its requirements and how they are normally
satisfied using standard construction methods. While the report includes metric
equivalents, in some cases it uses imperial units of measure, often as nominal sizes,
which are the units traditionally used within the homebuilding industry.
Scope and Objectives of this Study
This study examines and analyzes aspects within the regulatory scope of the Ontario
Building Code that could improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings governed
by Part 9 of the Building Code. Specifically, it examines energy measures in relation to
the building envelope, heating, air conditioning and light systems.
Scope of the Current OBC Energy Efficiency Requirements
Below are the current energy efficiency requirements contained within the Ontario Building
Code and specifically addressed by this study. These establish the base case for the
analysis. Requirements relating to air barriers are not reproduced here; nor, the
performance requirements of OBC Section 9.38.
5
9.25.2. Thermal Insulation
9.25.2.1. Required Insulation
(1) All walls, ceilings and floors separating heated space from unheated space, the exterior air or the exterior soil
shall be provided with sufficient thermal insulation to prevent moisture condensation on their room side during the
winter and to ensure comfortable conditions for the occupants. (See A-9.1.1.1. in Appendix A.)
(2) Insulation shall be provided between heated and unheated spaces and between heated spaces and the
exterior, and around the perimeter of concrete slabs-on-ground.
(3) Reflective surfaces of insulating materials shall not be considered in calculating the thermal resistance of
building assemblies.
(4) Except as permitted in Sentences (5), (6), (7), (8), (13) and (14) the minimum thermal resistance of insulation
shall conform to Table 9.25.2.1.
Table 9.25.2.1.
Minimum Thermal Resistance of Insulation to be Installed based on Degree Day Zones(1)
Forming Part of Sentence 9.25.2.2.(4)
RSI Value Required

Building Element Exposed to the exterior Electric Space
Zone 1 Zone 2
or to Unheated Space Heating
Less than 5000 5000 or more
Zone 1 & 2
Ceiling below attic or roof space 5.40 (R31) 6.70 (R38) 7.00 (R40)
Roof assembly without attic or roof space 3.52 (R20) 3.52 (R20) 3.87 (R22)
Wall other than foundation wall 3.00 (R17) 3.87 (R22) 4.70 (R27)
Foundation walls enclosing heated space 1.41 (R8) 2.11 (R12) 3.25 (R19)
Floor, other than slab-on-ground 4.40 (R25) 4.40 (R25) 4.40 (R25)
Slab-on ground containing pipes or heating 1.76 (R10) 1.76 (R10) 1.76 (R10)
ducts
Slab-on-ground not containing pipes or 1.41 (R8) 1.41 (R8) 1.41 (R8)
heating ducts
Column 1 2 3 4
Notes to Table 9.25.2.1.:
(1)
Number of degree days for individual locations are contained in Table 2.5.1.1.
(5) Except for doors on enclosed unheated vestibules and cold cellars, and except for glazed portions of doors, all
doors separating heated space from unheated space shall have a thermal resistance of not less than RSI 0.7 (R4)
where a storm door is not provided.
6) All sliding glass doors separating heated space from unheated space shall have a thermal resistance of not less
than 0.30 m2°C/W (1.70 ft2.h. oF/Btu).
(7) All glazing that separates heated space from unheated space shall have a thermal resistance of not less than
2
0.30 m °C/W (1.70 ft2.h. oF/Btu).
(8) The thermal resistance values in Table 9.25.2.1. for exposed roofs or ceilings may be reduced near eaves to the
extent made necessary by the roof slope and required ventilation clearances, except that the thermal resistance of
insulation at the location directly above the inner surface of the exterior wall shall be at least RSI 2.1 (R12).
6
(9) Where an enclosed unheated space is separated from a heated space by glazing, the unheated enclosure may
be considered to provide a thermal resistance of 0.16 m²°C/W (0.91 ft2.h. oF/Btu).
(10) When electric space heating is used in a category TIL3 dwelling unit, all sliding glass doors separating heated
space from unheated space or the outdoors shall have an energy rating of not less than -13 ER.
(11) When electric space heating is used in a category TIL3 dwelling unit, all glazing that separates heated space
from unheated space or the outdoors shall have an energy rating of not less than -13 ER for openable windows and
0 ER for fixed glazing.
(12) The energy rating required in Sentences (10) and (11) shall be determined in conformance with CAN/CSA-
A440.2-M, "Energy Performance Evaluation of Windows and Sliding Glass Doors".
(13) Except as provided in Sentences (14) and (15), log wall construction and post, beam and plank construction
shall have a minimum thermal resistance of RSI 2.1 (R12) for the total assembly.
(14) The thermal resistance value in Sentence (13) for the total wall assembly may be reduced to not less than RSI
1.61 (R19) if
(a) the thermal resistance of insulation for exposed roof or ceiling required in Table 9.25.2.1. is increased by an
amount equivalent to the reduction permitted in this Sentence, and
(b) for log walls, the logs have tongue-and-groove or splined joints.
(15) Where milled log walls are installed, the thermal resistance value in Sentence (13) for the total wall assembly
does not apply if
(a) the mean thickness of each log is not less than 150 mm (6 in),
(b) the thermal resistance of insulation for the exposed roof or ceiling required in Table 9.25.2.1. is increased by RSI
0.53 (R3), and
(c) the logs have tongue-and-groove or splined joints
9.25.2.4. Installation of Thermal Insulation
(1) Insulation shall be installed so that there is a reasonably uniform insulating value over the entire face of the
insulated area.
(2) Insulation shall be applied to the full width and length of the space between furring or framing.
(3) Except where the insulation provides the principal resistance to air leakage, thermal insulation shall be installed
so that at least 1 face is in full and continuous contact with an element with low air permeance.
(4) Insulation on the interior of foundation walls enclosing a crawl space shall be applied so that there is not less
than a 50 mm (2 in) clearance above the crawl space floor if the insulation is of a type that may be damaged by
water.
(5) Insulation around concrete slabs-on-ground shall be located so that heat from the building is not restricted from
reaching the ground beneath the perimeter, where exterior walls are not supported by footings extending below
frost level.
(6) Where insulation is exposed to the weather and subject to mechanical damage, it shall be protected with not
less than
(a) 6 mm (¼ in) asbestos-cement board,
(b) 6 mm (¼ in) preservative-treated plywood, or
(c) 12 mm (½ in) cement parging on wire lath applied to the exposed face and edge.
7
(7) Except as permitted in Sentence (8) insulation and vapour barrier shall be protected from mechanical damage
by a covering of gypsum board, plywood, particleboard, waferboard or hardboard.
(8) In unfinished basements, the protection required in Sentence (7) need not be provided for mineral fibre
insulation provided it is covered with polyethylene vapour barrier of at least 0.15 mm (0.006 in) in thickness.
(9) Insulation in factory-built buildings shall be installed so that it will not become dislodged during transportation.
(10) Insulation applied to the interior of foundation walls enclosing heated space shall extend from the underside of
the subfloor to not less than 600 (23 5/8) mm below the adjacent exterior ground level.
(11) The insulation required by Sentence (10) may be provided by a system installed
(a) on the interior of the foundation wall,
(b) on the exterior face of the foundation wall, or
(c) partially on the interior and partially on the exterior, provided the thermal performance of the system is equivalent
to that permitted in Clauses (a) or (b).
(13) If a foundation wall is constructed of hollow masonry units, one or more of the following shall be used to control
convection currents in the core spaces,
(a) filling the core spaces,
(b) at least one row of semi-solid blocks at or below grade, or
(c) other similar methods.
(14) Masonry walls of hollow units which penetrate the ceiling shall be sealed at or near the ceiling adjacent to the
roof space to prevent air within the voids from entering the attic or roof space by
(a) capping with masonry units without voids, or
(b) installation of flashing material extending across the full width of the masonry.
8
Energy Efficiency Measures
The energy efficiency measures to be considered for inclusion in the Ontario Building
Code have arisen from an analysis of the full range of possible options. The various
measures identified and examined relate to the following systems and construction
components:
basement insulation,
wall insulation,
ceiling insulation,
windows,
furnaces,
air conditioning, and
lighting.
Energy measures were selected based on whether they reduced energy use in the
building and whether they represented a well understood construction practice or easily
accessible technology. At the outset some judgment was used to eliminate measures that
did not have a history of use within the home building industry or that presented very
significant issues that would impede widespread adoption across the province.
The Code represents a minimum set of provisions in relation to health, safety, structural
sufficiency and fire protection. In this respect it prohibits construction practices that could
lead to unsafe or unhealthy conditions. In the 1990’s the scope of the Building Code was
expanded to also include energy efficiency. Subsequent editions of the Code have
attempted to reflect cost effective, well understood minimum prescriptive approaches to
construction. It should be clear that the OBC has not been used as the vehicle to
introduce new construction approaches to the housing industry. Rather, it has been
mindful to guard against forcing home builders to adopt poorly understood methods to
avoid an upsurge in building defects that could result as the industry struggles to master
the uncommon approaches to construction.
In addition to the range of measures that were considered, specific measures that provide
energy performance equivalent to ENERGY STAR® and EnergyGuide for New Houses
(EGNH) level 80 were established and included among the measures to be analyzed.
The Builder Packages of the ENERGY STAR® for Homes Program prescribe the
envelope insulation and mechanicals to be used in ENERGY STAR® houses. EGNH 80
on the other hand is a performance specification which can be achieved in many different
ways. The energy performance of the building does not directly correlate to the EGNH
level. A variety of configurations which resulted in EGNH 80 were therefore examined.
The incremental capital costs, operating cost savings and the lifecycle costs
corresponding to each energy measure were established.
The chart below identifies the range of energy measures examined by this study:
9
Table 1.1 - Simulated Energy Measures
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 1 - Electric ZONE 2 - Electric
Toronto Sault Ste. Marie Toronto Sault Ste. Marie
Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50
R50
Walls R19 R24 R29 R29
R19.5
R24
R29
Foundation R12, 2 feet below grade R7.5F R26.5F R26.5F
R19, 2 feet below grade
R7.5 full height
R12 full height R12F
R19 full height R19F
Windows low-e Low-e Low-e Low-e
low-e argon low-e argon low-e argon low-e argon
low-e argon + spacer low-e argon + spacer low-e argon + spacer low-e argon + spacer
Furnaces high oil High oil
high gas high gas
high gas + ECM high gas + ECM
Airtightness 1.5 a/ch
2.5 a/ch
Setback Thermostats
Lighting compact fluorescent lamps
Air Conditioners 10 SEER
13 SEER
15 SEER
Each measure was compared to the base case and was analyzed in relation to:
energy savings,
electric peak reduction,
green house gas emissions savings
EnerGuide ratings,
associated environmental impacts,
costs (capital, operating, and life cycle), and
barriers to adoption.
10
Capital Costs
The capital costs of each measure were established using a builder roundtable. Builders
were provided with worksheets in advance of the roundtable. These were mailed back,
summarized and analyzed prior to the roundtable. At the roundtable builders provided
insights on how they approached the costing of each measure, the assumptions they
made, the mark-up they applied and the impact of each measure on their business. The
roundtable was also used to better understand their typical construction and to probe their
overall reaction to the various measures presented.
Energy Performance Simulations
Simulations of energy performance were conducted using the archetype building that has
been used in the past for studies of this type in Ontario. The energy performance of the
building was simulated in Toronto and Sault Ste Marie to represent climates in Zone 1 and
Zone 2 respectively. Each energy measure was simulated independent of the others.
Energy Savings, Peak Reduction and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy simulations were performed for each measure to establish the energy savings by
fuel type (natural gas, oil or electric), electrical peak reduction and greenhouse gas
emission savings. These were determined through energy performance simulations using
the latest version of the HOT2000 energy simulation software (version 9.3.1). The
simulations considered the climatic location and local weather conditions, operational
characteristics of the building, including base loads from occupancy and appliances, and
construction components.
Climatic Location: The study has been designed to reflect the OBC’s two climatic zone
simulating the performance of houses in Toronto and Sault Ste Marie as locations
reflective of those zones.
Operational Characteristics: Specific operational characteristics of the simulated buildings

(e.g. electrical base loads, occupancy, water consumption, etc.) were based on widely
accepted national averages and used within the energy simulations.
Construction Components: Each energy efficiency measure was simulated independently.

Each measure relates to a specific provision within the building code such as insulation,
air barriers, heating or lighting systems.
Energy Measure Packages
In consultation with the Ministry, energy efficiency measures were grouped together into
packages. Each package as a combination of individual energy saving measures, in
some cases, reflect the features of houses in voluntary energy efficiency programs such
as ENERGY STAR or R2000 (EnerGuide for New Houses level 80). The packages were
then analyzed for overall cost impact and energy savings using the same parameters as
applied to the individual components. Packages of measures were assembled and
simulated to establish the total energy savings that might result. In addition, EnerGuide
ratings were generated for each.
11
Lifecycle Cost Analysis
The study examines the cost impacts of possible code amendments. Incremental capital
costs, annual energy costs savings (by fuel type), and incremental life cycle costs have
been determined and are presented. Payback measures have not used as these are not
generally recommended to establish the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures
(see ASTM Standard on Building Economics). The study uses a cost to the homebuyer
test that reflects the interest rate and mortgage period that is typically experienced by new
homebuyers.
Impact and Barrier Analysis
Associated impacts have been documented through discussions with builders, suppliers
and manufacturers in relation to specific energy measures: windows, lighting and
furnaces. A full range of barriers have been examined including those relating to
infrastructure, technology, information and education.
12
Capital Costs
Chapter
2
Assessing the first cost associated with each energy measure is the first step in
establishing life cycle costs. Any number of approaches could have been used to assess
the incremental capital costs associated with each energy measure. This study used a
builder roundtable to determine these costs. In comparison to a quantity survey approach,
the builder roundtable is more direct and is able to quantify any risk the builder associates
with a specific energy measure as part of the reported pricing. A roundtable it is believed
more closely reveals the likely capital costs that would be borne by consumers as each
measure is incorporated into the house.
Builder Roundtable: Reporting Capital Costs
Builders participating in the roundtable represented various parts of the province as noted
below. Each builders consulted with trades and suppliers in developing their cost
estimates. The builders that participated in the roundtable were:
Monarch Corporation, large production builder, Toronto, Ottawa

Josh Developments, small custom builder, Toronto
Mason Homes, mid size production builder, Barrie
Stinson Builders, small production builder, Belleville
Dalron Construction, midsize production builder, Sudbury
Campanale Homes, midsize production builder, Ottawa
Dalerose Homes, small custom builder, Orangeville
Aside from providing capital cost estimates, the roundtable also provided a forum to
review and discuss issues relating to the adoption of the range of energy measures.
Builders reported prices on the measures with which their trades were familiar. As a result
the number of builders reporting prices varies. This creates some pricing anomalies. For
instance, the price of the 2 foot below grade R-12 blanket is reported to be less than the
corresponding R-8 blanket. Each of these anomalies has been examined carefully and do
no impact the conclusions drawn from the life cycle cost (LCC) analyses. In this example,
the R-12 blanket is reported to be $3 less than the R-8. By comparison the LCC savings
are about $327. In order for the R-12 blanket to be less cost effective than the R-8
blanket, it would need to cost more than $324 than the R-8 blanket. This is more than any
reported spread from any builder.
Mark-Up and Taxes
The group discussed how to best compare the detailed cost of each measure including
taxes and mark-up. The builders suggested that taxes and mark-up could be treated as a
multiplier on their base costs. They suggested that the study apply an average markup
and taxes of 15% to translate their costs into prices that would be passed onto the home
buyer.
13
Foundation Options
A range of options were explored for the foundation in light of the foundation system’s
special challenges. The significant issues for the roundtable participants with regard to
foundation insulation upgrades relate to:
1. the manifestation of construction moisture on the outside surface of polyethylene

vapour retarders installed on the room side of fibreglass blanket insulation applied
over concrete foundation walls, and
2. the use of different materials and trades for the insulation of foundation walls.
Participating builders realized that they could use exterior foundation insulation but
suggested that above grade finishing issues continue to detract from this method of
insulation foundations.
Installing interior insulation to 2 feet below grade and exterior insulation from grade to
footing while not explicitly simulated or priced remains a viable option for builders.
Builders recognized that insulating drainage layers are available and could be used. It
was also noted that this approach would not result in significant warm weather
condensation problems. The cost of this option would very likely exceed the comparable
R12 full height interior fibreglass blanket option (option 2) which was analyzed.
Builder reported prices for the foundation insulation options are shown in the table below.
Table 2.1 - Reported Capital Costs Details – Foundations
Worksheet 2: Foundations
Builder Zone 1 Zone 2 Electric Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
R8, 2' R12, 2' R20, 2' R7.5 R12 R17 R25
1 $389 $440 $706 $4,150 $1,529 $4,700 $4,785
2 - $120 - - - - -
3 - - - $3,750 - $4,415 $4,725
4 - - - - - - -
5 $420 $504 $924 $4,502 $1,658 $5,381 $5,601
6 $560 $750 $1,060 $4,850 $2,050 $5,150 $5,550
7 - - - $3,826 - $2,826 $3,130
Average $456 $454 $897 $4,216 $1,746 $4,494 $4,758
Mark-up
and Taxes $68 $68 $135 $632 $262 $674 $714
15%
Total $525 $522 $1,031 $4,848 $2,008 $5,169 $5,472
14
OBC Standard Zone 1, 2 and Electric– R-8, R-12, and R-19 all 2 feet below grade
There were no reported issues with any of these foundation insulation schemes.
It was reported that the Zone 1 foundation wall standard (R-8, 2 feet below grade) is not
common in Belleville. In that region, builders frequently insulate basements full height.
Builders reported that full height basement insulation is the standard practice in northern
Ontario varying from the OBC Zone 2 standard (R-12, 2 feet below grade).
One builder used the Electric Standard (R-19, 2 feet below grade) for the houses he builds
using two blankets: one with a vapour barrier and one without (R-8 + R-12). This builder
reported that eight out of ten customers opted for this upgraded insulation option. He
suggested that there might be an initial availability problem for R-20 blankets if builders
tried to source these.
Builders who used the full height basement insulation did not report moisture problems
which were not manageable.
OPTION 1 – R-7.5 full height
This option could be satisfied by using an R-8 fibreglass blanket full height or alternatively
1½” (38 mm) of extruded polystyrene insulation. The polystyrene option would likely solve
construction moisture issues, but would need to be covered by drywall to protect the foam
plastic in the event of a fire. One builder priced this option using vertical Z-channels. With
the interior finish in place, the Electrical Code requires electric wiring be installed. In
pricing this option builders included the cost of the drywall and the wiring. The cost of
drywall taping was not included in the pricing of this option as this was seen to not be
strictly required by the Code.
Option 2 – R-12, full height
This option reflects the OBC requirements prior to the 1997 version of the Code. The
primary concern expressed by the builders related to construction moisture. For one
builder, one in five full height basements displayed moisture problems from summer
condensation.
Unlike Option 1, no drywall cover is required as the Code includes an exception for
mechanical protection of the vapour barrier when the basement is unfinished. For
basements with full height insulation, the Code requires wrapping the outside walls with a
drainage layer. Builders included the cost of the basement wrap in all full height insulation
option prices. The consensus pricing for wrap was $ 0.45/sqft, or $650 on all full height
insulation options.
Some builders reported using polyethylene bags filled with glass fibre insulation to insulate
their basements. These are stapled into foundation walls and avoid summer construction
moisture problems. Most agreed that where construction and closing schedules permitted
allowing the construction moisture to escape from the green concrete before insulating
represented a best practice.
15
OPTION 3 – R-17, full height
This option reflects an approach which is gaining popularity in the U.S. and deals directly
with the summer construction moisture issue by covering the concrete foundation with an
interior 1” (25 mm) layer of extruded polystyrene. The polystyrene provides some
protection from summer vapour diffusion to the building interior. An R-12 fibreglass
blanket provides additional insulation for the wall.
Like Option 1, builders expected that the fibreglass blanket would not be sufficient cover
for the foam plastic and included the cost of interior drywall as well as wiring in the price of
the option. Wiring prices varied considerably among those builders reporting prices, and
reflect the size or geographic location of the builder’s operation.
OPTION 4 – R-25, full height
This option represented the highest practical level of insulation for the foundation. Similar
to Option 3, this included a 1” (25 mm) layer of extruded polystyrene against the concrete
foundation wall with an R20 layer of glass fibre insulation on the room-side of the
assembly. The cost of this assembly included like other similar options the cost of exterior
drainage layers, drywall (no taping) and wiring.
16
Ceiling Options
Some builders reported ceiling insulation prices based on blown cellulose while others
reported prices for blown fiberglass insulation. Airtightening benefits associated with
cellulose use were noted by a number of builders. The prices reported by the participating
builders are shown in the table below.
Table 2.2 - Reported Capital Costs Details – Ceilings

Worksheet 3: Ceilings
Builder Zone 1 Zone 2 Electric Option 1

R31 R38 R40 R50
1 $700 $828 $882 $1087

2 - - - -
3 $805 $897 $920 $1058
4 $1610 - $1012 $1127
5 $582 $690 $736 $897
6 $575 $750 $800 $850
7 $650 $730 $750 $910
Average $820 $779 $850 $988
Mark-up
and Taxes $123 $117 $128 $148
15%
Total $943 $896 $978 $1,136
OBC Standard Zone 1, 2 and Electric - R-31, R-38 and R-40
There were no issues reported in the OBC ceiling insulation schemes.
The reported price for the R-38 scheme is lower than the price for the R-31 option. This
anomaly was the result of uneven reporting of prices. Builders whose trades were
unfamiliar with specific insulation schemes did not provide pricing for all options.
Insulation compression at the eaves was discussed and builders reported that no
compression would be experienced using R-40 insulation for roof pitches greater than
7:12. For shallow pitched roofs, high heel trusses might be necessary if a uniform R-40
level of insulation is desired. Pricing did not include provisions for high heel trusses. For a
limited number of builders, high heel trusses were a standard for their houses. They
reported an additional cost of approximately $100 for these trusses.
Option 1 – R-50
Builders recognized that significant compression of insulation at the eaves would result for
most roof pitches when high heel trusses are not used. No provision for high heel trusses
was included in the pricing. The energy performance simulations for this option account
for the compression that results at the eave.
17
Main Wall Options
Each of the above grade wall options that were discussed represent construction methods
which are reasonably well understood by home builders. In establishing some energy
measures, less common wall assemblies were examined. For instance, Option 3 is the
typical wall system called up by ENERGY STAR houses. As the upgrade for electrically
heated houses, Option 4 represents likely the highest level of insulation that can be
achieved with single stud construction. It implies 2” (50 mm) of extruded polystyrene over
a fibreglass batt filled 2”x6” wall. Truss wall systems or double wall systems would likely
need to be utilized to achieve levels higher that the R-29 that was examined.
Builders discussed the benefits of installing insulating sheathing on walls to reduce heat
loss from thermal bridging through the studs. Builders recognized, for instance, that Option
1 likely does not include insulating sheathing and would represent almost no improvement
in energy efficiency over the current code requirement.
Table 2.3 - Reported Capital Costs Details – Main Walls

Worksheet 4: Main Walls
Builder Zone 1 Zone 2 Electric Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

R17 R22 R27 R19 R19.5 R24 R29
1 $3,890 $5,370 $5,300 $4,770 $4,356 $4,700 $5,632

2 - - - - - - -
3 $3,890 $5,370 $5,300 $4,770 $4,356 $4,700 $5,632
4 - - - - - - -
5 $3,890 $5,370 $5,300 $4,770 $4,356 $4,700 $5,632
6 $3,890 $5,370 $5,300 $4,770 $4,356 $4,700 $5,632
7 $3,336 $4,426 $4,907 $4,013 $4,090 $4,494 $6,001
Average $3,779 $5,181 $5,221 $4,619 $4,303 $4,659 $5,706
Mark-up
and Taxes $567 $777 $783 $693 $645 $699 $856
15%
Total $4,346 $5,958 $6,005 $5,311 $4,948 $5,358 $6,562
OBC Standard Zone 1, 2 and Electric – R-17, R-22 and R-27
There were no reported issues with any of the current OBC above grade wall insulation
schemes. Builders typically used R-22 batts for the Zone 2 wall to achieve this insulation
level with no insulating sheathing.
Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 – R-19, R-19.5, R-24 and R-29
Builders priced the R-24 ENERGY STAR wall to be generally less expensive than the R-
22 wall. The difference they attributed to the high price of R-22 batt compared to the less
expensive R-19 batt. For the R-29 wall builders included a $500 charge for a 2” thicker
concrete foundation wall to accommodate the above grade wall. They did not apply the
charge to any of the other above grade schemes.
18
Window Options
Cost was the only significant issue raised for each of the window options. Participants
discussed how some window suppliers are now offering low-e + argon windows at no
additional costs to some large production builders. They suggested that this should not be
characterized as a zero surcharge but rather a bulk discount on the low-e upgrade.
Of all of the measures discussed, high performance windows were by far the most
popular. Builders recognized the benefits in terms of comfort, reduced window
condensation, and other benefits they could promote to homebuyers. They also reported
that the “like for like” nature of the measure appealed to them. Adoption of the measure
would be straightforward without any changes in the construction process or trade
practice.
Builders also recognized that the incremental cost would likely reduce in time as window
manufacturers consolidated their window lines into a fewer number of available options
and as economies of scale were realized. Double low-e (where both panes of glass are
low-e) could further reduce the number of glass types a manufacturer would need to stock
and handle. One standard for the entire province was preferred to having a higher
standard for the north.
Double glazed windows with insulating spacers and windows with low-e+argon+ insulating
spacers windows were regarded as the most commonly stocked window types.
Variations on these it was suggested would be priced as special orders. On average,
low-e+argon+insulating spacers windows cost 11% more than their double
glazed+insulating spacer counterparts.
Pricing anomalies are evident with the electric standard window costing more on average
than windows with low-e+argon+insulating spacer. The significance of the anomaly was
carefully examined and it is clear that it has no effect on conclusions drawn from the LCC
analysis.
Table 2.4 - Reported Capital Costs Details - Windows

Worksheet 5: Windows
Builder Zone 1and 2 Electric Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

DG DG+lowE DG+spacer DG+lowE+argon ES
1 - - - - -
2 - - - - -
3 $5,106 $5,502 $5,328 $5,694 $5,916
4 $5,364 - - $6,077 -
5 - - $3,930 - $4,215
6 $4,800 $5,250 $4,905 $5,355 $5,460
7 $6,175 $6,869 $6,175 $7,043 $7,043
Average $5,361 $5,874 $5,084 $6,042 $5,659
Mark-up and
$804 $881 $763 $906 $849
Taxes 15%
Total $6,165 $6,755 $5,847 $6,949 $6,507
19
Furnace Options
Prices for furnaces varied greatly among the participating builders. They suggest that to a
large extent this is attributable to differences in installer prices.
Roundtable builders suggested that the cost of a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) and
chimney be included in the price of the standard gas and oil options. The inclusion of the
HRV is not, strictly speaking, required for Part 6 installations. At worst, in a tight house a
Part 6 installation might require a make-up air opening to limit depressurization.
Nonetheless, builders suggested they would include the cost of an HRV when pricing a
standard furnace installation. Pricing for the lifecycle cost analysis included the cost of the
HRV. The high efficiency gas furnace price was reported with all items considered to be
less than the standard gas efficiency furnace for most builders. For one builder the
upcharge was approximately $200. This may be an upper bound of the cost difference
between the standard and high efficiency furnace.
Table 2.5 - Reported Capital Costs Details - Furnaces

Worksheet 6: Furnaces
Builder Standard Gas Standard Oil High Gas High Oil High Gas ECM
1 $5,240 $6,250 $4,340 $5,350 $6,440

2 - - $5,008 - -
3 $5,530 $8,070 $5,790 - $6,220
4 - - $4,158 - -
5 $3,150 $4,430 $2,950 - $4,710
6 $6,200 - $6,000 - -
7 $5,117 - $4,536 $6,281 $5,350
Average $5,047 $6,250 $4,683 $5,815 $5,680
Mark-up and
$757 $938 $702 $872 $852
Taxes 15%
Total $5,805 $7,188 $5,385 $6,688 $6,532
20
Builder Impacts
For foundations, the general consensus was against full height insulation as a standard.
The builder participants would accept a product swap from R-8 to R-12 or to R-19 always
2 feet below grade. One builder did suggest that he thought R-12 full height (Option 2)
could be easily implemented. All suggested but that Options 1, 3 and 4 should be avoided
because they would introduce new materials and result in many unforeseen problems.
From 1993 to 1997 hundreds of thousands of houses were built with full height basement
insulation. No lasting negative consequences of full height basement insulation are known
to exist. Builders in Ontario have shown they know how to insulate basements full height
without incident.
Basement leaks were a longstanding concern when full height basement insulation was
contemplated, particularly for finished basements. The inclusion of drainage layers in the
Code seems to have remedied the leak problem for most builders across the province.
Jamb extensions would be required for insulation sheathing thicknesses greater than the
one inch in use today. Longer nails for the sheathing and for brick ties would also likely
be necessary. Unless the sheathing extended over the floor header, thicker sheathing
does not normally imply a thicker foundation wall.
For ceiling upgrades, the roundtable participants reported had no problems with the R-40
upgrade as a standard.
For the main walls, the participants agreed on options 1 and 2 could be acceptable
standards. The roundtable participants recognized that the R-19.5 scheme represents
essentially the requirement from the 1993 Code. In that version of the Code an R-18.5
was specified to permit 1½” of rigid glass fibre board (subsequently no longer
manufactured). Participating builders expressed no real concern about going back to
methods established in the previous Code. Their pricing accounted for items such as
jamb extension. They did not report additional costs for longer nails for the insulating
sheathing or brick ties. No change was made to the tie requirements when a thicker
sheathing was in place in the Code prior to 1997. Given the practice of not applying
sheathing over headers, no impact on foundation wall thickness was reported.
Participants discussed the implications of R-19.5 that would mandate the use of insulating
sheathing in conventional 2x4 and 2x6 walls unless higher density R-22 batt were utilized.
The builders understood the thermal bridging disadvantages of adopting an R-19 standard
where 2x6 walls are used.
All the builders agreed that window upgrades are the most attractive of all of the energy
measures discussed. They considered the possibility of savings from possibly eliminating
heating ducts from under windows, fewer callbacks because of condensation and
discomfort. Builders suggested that the transition could be seamless if a PST holiday
were in place as the new code was introduced.
Builders did suggest that basement windows not be treated in the same way as other
windows. There may be difficulties in getting these specialty products to conform to an
aggressive window energy efficiency requirement.
21
Finally, there is a need to update OBC window terminology to eliminate confusion and to
make it consistent with language used in the CSA A440 standard.
Most of the participating builders use high efficiency furnaces. All builders agreed the
furnace upgrade could easily be incorporated and suggested that next to windows this
was the most attractive measure. It is recognized that further discussion with the Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Institute would be necessary to more fully understand
the impact of this change on the industry.
Below are summary tables which show the incremental capital cost of each measure for
each climate Zone.
22
Capital Cost Summary Zone 1
Table 2.6 - Zone 1 - Capital Costs

Incremental
Capital Cost Description
TDOG $0 base case gas
TDUGC1 $34 R40 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUGC2 $193 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUGW1 $965 R19 batt insulation in the 2x6 walls
TDUGW2 $602 R12 batt insulation + 1.5" XTPS 4 in the 2x4 walls
TDUGW3 $1,012 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
TDUGF1 -$3 R12 blanket, 2' below grade
TDUGF2 $4,323 1.5" XTPS 4 (R-7.5)
TDUGF3 $1,483 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass
TDUGF4 $506 R20 blanket 2' below grade
TDUGG1 $783 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43)
TDUGG2 $589 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window
TDUGG3 $342 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window
TDUHG -$419 condensing gas furnace(92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
TDUHGE $728 same as 13 with ECM
TDOO $0 base case oil
TDUOC1 $34 R40 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUOC2 $193 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUOW1 $965 R19 batt insulation in the 2x6 walls
TDUOW2 $602 R12 batt insulation + 1.5" XTPS 4 in the 2x4 walls
TDUOW3 $1,012 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
TDUOF1 -$3 R12 blanket, 2' below grade
TDUOF2 $4,323 1.5" XTPS 4 (R-7.5)
TDUOF3 $1,483 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass
TDUOF4 $506 R20 blanket 2' below grade
TDUOG1 $783 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43)
TDUOG2 $589 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window
TDUOG3 $342 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window
TDUHO -$500 condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff.vs 85% base
TDOE $0 base case electric
TDUEC2 $159 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUEW4 $557 R19 batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
TDUEF5 $4,441 2x4 wall with R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
TDUEF6 $1,031 R19 batt full height
TDUEG2 $194 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window
TDUEG3 -$247 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window
TDUGG5 $942 Low-E , 13mm argon + insulating spacer window RSI 0.55
TDHRV $1,200 HRV minimum efficiency
TDATT $1,500 Airtightness 1.5 ach @ 50 Pa
TDHRV70 $1,500 HRV minimum 70% efficiency
TDUGF6 $2,138 R20 blanket, full height
TDUGW4 $2,216 R19 batt insulation + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
23
Capital Cost Summary Zone 2
Table 2.7 - Zone 2 - Capital Costs

Incremental
Capital Cost Description
SDOG $0 base case gas
SDUGC2 $241 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
SDUGW3 -$601 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
SDUGF2 $4,326 1.5" XTPS 4 full-height
SDUGF3 $1,486 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass
SDUGF4 $510 R20 blanket 2' below grade
SDUGF6 $1,541 R20 blanket full height
SDUGG1 $589 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43)
SDUGG2 $783 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
SDUGG3 $342 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
SDUHG -$419 condensing gas furnace (92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
SDUHGE $728 same as 13 with ECM
SDOO $0 base case oil
SDUOC2 $241 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
SDUOW3 -$601 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
SDUOF2 $4,326 1.5" XTPS 4 full-height
SDUOF3 $1,486 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass
SDUOF4 $510 R20 blanket 2' below grade
SDUOG1 $589 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43)
SDUOG2 $783 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
SDUOG3 $342 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
SDUHO -$500 condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff. vs 85% base
SDOE $0 base case electric
SDUEC2 $159 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
SDUEW4 $557 R19 batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
SDUEF5 $4,441 2x4 wall with R20 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
SDUEG2 $194 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
SDUEG3 -$247 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
24
Domestic Hot Water Heater Rental Costs
Rental costs for various hot water heaters from suppliers in the Toronto are shown below:
Table 2.8 - Monthly Rental Costs for Domestic Hot Water Heaters
Monthly Rental Rate
Union Ozz
Tank Direct Energy
Energy Corporation
DHW Capacity Energy Factor
Conventional tank (pilot) 50 $11.35 $10.48 $10.99 0.56
Instantaneous n/a n/a n/a $28.95 0.82
Induced draft fan 50 $18.17 $19.04 $18.75 0.58
Direct vent induced draft (sealed) 50 n/a n/a $23.75 0.56
Direct vent (sealed, pilot) 50 n/a $15.78 $15.75 0.56
Condensing (storage) 34 n/a n/a $55.95 95%
Condensing (non-storage) n/a n/a n/a $38.95 90%
Air Conditioners
A limited informal survey of air conditioning installers in the Toronto area revealed the
installed air conditioner prices below. Lennox no longer carries the 10 SEER model as of
January 2006. Last season’s prices are shown in the chart below. Laird presently still
offers their own brand of 10 SEER, Reliatherm, for approximately $2300.
Uncertainty exists in the pricing of the 13 SEER models now that this is the industry
standard. Suppliers quoted prices as noted below:
Table 2.9 - Air Conditioner Capital Costs

Brand Model # Capacity SEER Price Upgrade Cost Contractor
Lennox 10 ACD 24 2.0 Ton 10 $2500 - Laird & Son
Lennox 10 ACD 24 2.0 Ton 13 $2830 $ 330 Laird & Son
Lennox HSX15 2.0 Ton 15 $4170 $1670 Laird & Son
Lennox 10 ACD 24 2.0 Ton 10 $2400 - A1
Lennox HSXA12 2.0 Ton 13 $3000 $ 600 A1
Lennox HSXB15 2.0 Ton 15 $3700 $1300 A1
Carrier CKC 2.0 Ton 10 $2100 - Cosy Comfort Plus
Carrier TXA 2.0 Ton 13 $3100 $1000 Cosy Comfort Plus
Carrier TDB 2.0 Ton 15 $3995 $1895 Cosy Comfort Plus
Goodman CKL 2.0 Ton 10 $1900 - Air Plus
Goodman CLT 2.0 Ton 13 $2200 $ 300 Air Plus
Goodman CLQ 2.0 Ton 14-17 $2500 $ 600 Air Plus
Lennox 10 ACD 24 2.0 Ton 10 $2149 - Metropolitan
Lennox HS26 2.0 Ton 13+ $2995 $ 846 Metropolitan
Lennox HSX15 2.0 Ton 15 $3219 $1070 Metropolitan
Average Prices for SEER Upgrades in Air Conditioning Units
SEER Avg. Price Upgrade Cost $ Upgrade Cost %
10 SEER Unit $ 2209.80 - -
13 SEER Unit $ 2825.00 $ 615.20 27.8
15 SEER Unit $ 3516.80 $ 1307.00 59.1
25
Lighting Capital Costs
A limited survey was conducted of five retailers in both Toronto and Sault Ste. Marie of the
costs of both incandescent and screw-type compact fluorescent bulbs. The survey revealed a
wide spread in cost per unit for each item. The average cost for incandescent bulbs was
consistent in both cities, while in Toronto the average cost of compact fluorescent bulbs were
more than a dollar cheaper per unit than in Sault Ste. Marie.
Table 2.10 - Lighting Capital Cost Survey Data

15 W Screw-
60 W $ per type Compact $ per
City Incandescent bulb Flourescent bulb
Sault Ste. Marie Tim-Br Mart $1.59/ 2 pack 0.79 $7.89/ 2 pack 3.94
SooMill Buildall $1.19/ 4 pack 0.29 $9.99/ single 9.99
Home Hardware Building Centre $2.69/ 2 pack 1.34 $6.98/ 2 pack 3.49
Canadian Tire $0.89/ 4 pack 0.22 $9.99/ 2 pack 5.00
Hometown RONA Hardware $1.69/ 4 pack 0.42 $7.99/ single 7.99
MIN 0.29 3.94
MAX 1.34 9.99
AVG 0.61 6.08
Toronto Canadian Tire $3.79/ 4 pack 0.94 $9.99/ 2 pack 5.00
College Maple Leaf Hardware $2.48/ 4 pack 0.62 $7.99/ single 7.99
Home Depot $2.99/ 4 pack 0.74 $6.99/ single 6.99
Lansing Buildall $0.99/ 3 pack 0.33 $15.98/ 6 pack 2.66
Guffin's Hardware and Electrical Co. Ltd. $1.99/ 4 pack 0.49 $8.99/ 4 pack 2.25
MIN 0.33 2.25
MAX 0.94 7.99
AVG 0.62 4.98
AVG Ontario 0.62 5.53
While prices varied greatly, average capital costs of screw-type compact fluorescent bulbs
were equivalent to, or less expensive than their incandescent counterparts when expected life
is accounted for.
Table 2.11 - Lighting Capital Costs

60W Incandescent 10 15 W Compact Flourescent
City Unit Price units @ 1000 hrs 1 unit @ 10,000 hrs
Sault Ste. Marie MIN $ 2.90 $ 3.94
MAX $ 13.40 $ 9.99
AVG $ 6.10 $ 6.08
Toronto MIN $ 3.30 $ 2.25
MAX $ 9.40 $ 7.99
AVG $ 6.20 $ 4.98
AVG Ontario $ 6.18 $ 5.53
26
Energy Consumption
Chapter
3
The energy consumption associated with each measure was determined using both
computer simulations and analytical tools. Energy performance simulations were carried
out for a standard building containing each measure singly and grouped together as a
package. The energy consumption for the lighting measure was calculated.
Energy Performance Simulations
The methodology used to establish energy consumption is essentially the same as that
established in previous studies for the Ministry and for others as reported in Energy
Impact and Cost Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Improvements for Housing in Ontario
for the Ontario Ministry of Energy, June 1991 and Housing Energy Profiles, for Ontario
Hydro, June 1994 among others.
The benchmark house that was used as the basis for the estimates of energy
consumption was also the same as the house in previous studies. The detached house is
a two storey 2100 ft2 (123 m2) building that represents Ontario norms with respect to size
and layout. The house energy performance was simulated using weather data for Toronto
representing the Zone 1 climatic region and Sault Ste Marie for Zone 2.
Energy performance modeling was conducted using the latest version of HOT2000
(version 9.3.1) for detached, semi-detached and row houses. In addition to energy
consumption, the software also calculated both summer and winter peak loads,
greenhouse gas emissions and EnerGuide ratings.
Envelope levels of insulation and airtightness are shown in the base case specification
table below. Ventilation rates were kept constant for all simulations and correspond to
Building Code specified minimums. All base loads from occupancy and appliances were
standard defaults within HOT2000 and correspond to Canadian averages.
Table 3.1 - Base Case House Specifications

ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 1 - Electric ZONE 2 - Electric
Toronto Sault Ste. Marie Toronto Sault Ste. Marie
Ceiling R31 R38 R40 R40
Walls R17 R22 R27 R27
Foundation R8, 2 feet R12, 2 feet R19, 2 feet R19, 2 feet
Windows Double Glazed + Air Double Glazed + Air Low E + Argon Low E + Argon
Airtightness 3.5 ACH 3.5 ACH 3.5 ACH 3.5 ACH
Furnaces Mid efficiency gas Mid efficiency gas electric electric
The results of the energy simulations are summarized below:
27
Table 3.2 - Energy Consumption Summary for 'Toronto - Detached: Savings
Estimated Annual Space + DHW Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Design Design GHG GHG
Energy Consumption Space Heating Space Heat Loss Cooling Emissions Emissions
Savings Fuel/Electricity Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Reduction
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity at -17.2'C at 31'C
House ID (MJ) % (kWh) (m3) Oil (l) (kWh) (W) (W) (kg per year) % Notes:
TDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TDUGC1 1301 0.9 5.4 34.5 0.0 2.3 160.0 15.1 52.2 0.4 Note 1
TDUGC2 2145 1.6 8.9 56.8 0.0 3.8 271.5 25.6 97.4 0.8 Note 2
TDUGW1 1321 1.0 5.5 34.9 0.0 1.3 113.1 15.1 70.2 0.5 Note 3
TDUGW2 3320 2.4 13.8 87.8 0.0 3.5 282.3 34.6 176.3 1.4 Note 4
TDUGW3 5700 4.1 23.6 150.8 0.0 6.0 485.0 59.4 302.7 2.3 Note 5
TDUGF1 1301 0.9 5.4 34.2 0.0 0.1 114.0 4.4 67.8 0.5 Note 6
TDUGF2 7215 5.2 29.7 189.3 0.0 0.1 568.4 7.6 371.5 2.9 Note 7
TDUGF3 10366 7.5 42.6 272.0 0.0 0.3 821.5 27.3 529.4 4.1 Note 8
TDUGF4 1915 1.4 7.9 50.5 0.0 0.0 171.7 -1.0 99.1 0.8 Note 9
TDUGG1 6361 4.6 26.4 168.3 0.0 39.1 813.7 592.5 393.8 3.1 Note 10
TDUGG2 9195 6.7 38.1 243.3 0.0 40.2 1042.7 598.4 541.7 4.2 Note 11
TDUGG3 12499 9.1 51.8 330.7 0.0 42.0 1331.7 615.1 715.0 5.5 Note 12
TDUHG 16811 12.2 0.0 451.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 846.0 6.6 Note 13
TDUHGE 16882 12.3 167.2 437.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 909.9 7.1 Note 14
TDOO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TDUOC1 1235 1.0 5.4 0.0 31.6 2.3 160.1 15.1 79.0 0.5 Note 1
TDUOC2 2017 1.6 8.9 0.0 51.6 3.8 271.5 25.6 135.8 0.8 Note 2
TDUOW1 1210 1.0 5.5 0.0 30.9 1.3 113.1 15.1 92.0 0.6 Note 3
TDUOW2 3410 2.8 14.9 0.0 87.2 3.7 306.1 38.7 258.9 1.6 Note 4
TDUOW3 5785 4.7 25.6 0.0 147.8 6.3 527.8 66.9 439.5 2.7 Note 5
TDUOF1 1186 1.0 5.4 0.0 30.2 0.0 114.0 4.4 89.0 0.5 Note 6
TDUOF2 6679 5.4 29.6 0.0 169.9 0.1 568.4 7.6 500.2 3.1 Note 7
TDUOF3 9663 7.9 42.4 0.0 245.8 0.3 821.5 27.3 725.2 4.4 Note 8
TDUOF4 1747 1.4 7.9 0.0 44.6 0.0 171.7 -1.0 130.5 0.8 Note 9
TDUOG1 6067 4.9 26.4 0.0 155.1 39.1 813.7 592.5 515.7 3.2 Note 10
TDUOG2 8665 7.0 38.1 0.0 221.4 40.2 1042.7 598.4 710.4 4.4 Note 11
TDUOG3 11817 9.6 51.9 0.0 302.0 42.0 1331.7 615.1 947.5 5.8 Note 12
TDUHO 5010 4.1 0.0 0.0 130.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 367.6 2.3 Note 15
TDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TDUEC2 658 0.7 183.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 111.0 10.5 87.5 0.5 Note 2
TDUEW4 2261 2.5 628.4 0.0 0.0 3.0 246.0 30.1 344.2 1.8 Note 16
TDUEF5 7083 7.8 1955.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 713.4 30.1 1061.8 5.6 Note 17
TDUEG2 2323 2.6 645.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 241.1 2.8 350.5 1.8 Note 11
TDUEG3 4586 5.0 1274.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 500.2 18.3 687.3 3.6 Note 12
Note 1: R40 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings 10: Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43)
2: R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings 11: Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window
3: R19 batt insulation in the 2x6 walls 12: Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window
4: R12 batt insulation + 1.5" XTPS 4 in the 2x4 walls 13: Condensing gas furnace(92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
5: R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls 14: Same as 13 with ECM
6: R12 blanket, 2' below grade 15: Condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff.vs 85% base
7: 1.5" XTPS 4 16: R1928batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
8: R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass 17: 2x4 wall with R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
9: R20 blanket 2' below grade
29
Table 3.3 - Energy Consumption Summary for Sault Ste Marie - Detached: Savings
Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Design
Estimated Annual Space + DHW
Space Design Heat Cooling GHG
Energy Consumption
Space Heating Cooling Loss Load Emissions GHG Emissions
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity at -17.2'C for July at
House ID (MJ) % (kWh) (m3) Oil (l) (kWh) (W) 31'C (W) (kg per year) % Notes:
SDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 base case
SDUGC2 366 0.2 1.5 9.7 0.0 0.1 148.8 5.4 19 0.1 Note 1
SDUGW3 4342 2.6 18.0 114.9 0.0 0.6 364.5 21.7 226 1.6 Note 2
SDUGF2 7492 4.5 30.7 195.9 0.0 0.3 519.4 149.7 394 2.8 Note 3
SDUGF3 11378 6.9 46.6 297.7 0.0 0.4 813.9 213.1 593 4.3 Note 4
SDUGF4 632 0.4 2.6 16.7 0.0 0.0 64.6 -8.7 32 0.2 Note 5
SDUGG1 8003 4.8 33.2 211.8 0.0 7.3 975.6 590.1 447 3.2 Note 6
SDUGG2 11480 6.9 47.6 303.8 0.0 7.4 1250.1 581.0 611 4.4 Note 7
SDUGG3 15541 9.4 64.3 410.7 0.0 7.7 1596.6 579.8 712 5.1 Note 8
SDUHG 20804 12.6 0.0 558.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1047 7.5 Note 9
SDUHGE 20985 12.7 207.2 543.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1131 8.1 Note 10
SDOO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 base case
SDUOC2 347 0.2 1.5 0.0 8.9 0.1 148.8 5.4 22 0.1 Note 1
SDUOW3 4140 2.8 18.0 0.0 105.8 0.6 364.5 21.7 309 1.8 Note 2
SDUOF2 6979 4.6 30.6 0.0 177.1 0.3 519.4 149.7 522 3.0 Note 3
SDUOF3 10508 7.0 46.5 0.0 266.8 0.4 813.9 213.1 779 4.5 Note 4
SDUOF4 574 0.4 2.6 0.0 14.7 0.0 64.6 -8.6 43 0.2 Note 5
SDUOG1 8002 5.3 33.2 0.0 204.3 7.3 975.5 590.1 494 2.9 Note 6
SDUOG2 11174 7.4 47.7 0.0 285.3 7.4 1250.1 581.0 727 4.2 Note 7
SDUOG3 15035 10.0 64.5 0.0 384.0 7.7 1596.6 579.8 1024 6.0 Note 8
SDUHO 7241 4.8 0.0 0.0 188.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 531 3.1 Note 11
SDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 base case
SDUEC2 797 0.7 221.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 133.1 4.8 108 0.5 Note 1
SDUEW4 2762 2.4 767.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 294.9 17.6 417 1.9 Note 12
SDUEF5 9021 7.8 2487.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 822.3 232.8 1362 6.1 Note 13
SDUEG2 2865 2.5 796.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 289.1 -13.2 431 1.9 Note 7
SDUEG3 5664 4.9 1569.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 599.8 -13.7 723 3.2 Note 8
Note 1: R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings 8: Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
2: R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls 9: condensing gas furnace (92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
3: 1.5" XTPS 4 full-height 10: same as 13 with ECM
4: R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass 11: condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff. vs 85% base
5: R20 blanket 2' below grade 12: R19 batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
6: Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43) 13: 2x430
wall with R20 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
7: Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
31
Table 3.4 - Energy Consumption Summary for the "Toronto - Detached Packages": Savings
Estimated Annual Space +
Space Design Heat Cooling GHG GHG
DHW Energy Consumption
Space Heating Cooling Loss Load Emissions Emissions
TDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
TDUGC1F1G3 15100 11.0 63 399 0 44 1606 635 836 6.5 Note 1
TDUGC1F1W2G3 18425 13.4 76 487 0 48 1888 669 1020 7.9 Note 2
TDUGC1F3G3 24077 17.5 99 635 0 45 2314 658 1301 10.1 Note 3
TDUGC1F3W2G3 27363 19.9 113 722 0 48 2596 692 1483 11.5 Note 4
TDUHGC1F1G3 29524 21.5 63 786 0 44 1606 635 1562 12.1 Note 5
TDUHGC1F1W2G3 32323 23.5 76 860 0 48 1888 669 1719 13.3 Note 6
TDUHGC1F3G3 37095 27.0 99 984 0 45 2314 658 1957 15.2 Note 7
TDUHGC1F3W2G3 39861 29.0 113 1057 0 48 2596 692 2112 16.4 Note 8
TDUGES 48122 35.0 145 1231 0 20 3054 167 2365 18.3 Note 9
TDUGESTAR 43733 31.8 406 1133 0 73 1627 391 2204 17.1 Note 13
TDUEGNH80-1n 46212 33.6 257 1216 0 72 2156 873 2385 18.5 Note 14
TDUEGNH80-2n 48289 35.1 155 1282 0 76 2411 912 2449 19.0 Note 15
TDUEGNH80-3n 49826 36.2 163 1323 0 72 2267 884 2521 19.5 Note 16
TDUOPA 62881 45.7 182 1424 0 138 4860 1943 1544 12.0 Note 17
TDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
TDUEC2W4G3 7339 8.1 2040.1 0.0 0.0 7.9 847 72.4 1101.5 5.8 Note 10
TDUEC2W4F6G3 15535 17.1 4302.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 1686 119.0 2333.2 12.2 Note 11
TDUEES 15579 17.1 4314.9 0.0 0.0 65.3 2123 936.5 2442.5 12.8 Note 12
1: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35)
2: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35)
3: R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35)
4: R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35)
5: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency
6: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer window
with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency vs. 78.0% in the base case
9: R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + R24 walls + Low-E argon spacer window (R 3.14 / RSI 0.55)
with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency + HWT efficiency of 0.59
10: R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
11: R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
32
13: R40 ceiling + R24 walls + R12 full height basement insulation + Windows (R3.15/ RSI 0.55)
14: R40 ceiling + R19.5 walls + R19 full height basement insulation +Window (R2.87/ RSI 0.51)+ 92.9% ECM + SEER 13 +HRV
15: R50 ceiling + R24 walls + R12 full height basement insulation +Window (R2.87/ RSI 0.51)+ 92.9% + SEER 13 +HRV
33
Table 3.5 - Energy Consumption Summary for the "Sault Ste. Marie - Detached Packages": Savings
SDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
SDUGES 53370 32.2 150.7 1366.2 19.3 51.7 3826.0 1645.1 2713.9 19.4 Note 1
SDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
SDUEC2W4G3 9013 7.8 2501.0 0.0 1.2 2.6 1015.3 23.9 1224.4 5.5 Note 2
SDUEC2W4F6G3 19422 16.9 5370.5 0.0 1.7 24.6 1986.4 296.0 2794.7 12.5 Note 3
SDUEES 19557 17.0 5407.8 0.0 13.0 24.7 2509.3 1156.7 2881.8 12.9 Note 4
Note 1: R50 ceiling + R27 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R 3.58 / RSI 0.63)
2: R50 ceiling + R29 walls + Low-E argon spacer window (R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
34
Table 3.6 - Energy Consumption Summary for Air Tightness, Air Conditioners and Set-back Thermostats: Savings
Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption
Estimated Annual Space + GHG GHG
Space
DHW Energy Consumption Emissions Emissions
Space Heating Cooling DHW Heating Design Heat Design
Savings Fuel Savings Savings Savings Loss Cooling Load Savings Reduction
Electricity Natural Electricity for July at
House ID (MJ) % (kWh) Gas (m3) (kWh) Natural Gas (m3) at -17.2'C (W) 31'C (W) (kg per year) % Notes:
TDOG 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 -
TDUGA1 5504 4.0 22.8 145.5 -5.0 0.1 677.2 314 244 1.9 Note 1
TDUGA2 12076 8.8 50.0 319.2 -2.0 0.1 1247.7 682 594 4.6 Note 2
TDUGG4 2710 2.0 11.2 71.7 1.5 0.0 238.4 15 142 1.1 Note 3
TDUGAC1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0 21 0.2 Note 4
TDUGAC2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.5 0.0 0.0 0 32 0.3 Note 5
TDUGST2 24001 17.4 204.5 629.5 -45.4 -5.1 -17.3 -8 1083 8.4 Note 6
Note 1: 2.5 ACH @ 50 Pa as the air tightess level vs. 3.5 ACH @ 50 Pa in the base case
2: 1.5 ACH @ 50 Pa as the air tightess level vs. 3.5 ACH @ 50 Pa in the base case
3: double glazed + insulating spacer only (R-value of 2.05 or U-value of 0.49)
4: AC SEER 13 vs. SEER 10 in the base case
5: AC SEER 15 vs. SEER 10 in the base case
6: 64.4'F (18'C) as a set-back thermostat vs. 69.8'F (21'C) in the base case
35
Table 3.7 - Energy Consumption Summary "Toronto Packages - Semi-detached and Row" (v 9.31): Savings
Estimated Annual Space + Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Design Heat Design GHG GHG
DHW Energy Consumption Space Heating Space Loss Cooling Emissions Emissions
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity for July at
House ID (MJ) % Oil (l) at -17.2'C (W) (kg per year) % Notes:
(kWh) (m3) (kWh) 31'C (W)
SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES
TSOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TSUGC1F1G3 12490 11.0 52 330.1 0.0 25.5 1212.0 444.4 681.1 5.9 Note 1
TSUGC1F1W2G3 14482 12.7 60 383.0 0.0 27.7 1378.3 469.0 718.6 6.2 Note 2
TSUGC1F3G3 18915 16.6 78 498.3 0.0 26.2 1722.4 508.6 947.4 8.2 Note 3
TSUGC1F3W2G3 20885 18.4 86 550.4 0.0 28.4 1888.7 533.2 1053.0 9.1 Note 4
TSUHGC1F1G3 23558 20.7 52 627.2 0.0 25.5 1212.0 444.4 1238.1 10.8 Note 5
TSUHGC1F1W2G3 25234 22.2 60 671.6 0.0 27.7 1378.3 469.0 1259.7 10.9 Note 6
TSUHGC1F3G3 28978 25.5 78 768.3 0.0 26.2 1722.4 508.6 1453.9 12.6 Note 7
TSUHGC1F3W2G3 30637 26.9 86 812.1 0.0 28.4 1888.7 533.2 1543.7 13.4 Note 8
TSUGES 36652 32.2 108 926.8 0.0 9.9 2192.7 123.4 1801.2 15.6 Note 9
TSOO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TSOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TSUEC2W4G3 5185 7.0 1442 0.0 0.0 4.5 554.6 32.4 706.6 4.3 Note 10
TSUEC2W4F6G3 10985 14.8 3040 0.0 0.0 5.5 1154.4 114.0 1576.9 9.6 Note 11
TSUEES 11072 14.9 3063 0.0 0.0 42.0 1420.8 718.7 1677.0 10.2 Note 12
ROW HOUSES
TROG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TRUGC1F1G3 10565 11.6 44 278.8 0.0 44.4 1111.5 305.5 589.1 5.7 Note 1
TRUGC1F1W2G3 11397 12.5 47 300.8 0.0 45.3 1182.5 317.2 633.9 6.2 Note 2
TRUGC1F3G3 13346 14.7 55 351.1 0.0 43.6 1389.8 276.9 724.3 7.0 Note 3
TRUGC1F3W2G3 14168 15.6 58 372.9 0.0 44.5 1460.8 288.6 768.6 7.5 Note 4
TRUHGC1F1G3 18342 20.2 44 487.5 0.0 44.4 1111.5 305.5 980.5 9.5 Note 5
TRUHGC1F1W2G3 19042 20.9 47 506.1 0.0 45.3 1182.5 317.2 1018.7 9.9 Note 6
TRUHGC1F3G3 20691 22.8 55 548.2 0.0 43.6 1389.8 276.9 1094.0 10.6 Note 7
TRUHGC1F3W2G3 21383 23.5 58 566.5 0.0 44.5 1460.8 288.6 1131.7 11.0 Note 8
TRUGES 25105 27.6 69 621.1 0.0 34.7 1591.3 109.0 1299.0 12.6 Note 9
TROO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TROE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
TRUEC2W4G3 3250 5.4 905 0.0 0.0 0.8 343.1 -8.1 483.4 3.4 Note 10
TRUEC2W4F6G3 5735 9.5 1586 0.0 0.0 0.1 664.4 -41.0 853.4 6.0 Note 11
TRUEES 5654 9.4 1563 0.0 0.0 23.2 867.7 273.4 886.3 6.2 Note 12
Note 1: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35)
6: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer window with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state vs. 78.0% base
7: R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35) with furnace 92.9% steady state efficiency vs. 78.0% base
8: R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35) with furnace 92.9% steady state eff. vs. 78.0% base
36
9: R40 ceiling + R24 walls + R12 full height basement + Low-E argon spacer window (R 3.14 / RSI 0.55) + furnace 92.9% eff. + HWT eff. 0.59
37
Table 3.8 - Energy Consumption Summary "Sault Ste. Marie Packages - Semi-detached and Row" (v 9.31): Savings
SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES
SSOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
SSUGES 40732 30.3 113 1031.2 0.0 11.9 2682.1 1118.0 2175.7 17.6 Note 1
SSOO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
SSOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
SSUEC2W4G3 6261 6.7 1742 0.0 0.0 0.8 663.2 11.0 931.7 4.9 Note 2
SSUEC2W4F6G3 13868 14.9 3833 0.0 0.0 1.3 1371.8 252.6 2081.0 10.9 Note 3
SSUEES 14097 15.1 3896 0.0 0.0 8.3 1701.1 855.6 2185.1 11.4 Note 4
ROW HOUSES
SROG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
SRUGES 28626 27.4 77 711.3 0.0 23.6 2355.9 811.2 1485.0 13.8 Note 1
SROO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
SROE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 base case
SRUEC2W4G3 7368 9.5 2052 0.0 0.0 0.9 775.5 3.2 1102.7 6.6 Note 2
SRUEC2W4F6G3 10545 13.5 2920 0.0 0.0 0.9 1135.8 34.4 1580.0 9.4 Note 3
SRUEES 10320 13.2 2856 0.0 0.0 10.6 1373.8 381.0 1530.8 9.1 Note 4
38
Domestic Hot Water Heater Energy Consumption Savings
The energy savings associated with each water heating option is shown below:
Table 3.9 - DHW Heating Analysis for 'Toronto - Detached': Consumption for Different Types of DHW
Estimated Annual Space Estimated Annual Fuel
+ DHW Energy Consumption - DHW Heating GHG Emissions
Consumption (Natural Gas)
Tank Energy Savings Savings Reduction

DHW Capacity Factor (MJ) Reduction (%) Savings (m3) Reduction (%) (kg/year) (%)
Conventional tank (pilot) 50 0.56 0 - 0 0.0 0 0.0
Instantaneous n/a 0.82 7681 5.6 243 32.9 388 3.0
Induced draft fan 50 0.58 250 0.2 28 3.8 11 0.1
Direct vent (sealed) 50 0.56 1271 0.9 2 0.3 68 0.5
Direct vent (sealed, pilot) 50 0.56 372 0.3 0 0.0 22 0.2
Condensing (storage) 34 0.86 8970 6.5 259 35.1 453 3.5
Lighting Energy Consumption Savings
The energy consumption of a standard 60 W incandescent bulb was compared to a 15 W

compact fluorescent and shown in the table that follows. Both incandescent and compact
fluorescent lamps were compared over 10,000 hours, the assumed standard lifespan of a
compact fluorescent. The operating costs shown in the table assume and electricity cost
of $0.011/kWh.
Table 3.10 - Energy Consumption and Operating Cost of Lamps
Energy Consumed over

Energy Use (W) 10000 hours (kWh) Operating Costs
Incandescent 60 600 $ 66.00
Compact Flourescent 15 150 $ 16.50
Savings $ 49.50
Set-back Thermostats Consumption Savings
The expected energy savings from using a set-back thermostat assuming it is set to 18 oC
for 8 hours is approximately 8000 MJ for this reference building in Toronto. This is
approximately equivalent to the savings from R-12 full height basement insulation. The
effects on energy demand particularly for electricity would need to be more clearly
examined prior to widespread adoption.
39
Envelope Air Tightness Energy Savings
Providing envelope airtightness can result in significant energy savings. Tightening the
envelope to ENERGY STAR levels of tightness (approximately 2.5 ach @ 50 Pa) provides
energy savings in the reference house in Toronto equal to the upgrading the Zone 1
envelope to R-40 in the ceiling and R19.5 in the walls. Tightening the envelope to R-2000
levels of tightness (1.5 ach @ 50 Pa) is similar to the combined savings to the Zone 1
building of R-40 in the ceiling, R19.5 in the walls and R-12 full height basement insulation.
Improving envelope airtightness in Ontario’s new homes should be a priority.
EnerGuide Ratings
The EnerGuide for New Housing (EGNH) ratings were generated for each energy
measure or energy package considered and are presented below. ENERGY STAR
houses are equivalent to an EGNH rating of 78, while R-2000 houses have an 80 EGNH
rating based on the design of each program.
40
Table 3.11 - EnerGuide Ratings for Toronto Detached with Specific Measures
TDOG 72 base case
TDUGC1 72 R40 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUGC2 73 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUGW1 72 R19 batt insulation in the 2x6 walls
TDUGW2 73 R12 batt insulation + 1.5" XTPS 4 in the 2x4 walls
TDUGW3 73 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
TDUGF1 72 R12 blanket, 2' below grade foundation
TDUGF2 73 1.5" XTPS 4 foundation
TDUGF3 74 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass foundation
TDUGF4 73 R20 blanket 2' below grade foundation
TDUGG1 73 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34)
TDUGG2 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R-value of 2.52)
TDUGG3 74 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R-value of 2.87)
TDUHG 74 condensing gas furnace(92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
TDUHGE 75 same as 13 with ECM
TDOO 73 base case
TDUOC1 73 R40 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUOC2 73 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUOW1 73 R19 batt insulation in the 2x6 walls
TDUOW2 73 R12 batt insulation + 1.5" XTPS 4 in the 2x4 walls
TDUOW3 74 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
TDUOF1 73 R12 blanket, 2' below grade foundation
TDUOF2 74 1.5" XTPS 4 foundation
TDUOF3 74 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass foundation
TDUOF4 73 R20 blanket 2' below grade foundation
TDUOG1 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34)
TDUOG2 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R-value of 2.52)
TDUOG3 75 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R-value of 2.87)
TDUHO 74 condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff.vs 85% base
TDOE 73 base case
TDUEC2 75 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
TDUEW4 76 R19 batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
TDUEF5 77 2x4 wall with R20 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 foundation
TDUEG2 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R-value of 2.52)
TDUEG3 74 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R-value of 2.87)
41
Table 3.12 - EnerGuide Ratings for Sault Ste Marie Detached with Specific Measures
SDOG 72 base case
SDUGC2 72 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
SDUGW3 73 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
SDUGF2 73 1.5" XTPS 4 full-height
SDUGF3 74 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass
SDUGF4 72 R20 blanket 2' below grade
SDUGG1 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R 2.34)
SDUGG2 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
SDUGG3 75 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
SDUHG 75 condensing gas furnace (92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
SDUHGE 75 same as 13 with ECM
SDOO 73 base case
SDUOC2 73 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
SDUOW3 73 R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls
SDUOF2 74 1.5" XTPS 4 full-height
SDUOF3 74 R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass
SDUOF4 73 R20 blanket 2' below grade
SDUOG1 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R 2.34)
SDUOG2 74 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
SDUOG3 75 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
SDUHO 74 condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff. vs 85% base
SDOE 75 base case
SDUEC2 75 R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings
SDUEW4 75 R19 batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
SDUEF5 76 2x4 wall with R20 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
SDUEG2 75 Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
SDUEG3 76 Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
42
Table 3.13 - EnerGuide Ratings for Toronto Detached with Packages
House ID EGNH Rating Description
TDOG 72 base case
TDUGC1F1G3 75 R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 /
U0.35)
TDUGC1F1W2G3 75 R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer
window (R2.87 / U0.35)
TDUGC1F3G3 76 R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window
(R2.87 / U0.35)
TDUGC1F3W2G3 77 R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer
window (R2.87 / U0.35)
TDUHGC1F1G3 77 R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window with
condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency
TDUHGC1F1W2G3 78 R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer
window with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency vs. 78.0% in the
base case
TDUHGC1F3G3 78 R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window
(R2.87 / U0.35) with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency vs.
78.0% in the base case
TDUHGC1F3W2G3 79 R40 ceiling + R12 full height basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer
window (R2.87 / U0.35) with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state efficiency
vs. 78.0% in the base case
TDUGES 80 R40 ceiling + R24 walls + R12 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer
window (R 3.14 / RSI 0.55) with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state
efficiency + HWT efficiency of 0.59
TDOE 73 base case
TDUEC2W4G3 77 R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window
(R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
TDUEC2W4F6G3 78 R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer
window (R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
TDUEES 79 R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer
window (R 3.58 / RSI 0.63)
Table 3.14 - EnerGuide Ratings for Sault Ste Marie Detached with Packages
SDOG 72 base case
SDUGES 80 R50 ceiling + R27 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer
window (R 3.58 / RSI 0.63) with condensing gas furnace at 92.9% steady state
efficiency + HWT efficiency of 0.59
SDOE 75 base case
SDUEC2W4G3 76 R50 ceiling + R29 walls + Low-E argon spacer window (R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
SDUEC2W4F6G3 78 R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer
window (R 2.88 / RSI 0.51)
SDUEES 78 R50 ceiling + R29 walls + R19 full height basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer
window (R 3.58 / RSI 0.63)
43
EnerGuide Airtightness and Air Conditioning
Very significant improvements in envelope airtightness that extend to R-2000 levels (1.5
ach @ 50 Pa) did not result in any change in the EnerGuide rating. There was no change
in the rating despite the very significant improvement in the energy performance of the
building.
Table 3.15 - EnerGuide Ratings for Toronto Detached with Specific Measures

TDOG 72 base case
TDUGA1 72 2.5 ACH @ 50 Pa as the air tightess level vs. 3.5 ACH @ 50 Pa in the base case
TDUGA2 72 1.5 ACH @ 50 Pa as the air tightess level vs. 3.5 ACH @ 50 Pa in the base case
TDUGG4 73 double glazed + insulating spacer only (R-value of 2.05 or U-value of 0.49)
TDUGAC1 72 AC SEER 13 vs. SEER 10 in the base case
TDUGAC2 72 AC SEER 15 vs. SEER 10 in the base case
TDUGST2 72 64.4'F (18'C) as a set-back thermostat vs. 69.8'F (21'C) in the base case
44
45
Life Cycle Costs
Chapter
4
Life cycle costs were assessed as the sum of the present worth of each energy measure’s
incremental capital costs and yearly operating cost savings. The annual operating costs
were established using current prices for natural gas, electricity and oil as simulated for
each house fitted with each measure. The life cycle cost analysis was similar to that used
in past studies. A 25 year study period was used corresponding to a typical mortgage
term.
Energy Price Rates
Natural Gas
The prices for natural gas listed below were those approved by the Ontario Energy Board
effective January 1, 2006. These prices are those experienced by the residential
consumer on the margin assuming a monthly consumption of 200 m3 (as identified within
the simulation). Prices for natural gas for Toronto were obtained from Enbridge Gas
Distribution Inc. while those for Sault Ste Marie were obtained from Union Gas for their
Northern region.
Table 4.1 - Natural Gas Prices

Supplier Supply Cost OEB Storage Delivery Charge based on Total Cost to the
Adjustment Cost 200 m3 per month Consumer
Toronto Enbridge 43.1228 -1.9301 - 13.9019 $ 0.570247 / m3
Sault Ste. Marie Union Gas 41.9479 - 2.2457 9.0482 $ 0.564126 / m3
Heating Oil
Heating oil prices in Toronto and Sault Ste Marie were provided by Shell Canada and
Petro Canada. Like their natural gas counterparts these, too, reflect the current price that
consumers experience.
Table 4.2 - Home Heating Oil Prices

Shell Canada Petro Canada Average
Toronto $ 0.779 / L $ 0.789 / L $ 0.784 / L
Sault Ste. Marie $ 0.848 / L $ 0.849 / L $ 0.849 / L
46
Electricity
Retail electricity prices were surveyed in the Spring of 2006 from a number of local
distribution companies as shown in the table below. The electricity rate that was used in
the life cycle cost analysis includes delivery charge, distribution charge, wholesale market
surcharge and debt retirement charge. A total electricity cost of $0.11/kWh was used.
Table 4.3 – Electricity Prices

Toronto 11.2 cents/kWh
EnerSource 10.6 cents/kWh
Hydro One 11.7 cents/kWh
Power Stream 10.4 cents/kWh
Average 11.0 cents/kWh
Energy Price Forecasts
Typically, life cycle cost analyses would consider the future forecast of energy prices.
Recent forecasts published by the Ontario Power Authority indicate declining short term
pricing for natural gas and flat pricing for natural gas over the medium and long term.
Other forecasters have suggested more modest price increases of perhaps 2% per year.
Similar uncertainty exists with regard to future pricing of electricity particularly given the
lack of clarity around the nature of Ontario’s future electricity supply mix. In consultation
with Ministry staff, current energy pricing was used for the life cycle costs over the 25 year
study period.
Interest Rates
To reflect the overall costs to the homebuyer over the life of a home mortgage, 5 year
closed mortgage rates were collected from the big five Canadian banks and ING as
shown below. The real interest rate was calculated from the average mortgage rate and
the current inflation rate of 2.20%. A real interest rate to the consumer of 3.68% was used
for the life cycle cost analysis.
Table 4.4 – Interest Rates for Life Cycle Analysis

Financial Institution Rate
BMO 5.59 %
ING 4.99 %
CIBC 6.30 %
TD 6.30 %
RBC 6.30 %
Scotiabank 6.30 %
Average Nominal Interest Rate 5.96 %
Inflation Rate 2.20 %
1
Real Interest Rate 3.68 %
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______
1
d = I + j + ij , where Nominal interest rate is d, real interest rate is I and inflation rate is j
47
Life Cycle Costing
The tables that follow provide the life cycle costs for each of the energy measures and for
various packages of measures developed in consultation with Ministry staff,
48
49
Table 4.5 - Energy Consumption Summary for 'Toronto - Detached: Life Cycle Cost Savings
Estimated Annual Space + Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Yearly Life Cycle Life Cycle
Capital Costs
DHW Energy Consumption Space Heating Space Operating Operating Costs
House ID Savings Fuel/Electricity Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Notes:
Electricity Natural Electricity
(MJ) % Oil (l) ($) ($) ($) ($)
(kWh) Gas (m3) (kWh)
TDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
TDUGC1 1301 0.9 5.4 34.5 0.0 2.3 $21 $331 -$34 $297 Note 1
TDUGC2 2145 1.6 8.9 56.8 0.0 3.8 $34 $546 -$193 $353 Note 2
TDUGW1 1321 1.0 5.5 34.9 0.0 1.3 $21 $334 -$965 -$631 Note 3
TDUGW2 3320 2.4 13.8 87.8 0.0 3.5 $52 $840 -$602 $238 Note 4
TDUGW3 5700 4.1 23.6 150.8 0.0 6.0 $89 $1,442 -$1,012 $431 Note 5
TDUGF1 1301 0.9 5.4 34.2 0.0 0.1 $20 $325 $3 $328 Note 6
TDUGF2 7215 5.2 29.7 189.3 0.0 0.1 $111 $1,798 -$4,323 -$2,526 Note 7
TDUGF3 10366 7.5 42.6 272.0 0.0 0.3 $160 $2,583 -$1,483 $1,100 Note 8
TDUGF4 1915 1.4 7.9 50.5 0.0 0.0 $30 $479 -$506 -$27 Note 9
TDUGG1 6361 4.6 26.4 168.3 0.0 39.1 $103 $1,667 -$783 $884 Note 10
TDUGG2 9195 6.7 38.1 243.3 0.0 40.2 $147 $2,381 -$589 $1,791 Note 11
TDUGG3 12499 9.1 51.8 330.7 0.0 42.0 $199 $3,214 -$342 $2,872 Note 12
TDUHG 16811 12.2 0.0 451.2 0.0 0.0 $257 $4,158 $419 $4,577 Note 13
TDUHGE 16882 12.3 167.2 437.1 0.0 0.0 $268 $4,325 -$728 $3,597 Note 14
TDOO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
TDUOC1 1235 1.0 5.4 0.0 31.6 2.3 $26 $414 -$34 $380 Note 1
TDUOC2 2017 1.6 8.9 0.0 51.6 3.8 $42 $676 -$193 $483 Note 2
TDUOW1 1210 1.0 5.5 0.0 30.9 1.3 $25 $403 -$965 -$562 Note 3
TDUOW2 3410 2.8 14.9 0.0 87.2 3.7 $70 $1,137 -$602 $535 Note 4
TDUOW3 5785 4.7 25.6 0.0 147.8 6.3 $119 $1,930 -$1,012 $918 Note 5
TDUOF1 1186 1.0 5.4 0.0 30.2 0.0 $24 $392 $3 $395 Note 6
TDUOF2 6679 5.4 29.6 0.0 169.9 0.1 $136 $2,205 -$4,323 -$2,118 Note 7
TDUOF3 9663 7.9 42.4 0.0 245.8 0.3 $197 $3,191 -$1,483 $1,708 Note 8
TDUOF4 1747 1.4 7.9 0.0 44.6 0.0 $36 $578 -$506 $72 Note 9
TDUOG1 6067 4.9 26.4 0.0 155.1 39.1 $129 $2,081 -$783 $1,298 Note 10
TDUOG2 8665 7.0 38.1 0.0 221.4 40.2 $182 $2,945 -$589 $2,355 Note 11
TDUOG3 11817 9.6 51.9 0.0 302.0 42.0 $247 $3,993 -$342 $3,651 Note 12
TDUHO 5010 4.1 0.0 0.0 130.1 0.0 $102 $1,648 $500 $2,147 Note 15
TDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
TDUEC2 658 0.7 183.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 $20 $328 -$159 $169 Note 2
TDUEW4 2261 2.5 628.4 0.0 0.0 3.0 $69 $1,120 -$557 $563 Note 16
TDUEF5 7083 7.8 1955.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 $215 $3,470 -$4,441 -$971 Note 17
TDUEG2 2323 2.6 645.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 $71 $1,147 -$194 $953 Note 11
TDUEG3 4586 5.0 1274.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 $140 $2,265 $247 $2,513 Note 12
Note 1: R40 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings 10: Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43)
2: R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings 11: Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window
3: R19 batt insulation in the 2x6 walls 12: Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window
4: R12 batt insulation + 1.5" XTPS 4 in the 2x4 walls 13: condensing gas furnace (92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
5: R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls 14: same as 13 with ECM
6: R12 blanket, 2' below grade 15: condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff.vs 85% base
7: 1.5" XTPS 4 16: 50 + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
R19 batt
8: R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass 17: 2x4 wall with R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
9: R20 blanket 2' below grade
Table 4.6 - Energy Consumption Summary for "Sault Ste Marie - Detached": Life Cycle Cost Savings
Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption Yearly Life Cycle
Estimated Annual Space + DHW
Space Operating Operating Capital
Energy Consumption
Space Heating Cooling Cost Costs Costs Life Cycle Costs
Savings Fuel/Electricity Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity
House ID (MJ) % (kWh) (m3) Oil (l) (kWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) Notes:
SDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
SDUGC2 366 0.2 1.5 9.7 0.0 0.1 $6 $91 -$241 -$149 Note 1
SDUGW3 4342 2.6 18.0 114.9 0.0 0.6 $67 $1,080 $601 $1,681 Note 2
SDUGF2 7492 4.5 30.7 195.9 0.0 0.3 $114 $1,841 -$4,326 -$2,485 Note 3
SDUGF3 11378 6.9 46.6 297.7 0.0 0.4 $173 $2,797 -$1,486 $1,311 Note 4
SDUGF4 632 0.4 2.6 16.7 0.0 0.0 $10 $157 -$510 -$352 Note 5
SDUGG1 8003 4.8 33.2 211.8 0.0 7.3 $124 $2,002 -$589 $1,413 Note 6
SDUGG2 11480 6.9 47.6 303.8 0.0 7.4 $177 $2,867 -$783 $2,084 Note 7
SDUGG3 15541 9.4 64.3 410.7 0.0 7.7 $240 $3,872 -$342 $3,530 Note 8
SDUHG 20804 12.6 0.0 558.4 0.0 0.0 $315 $5,090 $419 $5,509 Note 9
SDUHGE 20985 12.7 207.2 543.5 0.0 0.0 $329 $5,323 -$728 $4,595 Note 10
SDOO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
SDUOC2 347 0.2 1.5 0.0 8.9 0.1 $8 $125 -$241 -$116 Note 1
SDUOW3 4140 2.8 18.0 0.0 105.8 0.6 $92 $1,484 $601 $2,085 Note 2
SDUOF2 6979 4.6 30.6 0.0 177.1 0.3 $154 $2,484 -$4,326 -$1,842 Note 3
SDUOF3 10508 7.0 46.5 0.0 266.8 0.4 $232 $3,741 -$1,486 $2,256 Note 4
SDUOF4 574 0.4 2.6 0.0 14.7 0.0 $13 $206 -$510 -$303 Note 5
SDUOG1 8002 5.3 33.2 0.0 204.3 7.3 $178 $2,873 -$589 $2,283 Note 6
SDUOG2 11174 7.4 47.7 0.0 285.3 7.4 $248 $4,010 -$783 $3,227 Note 7
SDUOG3 15035 10.0 64.5 0.0 384.0 7.7 $334 $5,394 -$342 $5,052 Note 8
SDUHO 7241 4.8 0.0 0.0 188.0 0.0 $159 $2,577 $500 $3,077 Note 11
SDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
SDUEC2 797 0.7 221.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 $24 $394 -$159 $235 Note 1
SDUEW4 2762 2.4 767.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 $84 $1,362 -$557 $805 Note 12
SDUEF5 9021 7.8 2487.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 $273 $4,412 -$4,441 -$29 Note 13
SDUEG2 2865 2.5 796.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 $87 $1,413 -$194 $1,219 Note 7
SDUEG3 5664 4.9 1569.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 $172 $2,785 $247 $3,032 Note 8
Note 1: R50 blown glass fibre insulation in the ceilings 8: Low-E (0.10 soft), 13mm argon + insulating spacer window (R 2.87)
2: R19 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4 in the 2x6 walls 9: condensing gas furnace (92.9% steady state eff. vs 78.0% base)
3: 1.5" XTPS 4 full-height 10: same as 13 with ECM
4: R12 blanket, 3.5" fibreglass 11: condensing oil furnace at 86.95% steady state eff. vs 85% base
5: R20 blanket 2' below grade 12: R19 batt + 2" XTPS 4 in the 2x6walls
6: Low-E (0.10 soft) window (R-value of 2.34 / U-value of 0.43) 13: 2x451
wall with R20 batt insulation + 1" XTPS 4
7: Low-E (0.10 soft) + 13mm argon window (R 2.52 )
52
Table 4.7 - Energy Consumption Summary for the "Toronto - Detached Packages": Life Cycle Cost Savings
Space Operating Operating Life Cycle
Space Heating Cooling Cost Costs Capital Costs Costs
TDOG 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
TDUGC1F1G3 15100 11 63 399 0 44 $239 $3,870 -$373 $3,497 Note 1
TDUGC1F1W2G3 18425 13 76 487 0 48 $292 $4,711 -$975 $3,736 Note 2
TDUGC1F3G3 24077 17 99 635 0 45 $378 $6,105 -$1,859 $4,246 Note 3
TDUGC1F3W2G3 27363 20 113 722 0 48 $429 $6,936 -$2,461 $4,475 Note 4
TDUHGC1F1G3 29524 21 63 786 0 44 $460 $7,437 $46 $7,484 Note 5
TDUHGC1F1W2G3 32323 23 76 860 0 48 $504 $8,149 -$556 $7,592 Note 6
TDUHGC1F3G3 37095 27 99 984 0 45 $577 $9,324 -$1,440 $7,884 Note 7
TDUHGC1F3W2G3 39861 29 113 1057 0 48 $620 $10,027 -$2,042 $7,985 Note 8
TDUGES 48122 35 145 1231 0 20 $720 $11,637 -$3,051 $8,585 Note 9
TDUGESTAR 43733 32 406 1133 0 73 $699 $11,292 -$5,398 $5,894 Note 13
TDUEGNH80-1n 46212 34 257 1216 0 72 $730 $11,793 -$6,544 $5,249 Note 14
TDUEGNH80-2n 48289 35 155 1282 0 76 $756 $12,224 -$5,310 $6,913 Note 15
TDUEGNH80-3n 49826 36 163 1323 0 72 $780 $12,605 -$5,201 $7,404 Note 16
TDUOPA 62881 46 182 1424 0 138 $847 $13,693 -$6,569 $7,124 Note 17
TDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 base case
TDUEC2W4G3 7339 8.1 2040.1 0.0 0.0 7.9 $225 $3,632 -$469 $3,164 Note 10
TDUEC2W4F6G3 15535 17.1 4302.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 $473 $7,646 -$1,500 $6,146 Note 11
TDUEES 15579 17.1 4314.9 0.0 0.0 65.3 $481 $7,769 -$2,100 $5,669 Note 12
Note 1: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + Low-E argon spacer window (R2.87 / U0.35)
6: R40 ceiling + R12 2' basement insulation + R19.5 walls + Low-E argon spacer window
13: R40 ceiling + R24 walls + R12 full height basement insulation + Windows (R3.15/ RSI 0.55)+ HRV+ ECM
14: R40 ceiling + R19.5 walls + R19 full height basement insulation +Window (R2.87/ RSI 0.51)+ 92.9% ECM + SEER 13 +HRV
15: R50 ceiling + R24 walls + R12 full height basement insulation +Window (R2.87/ RSI 0.51)+ 92.9% + SEER 13 +HRV
16: R50 ceiling + R19.5 walls + R12 full height basement insulation +Window (R2.87/ RSI 0.51)+ 92.9% + SEER 13 +HRV 70%/60%
17: R50 ceiling + R29. walls + R19 full height basement insulation +Window (RSI530.63)+ 92.9% + SEER 13
54
Table 4.8 - Energy Consumption Summary for the "Sault Ste. Marie - Detached Packages": Life Cycle Costs
Space Operating Operating Capital Life Cycle
Space Heating Cooling Cost Costs Costs Costs
SDOG 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -
SDUGES 53370 32.2 150.7 1366.2 19.3 51.7 $824 $13,323 -$2,609 $10,713 Note 1
SDOE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -
SDUEC2W4G3 9013 7.8 2501.0 0.0 1.2 2.6 $276 $4,456 -$469 $3,987 Note 2
SDUEC2W4F6G3 19422 16.9 5370.5 0.0 1.7 24.6 $593 $9,591 -$2,009 $7,581 Note 3
SDUEES 19557 17.0 5407.8 0.0 13.0 24.7 $606 $9,800 -$2,609 $7,191 Note 4
55
Lighting Life Cycle Costs
The accumulated capital and energy consumption costs of each bulb revealed a greater gap
between incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs. Based on a 10,000 hour lifespan, the
average life cycle cost in Ontario of using an incandescent bulb is calculated at $62.40, while a
compact fluorescent bulb costs $19.59 for a savings of $ 42.81 for each lamp.
The analysis suggests that pin-based lamps despite their higher costs ($6 to $12) together with
pin-based fixtures costing $10 to $25 more than screw type fixtures are also cost effective at
current prices. The tremendous downward movement in the price of screw type CFLs in
response to increased sales volumes suggest that pin-based lamp pricing may also react
favourably with higher sales.
Table 4.9 - Lighting Life Cycle Costs
Incandescent Capital Costs 6.18 6.18

@ 10,000 Energy Consumption Costs 66.00 66.00
hours
Life Cycle Cost $ 72.18 $ 72.18
Screw Type Lamp Pin-based Lamp
Capital Costs 5.53 27.00
Compact
Flourescent Energy Consumption Costs 16.50 16.50
@10,000
hours Life Cycle Cost $ 22.03 $ 43.50
Savings $ 50.15 $ 28.68
Peak Savings
Reduction in summer peak in the form of electrical savings can be significant. Assuming
25 percent of new houses are air conditioned, peak savings from low E windows alone
can be almost 250 MW. This could result in more than $250 million in savings by
eliminating the need for new electrical generation. As homeowners retrofit air conditioning
into their existing houses the savings estimate could easily double with the full potential
approaching $1B over 25 years.
56
57
Impact Analysis
Chapter
5
Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code provides one of the most direct and immediate means
to achieve energy efficiency in new homes. This chapter examines the implications of and
barriers to raising energy efficiency standards in the Ontario Building Code with respect to
windows, lighting and heating equipment.
This chapter reports on a series of interviews conducted with window and lamp
manufacturers and heating installers across Ontario. A number of options were presented
to the interviewees and they were asked to comment on the costs and feasibility of each of
the options, as well as other potential implications of the options with regard to adoption,
market infrastructure and education.
Barriers and opportunities associated with these options have been noted according to the
following aspects: financial, technical, infrastructure, information/education, regulatory, and
fiscal.
Recommendations for the government are addressed at the end of the chapter.
Windows
Interviews were conducted with the following window manufacturer representatives by

telephone through January 2006 with additional information provided by e-mail:
Gary Burrows, Dashwood Industries

Jason Brown, Pollard Windows
Frank Plasa, Jeld-Wen/United Windows
Tim Smith, Newmar Windows
Bob Ford, North Star Windows
John Low, Centennial Windows
Terry McNamara/Mike Guerin, Sudbury Windows and Doors
Joe Jolie, Seymour Windows
The following window alternatives were discussed:
Current OBC standard:
OBC zone 1 & 2: Double-glazed clear glass

OBC electric: Double-glazed + low-e + argon
Proposed energy measures:
Option 1: Double-glazed insulating spacer

Option 2: Double-glazed + low-e only
Option 3: Double-glazed + low-e + argon + insulating spacer
58
Windows are referred to as insulating glass units (IG units) or "sealed units" throughout the
text. They are deemed "insulating" by virtue of the sealed air space between two lites of
glass.
Interviews Results
The aim of the interviews with window manufacturers was to understand the implications
of (and barriers to) making a change in the building code to mandate one of the three
options described above in all new residential construction in Ontario. Interviewees were
asked to provide information about their current target market and the most popular type
of window requested for new residential construction. Cost information was requested for
the three options and also about EnergyStar® certified windows. Manufacturers were at
times not willing to share cost information as they deemed it to be “market sensitive”.
Others were only prepared to provide percentage cost increases without baseline data.
Company profiles
Eight window manufacturers in Ontario were contacted: half supply windows to new
construction exclusively, two supply windows for renovations only and two supply both the
new construction and renovation markets. Two manufacturers were located in Sudbury
and the rest in southern Ontario.
Option 1 (Double-glazed + insulating spacer)
All the window manufacturers interviewed stated that their windows included an insulating
spacer. In some cases this was referred to as “warm edge technology”. They referred to
brands like Intercept and Duraseal for instance. As a result, they suggested for OBC zone
1 & 2 Option 1 is in fact the industry standard, or “builder option”.
Option 2 (Double-glazed + low-e only)
Option 2 mandates the use of low-emissivity glass in one lite. Low-e glass is available in
two basic types: hard-coat and soft-coat. The majority of manufacturers stated that they
used hard-coat low-e glass because it is not prone to scratching during the assembly
process and does not require an “edge delete” operation to remove the low-e coat along
the edge of the glass in order to allow proper sealing of the unit. They suggested a hard
coat low-e glass is more expensive than soft-coat low-e, but more suitable for the
Canadian climate where solar gain is important during the winter months.
Some manufacturers provide windows with low-e glass only (i.e. no argon gas fill) but
generally manufacturers provide low-e glass and argon fill together. While the cost
increase due to low-e glass is substantial, argon fills add relatively little cost. According to
one manufacturer, low-e increases the cost by 53.5%, but argon adds only another 2.3%.
Low-e coatings are relatively easy to detect with the naked eye, whereas argon gas is
both colourless and odourless and argon detection equipment is expensive (estimated at
$25,000 for a stationary unit by one manufacturer). Contrary to some beliefs,
contemporary sealing techniques do not allow the argon gas to leak out. Nevertheless,
this detection difficulty raises the issue of certification and testing, which itself contributes
to production costs, as manufacturers pointed out with regard to EnergyStar® certification
(see below).
59
Manufacturers reported that low-e glass significantly increase the energy efficiency of
windows in new homes. Fiscal incentives in the form of a PST holiday on windows with
low-e coatings would help to offset the incremental capital cost. Increased sales volumes
could also contribute to lower costs, ultimately reducing the capital cost represented by
low-e windows.
Manufacturers suggested that to the extent that low-e coatings represent not only the
“next step” in increasing the energy efficiency of window assemblies, but are also a proven
and easily applicable technology (in contrast to proprietary frame systems, for instance)
the higher initial costs associated with low-e coatings may well be justified by the longer-
term energy savings. From a broader industry perspective, adopting a low-e standard now
would help to further increase the use of low-e glass in renovations as well.
Option 3 (Double-glazed + low-e + argon + insulating spacer)
This option represents the full package of improvements that are being considered for
inclusion in the building code. However, as has already been pointed out, all
manufacturers include some form of insulating spacer in their standard windows.
Moreover, low-e coatings are usually provided together with argon fills. In fact, this option
was synonymous with the ENERGY STAR® option for those manufacturers who offer it.
Five of the manufacturers interviewed offered ENERGY STAR® windows, although those
that didn’t indicated an interest in exploring certification of at least some of their window
lines under the ENERGY STAR® program. At the same time, these manufacturers were
quick to point to the costs that certification incurs. The windows of those manufacturers
who had certified their products under ENERGY STAR® were all low-e coated and argon
filled, with one exception. Some manufacturers also stated that ENERGY STAR® ratings
could be achieved through different means – the composition and structure of the frame
and the type of window (casements rather than double hung, for instance).
Since option 3 windows are nonetheless close or equivalent to at least zone B ENERGY
STAR® windows, some manufacturers suggested the adoption of ENERGY STAR®
standards for the Ontario Building Code. Consumer recognition of the ENERGY STAR®
label can certainly be seen as an advantage. The manufacturers who already had
ENERGY STAR® certified products supported adopting ENERGY STAR® standards for
windows in the building code. However, the cost of certification – reported by
manufacturers to be about $5,000 per window – was cited as an obstacle to joining the
ENERGY STAR® program. It was also acknowledged that adoption of ENERGY STAR®
standards could cause difficulties for smaller manufacturers for this reason and may lead
to some market consolidation.
Reported costs varied widely across the manufacturers (from 6.1% to 55.8%) as shown
below.
Market issues
All the window manufacturers interviewed acknowledged that an increase in the energy
efficiency of standard windows in new homes in Ontario was a desirable aim. Moreover,
they stated that market trends in recent years pointed to increasing demand for
EnergyStar® certified or equivalent windows. Jeld-Wen cited a 60% increase in demand
for EnergyStar® windows during 2005. As outlined above, this is generally achieved
through a combination of low-e coating on one lite and an argon fill. Nevertheless, most of
the current demand for this type of window seems not to be in new construction, but rather
in renovation or new home upgrades.
60
Manufacturers were also asked to comment on any issues that could arise in terms of
supplying a higher standard window to 60,000 new homes a year. None of the
manufacturers expressed any concern that supply would be problematic from their point of
view. However, two manufacturing issues were raised: using clear glass and low-e coated
glass requires more assembly space; and some soft coat low-e glass needs to be handled
carefully to avoid scratching, as well as requiring an “edge delete” process to enable the
sealing to be effective. Two manufacturers mentioned that glass suppliers could
experience initial delays in supplying more low-e glass or IG units. One glass
manufacturer contacted – IG Cardinal – dismissed this concern.
The window manufacturing industry in Ontario is fragmented, with hundreds of companies

engaged in all or some of the processes of production, assembly and installation. Window
types and frames also vary greatly, resulting in a wide range of products of various
standards of quality. As the interviews with these manufacturers demonstrate, any new
standards that are adopted must be universally applicable – i.e. the technology should not
be proprietary – and the maintenance of a “level playing field” in the industry is considered
important in order that energy efficiency measures not be seen to result in market
distortions.
The options outlined above represent incremental steps towards improving the energy
efficiency of window assemblies. The current standard window assembly is defined in the
building code in terms of its U-value and it is clear that the same U-value can be achieved
with a variety of different means, including some not discussed above, such as frame
technology.
The OBC requirements should not specifically name the required window elements (low-e,
argon, insulating spacer) but rather refer to U-value or ER. Specifying ENERGY STAR®
as the code minimum may impose a cost burden on small window manufacturers.
61
Table 5.1 - Summary of price information from window manufacturers (installation and taxes not included)
obc
option 1* option 2 option 3
electric
sealed
sealed unit + low- ENERGY
Contact sealed sealed ENERGY
target unit + e + argon STAR®
name Phone unit + low- unit + low- STAR®
market insulating + sales as %
Company e + argon e only certified
spacer* insulating of total
spacer
Gary 30% (all
$2.60/sf
Burrows 1-800-265- new sales
(cost to n/a n/a 23.8% yes
Dashwood 4284 homes better than
Dashwood)
Industries standard)
Jason
Brown 905-634- new
no info n/a +53.5% +55.8% yes n/a
Pollard 2365 homes
Windows
Frank
Plasa
416-798- 95% new
Jeld-Wen/ no info n/a n/a no info yes 15-20%
7166 homes
United
Windows
Tim Smith
905-672- mostly new
Newmar no info n/a no info +10% no n/a
1233 homes
Windows
Bob Ford 90% $310.32
519-637-
North Star renovation $23.86/sf n/a (3’x4’) or 12.5% yes n/a
7899x237
Windows 10% new $25.86/sf
John Low
519-451- renovation yes
Centennial no info n/a no info no info n/a
0508 only
Windows
Terry
McNamara/
Mike 50%
705-560-
Guerin renovation $18/sf n/a n/a 26% no n/a
5700
Sudbury 50% new
Windows
and Doors
Joe Jolie 80%
705-474-
Seymour renovation $24.50/sf n/a n/a 6.1% no n/a
9000
Windows 20% new
62
Lighting
Interviews were conducted with the following manufacturer representatives by telephone

in January 2006, with follow-up information provided by e-mail:
JR Salker, Osram-Sylvania
John Wade, GE Lighting
Tim Waterfield, Philips
Assumed current standards:

None
Proposed code change:
Three (3) compact fluorescent lamps in every new house.
Interviews
The aim of adding the interviews with lighting manufacturers was to understand the
implications of (and barriers to) a provision in the building code to mandate the inclusion of
three compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in every new house in Ontario. Interviewees were
asked to provide information about their companies. Price information was requested
about 60W incandescent lamps, 15W screw-in CFLs and 15W pin-based CFLs.
Manufacturer profile
The three companies contacted are the world’s largest manufacturers of lamps. In all
cases most actual manufacturing of lamps takes place outside Canada. In the case of
Osram-Sylvania and Philips products are made in Europe and Asia. For GE products are
made in the United States and Asia. No CFLs are made in Canada by these companies.
All three companies manufacture a full range of lamps including screw-in and pin-based
compact fluorescents. Only Osram-Sylvania also makes external ballasts for (pin-based)
CFLs.
Compact fluorescent lamps
Two types of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are available in Canada: screw-in and
pin-based. The former are designed to fit standard incandescent lamp fixtures and achieve
this by having an internal ballast. Pin-based CFLs cannot be used in standard fixtures and
require a hard-wired external ballast.
The former are generally larger and must be replaced after either lamp failure or ballast
failure. The latter are smaller and need only be replaced after lamp failure, since the
63
ballast is separate from the lamp. The rated lamp life of both types ranges from 10,000-
12,000 hours, however, pin-based CFLs have a higher power factor2.
Both types of CFL have a similar colour rendering index (82 CRI), below that of
incandescent lamps. Pin-based CFLs are mostly suitable for dimming, whereas screw-in
CFLs are generally not suited for dimming.
Assembly of both types of CFLs is reportedly similar in terms of complexity and duration.
However, there are major differences in the cost of these two types of CFLs. Screw-in
CFLs are sold in Ontario today at prices close to cost ($3-5) whereas pin-based CFLs
retail for $6-12. The difference is explained by volume and competition between
manufacturers. Sales of pin-based CFLs are estimated to be about 1 million units in
Canada, whereas the volume of screw-in CFLs sold in Canada has risen from 1.4 million
units in 2002 to 23 million in 2005. Manufacturers suggested that the additional demand
generated by mandating 3 CFLs in all new homes in Ontario (approximately 180,000
CFLs) would do little to move prices down for either type of CFL. Prices of screw-in CFLs
are already down to one-third or one-quarter of their levels four years ago, and volumes of
pin-based CFLs remain too low to drive prices. This low volume is also reflected in the
narrower retail selection of pin-based CFLs.
There is an additional cost factor associated with pin-based CFLs: the hard-wired external
ballast that allows dimming and smaller unit sizes. It was estimated by the manufacturers
that a fixture suitable for pin-based CFLs would cost $10-25 more than a regular screw-in
fixture.
The State of California adopted a pin-based CFL standard in its Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 2005 to address the "rejection
feature" or the incompatibility of the CFL with screw-in lamps. In California, the pin-based
lamp cannot be replaced with an incandescent by the end-user.
It should be noted, however, from an environmental perspective, that all CFLs contain
metals such as mercury and therefore require recycling for safe disposal, rather than
landfilling. The major lamp manufacturers maintain a voluntary recycling program –
www.lamprecycle.org – but recycling of CFLs is neither mandated nor comprehensive.
This would need to be more strongly addressed should these lamps be mandated.
It is widely accepted that compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) offer significant energy
savings over incandescent lamps. The use of pin-based CFLs requires higher relative
capital expenditure both because of the higher unit cost and the associated costs of
ballast/fixture and offers no significant advantages in terms of rated lamp life. However, the
“rejection feature” of pin-based CFLs, along with the potential for lower costs in the
medium term, and greater flexibility of use (dimming, for instance), suggest that the low
first cost increase in mandating three pin-based CFLs (approximately $60 per house) in
new construction could be justified by the more certain energy savings (approximately
$150. per house on a life cycle basis).
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______
2
The power factor of a unit consuming electrical power can be understood as its efficiency in using power.
Incandescent lamps have a power factor of 1, i.e. all power supplied is used. Screw-in CFLs have a power factor in
the range 0.5-0.6 which means that only 50-60% of power supplied is used – the rest is returned to the supplier,
but cannot be used elsewhere. The user is charged only for the power actually used. While power factor is a small
issue at the micro scale, larger scale usage may have more serious consequences.
64
Table 5.2 - Summary of price, rated life and power factor information for comparable incandescent and compact fluorescent lamps
Contact name
Phone 60W incandescent 13W CFL screw-in 13W CFL pin-based
Company
price Life (hours) price Life (hours) price Life (hours)
JR Salker
416-716-1013 $0.60 1,000 $3-4 (*15W) 10,000 $12 (*18W) 12,000
Osram Sylvania
John Wade
905-849-2923 $1.50/4 1,000 $5 12,000 $9 10,000
GE Lighting
Tim Waterfield
905-201-4500x2014 $1.98/4 1,000 $9.98/3 (*15W) 10,000 $5.98 10,000
Philips
Power factor: More power must be supplied to the device, since power is returned to the
supplier at the rate of the power factor. The consumer only pays for the amount
consumed.
65
Heating
Interviews were conducted with the following people by telephone during the month of
January, with some follow-up in February 2006:
Tim Boardman, Dearie Contractors (GTA)

Jack Marrano, Downsview Heating (GTA)
Irv Powell, Gall Heating (GTA)
Chuck Paglialango, Prima Air (GTA)
Roy Bryan, Bryans Fuel (Orangeville)
John Lamantia, Innisfil Air Conditioning (Innisfil)
Rick Oosterveld, Oosterveld Henk Heating (Guelph)
Bill Bellingham, JC Robinson (Ottawa)
Assumed current OBC standards:

Gas: Mid-efficiency
Oil: Mid-efficiency
Proposed alternatives:
Option 1: High-efficiency gas furnace + programmable thermostat
Option 2: High-efficiency oil furnace + programmable thermostat
Option 3: High-efficiency gas furnace + ECM + programmable thermostat
Interviews
The aim of the interviews with heating contractors was to understand the implications of
(and barriers to) making a change in the building code to mandate high-efficiency
furnaces, programmable thermostats and possibly ECM (electronically commutated
motors) in all new residential construction in Ontario. Interviewees were asked to provide
information about their current target market and the most popular model of furnace
installed in new residential construction. Cost information was requested about
programmable thermostats, furnaces with EC motors and EnergyStar® options.
Contractor profile
Half of the heating contractors interviewed operated in the Greater Toronto Area. These
contractors’ primary markets were new home construction, ranging from 1,800 to 5,000
houses a year. The other contractors are located in Guelph, Orangeville, Innisfil and
Ottawa. Market shares in these areas were more evenly divided between new homes and
renovations. Only two contractors provided information about oil furnaces.
All the contractors stated that in the past ten years high-efficiency gas3 furnaces had
become the most commonly requested heating system for new construction. This is
especially true in the GTA. Generally, builders request the least expensive model available
and make substantial “upgrade” charges if buyers request improved products. While mid-
efficiency furnaces were cheaper per unit (by $150-300), the additional costs of venting
and ventilation (chimney, HRV) and associated labour costs significantly limited their use.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______
3
Or propane where natural gas is not available.
66
Furnaces packages for new homes therefore include three basic elements: the furnace,
the ductwork and the thermostat. The first conclusion from these interviews is that
mandating high-efficiency furnaces would have no significant effect on furnace installation
patterns, particularly in Southern Ontario, as it represents an affirmation of existing
practice.
Programmable thermostats
Programmable thermostats are available from all the interviewed contractors, and all but
one recommended their installation and use. The increased cost charged by contractors is
in the range $60-125. Installation of programmable thermostats in new houses was not
considered technically more complicated than wiring regular thermostats. However, two
contractors noted that a sizeable minority of end-users were unable to usefully operate
programmable thermostats and that the factory-installed settings in US-manufactured
thermostats were not suitable for Canada’s colder climate. As a result, programmable
thermostats were either kept on “hold”, maintaining a constant temperature throughout the
day and night, or removed and replaced with regular thermostats.
Pre-programmed thermostats with factory settings specifically for the Canadian (and
presumably also US border states) market would help to reduce misuse and/or
replacement of programmable thermostats.
One contractor also raised concerns that programmable thermostats were susceptible to
theft prior to finishing a new house, since they are small and easy to remove. The risk of
theft also apparently extends to uninstalled furnaces and ductwork. This issue is not one
that the code can resolve, but may be a hindrance to implementing this energy
conservation measure.
EC motors
ECM were estimated by contractors to add up to $1,200 to the cost to the builder of a
furnace installation. In general this high additional cost is due to the fact that ECMs are
available only on high-end furnaces and currently represent “the final upgrade”. However,
it was suggested that furnace manufacturers (none of which are based in Canada) could
adapt production to include ECMs on cheaper furnaces reducing the additional cost by
$200-300.
Contractors disagreed over whether US manufacturers would make Ontario specific

changes: some said that the Ontario market (at 60,000 new homes) is too small, while
others pointed to the example of Ontario-specific changes in air-conditioning specifications
that US manufacturers have met.
There was general agreement among the contractors that ECMs represented a significant
means of conserving electrical energy. However, some contractors said that the full
benefits may not be felt by homeowners who only run the furnace fan when the furnace is
heating. It was noted, however, that ECMs were noticeably quieter than regular furnace
fan motors, and therefore more likely to be run. Builder-delivered education on this matter
(as well as with programmable thermostats) could help new home owners.
67
Since ECMs are relatively new, a number of installers mentioned the difficulties (and
consumer borne expenses) that could arise from ECMs failing before the rest of the
heating system. This concern has not yet been borne out.
An additional concern was raised with regard to ECM: in the GTA most heating contractor
employees are union members and labour rates are set by collective agreement. It was
suggested by one contractor that installation of furnaces with ECMs could be interpreted
by the union as requiring greater skill than installation of non-ECM furnaces. As a result, if
furnaces with ECMs are mandated, union-negotiated rates could rise, putting pressure on
labour costs for furnace installation.
ENERGY STAR®
ENERGY STAR® furnace packages were offered by some of the heating contractors:
additional costs include taped ductwork, heat recovery ventilators and ECMs, add up to
about $2,800 over the standard furnace package contractors report. One contractor noted
that in general only about 1% of new home buyers ask about furnace specifications.
Under the current conditions, greater public awareness was necessary to increase
demand for more energy efficient furnaces and heating systems.
Oil furnaces
Only two (non-GTA) contractors regularly installed oil furnaces. Both stated that high-
efficiency oil furnaces are not available. Additional costs above the cost of the furnace
itself, include the fuel storage tank and chimney. The additional cost of an oil-furnace with
an ECM motor was $300. It was also indicated that where natural gas is not available,
propane is the fuel of choice over oil. Mandating high-efficiency oil furnaces would
effectively end the installation of oil furnaces.
The adoption of high-efficiency standards for gas furnaces in the Ontario Building Code
would, judging from these interviews, have virtually no effect on furnace installation trends,
but rather would reflect the status quo. High-efficiency furnaces must be sized according
to heat loss calculations for design temperatures otherwise the loss of efficiency when the
furnace is unable to reach its steady state operation could seriously impede its efficiency.
The inclusion of ECM in all forced air furnaces would need to be discussed with U.S.
manufacturers to ensure product is available prior to adoption. Installers recommended
that government discuss any planned changes with manufacturers before implementation,
to allow time for furnace configurations to be made.
The mandating of programmable thermostats is a viable option for the code. However,
there is some need for both consumer and installer education in order to achieve more
user friendly units pre-programmed for Canadian circumstances.
While the use of EnergyStar® furnaces was not uncommon, the installation of
EnergyStar® heating packages was far less common, according to the installers
interviewed. To that end, respondents suggested that the adoption of EnergyStar®
standards for heating would, at least currently, represent too great a step forward for
installers and consumers.
68
Table 5.3 - Summary of price information from heating equipment installers
Contact Programmable
Phone Market Standard 60,000 Btu furnace/package ECM motor ENERGY STAR®
Company thermostat
installed
furnace extra cost furnace additional cost
package
Tim Boardman all EnergyStar®
4000 new Lennox G43
Dearie 905-625-9113 n/a $3500 $60-70 $1000 furnaces but not n/a
homes/annum (HE-G)
Contractors packages
+$1000
various: York,
Irv Powell 1800 new York GY9 (furnace)
416-675-6228 n/a $2900-$3500 n/a $1000 Armstrong,
Gal Heating homes/annum (HE-G) +$1100 (HRV)
Lennox
+$400 (taping)
Jack Marrano
5000 new Lennox G61
Downsview 416-675-6228 $1200 $100 $700-$800 Yes
homes/ annum (HE-G)
Heating
+$1200(furnace
Chuck
Bryant 355AAV )
Paglialango 905-677-8277 new homes n/a $3600-$4200 $125 $1000 Goodman
(HE-G) +$1100(HRV)
Prima Air
+$450(taping)
$2800 +$1600-
Lennox Elite 80
mostly n/a $2000 for $1000 n/a n/a
Roy Bryan 1-800-637-5910 (ME-O) 30(cost)/
renovations and chimney
Bryans Fuel x227 90(price)
custom homes Lennox G43 4000 (installed
n/a $3300 Lennox G51
(HE-G) cost)
+$350(furnace)
John Lamantia
mostly new 5500 (installed +$1200-
Innisfil Air 705-739-9541 York (HE-G) n/a $4000 $125 York Affinity 4
homes cost) $2100 (HRV)
Conditioning
+$400(taping)
Lennox G43
Rick Oosterveld $1000 $4000 $800
20% new (HE-G)
Oosterveld 519-837-2351 20 (cost) No n/a
residential Lennox O23 6000 (incl. oil
Henk Heating $1200 $300
(ME-O) tank + chimney)
Bill Bellingham 613-733-2481 30% new York Affinity 9S $1000 n/a n/a $800 York Affinity 9V +$2000-$3000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
$1200 for a simple in/out HRV; $2100 for a fully ducted HRV with timer.
69
JC Robinson residential (HE-G)
Summary of Barriers and Opportunities
A summary of barriers and opportunities represented by proposed changes to the Ontario Building Code with regard to windows, lighting, and
heating is shown below:
Table 5.4 - Summary of barriers and opportunities represented by proposed changes to the Ontario Building Code
Financial Technical Infrastructure Information/ Regulatory Fiscal
education
General Capital costs of energy Limited additional Higher mandated Opportunities for builder- Proposed regulatory Tax holidays could
efficient assemblies/ technical complexity standards welcomed by delivered consumer changes in step with shift stimulate demand and
systems are usually implied by proposed code manufacturers/ installers. education about energy in market demand for supply of energy efficient
higher than current changes. efficiency. more energy efficient products and lower short-
standards/ OBC assemblies and systems. term cost barriers.
minimums.
Lower energy
consumption = lower utility
bills and greater system-
wide power conservation.
70
education
Windows Low-e and argon fill adds Soft-coat low-e windows Low-e and argon usually Greater consumer No regulatory link PST holiday on low-e
up to 56% to cost of require careful handling: offered as a package. awareness of energy between summer peaking windows to help off-set
window. may be susceptible to Low-e windows require efficiency issues is problems and air the cost of low-e coating.
scratching. more shop space to store translated into greater conditioning
Soft-coat low-e windows and assemble. demand for more energy- loads/electrical supply.
may require “edge delete” ENERGY STAR® efficient window
to allow effective seal. certification for windows is assemblies.
Argon fill is difficult and expensive: smaller Energy Rating (ER)
expensive to detect. manufacturers may find it system can be confusing
Window type and frame difficult to afford these to consumers.
materials important factors costs.
in overall window
performance: not
addressed by potential
code changes.
Lighting Low sales volumes of pin- Pin-based CFLs no more No anticipated supply Pin-based CFLs cannot Example of California PST holiday on pin-based
based CFLs major factor complicated to assemble issues – most CFLs be easily replaced with code change that CFLs and ballasts/fixtures
in their premium price than screw-ins. imported from China. 1 incandescents (unlike mandated pin-based could help promote sales,
over screw-in CFLs. Pin-based CFLs suited to million pin-based CFLs screw-in CFLs). CFLs: the rejection increase volumes and
Added cost of fixture with wider range of sold in Canada in 2005 vs. feature. reduce price.
hard-wired ballast for pin- applications (such as 23 million screw-in CFLs.
based CFLs. dimming). Unknown ability of fixture
Power factor issues less manufacturers to meet
pronounced with pin- demand for 180,000 pin-
based CFLs. based fixtures.
71
education
Heating ECM motor adds $1,100 Pre-programmed (US- ECM motors generally Unknown proportion of High-efficiency gas PST holiday would
to cost of furnace made) thermostats not only available on high-end home-owners may not furnaces are de facto encourage adoption of
package. suited to requirements of furnaces. know how to operate a standard in new furnace packages with
EnergyStar® adds $3,000 Canadian climate. All gas furnaces come programmable construction. ECM motors.
to cost of furnace package Sizing of furnaces to meet from the US. thermostat. Advanced warning of
(ECM, HRV, taped ducts). heat loss at design No availability of high- Opportunity to understand code change could help
Programmable thermostat temperature can reduce efficiency oil furnaces. the on-going savings from widen range of furnaces
adds $20-125 to cost of furnace efficiency at other Most furnace installers in system with higher capital with ECM motors.
furnace package. times. the GTA are unionized: cost.
perceived potential of
upward pressure on
labour rates.
High risk of theft of
programmable
thermostats in unfinished
houses.
72
Conclusions and
Chapter
6
Recommendations
While aggressive recommendations may be possible to improve the energy efficiency
provisions of the Ontario Building Code, many of these would represent technologies and
construction methods that have not been thoroughly tested or well understood by builders
and their trades. Adopting untried methods implies risk to builders and ultimately to their
purchasers who are left to remedy potential problems that could be created. Prudent code
development adopts requirements where satisfactory past performance can be
demonstrated. It is in this spirit that the following recommendations are made.
Conclusions
Energy savings and life cycle cost savings are greatest for the following three energy
measures in Zone 1 and Zone 2 for gas heated houses:
High efficiency gas furnaces

Low-e argon windows
Full height R-12 insulation
The first is already a defacto standard within the province. The second was the
roundtable participants’ preferred upgrade. The third results in significant lifecycle savings
but remains controversial.
For foundations options which involve a product swap from R-8 to R-12 or to R-19
always 2 feet below grade would be the easiest for builders to adopt. Roundtable
participants suggested Options 1, 3 and 4 should be avoided because they would
introduce new materials and likely result in unforeseen installation problems. The full
height basement option may be viable where blanket insulation is used. Code provisions
may be altered to further improve the cost effectiveness of this option.
Increasing ceiling insulation to R-40 throughout the province would result in virtually no
negative impacts. R-50 insulation implies compression at eaves where high heel trusses
are not used.
For the main walls, builders agreed that R-19.5 could be a viable option for Zone 1. In
Zone 2 where 2”x6” construction is a standard, an R-24 wall results in a lower initial cost
than the current R-22 required by the OBC. Roundtable participants expressed a desire
to retain the 2”x4” construction option.
All roundtable participants agreed that window upgrades are the most attractive of all of
the energy measures discussed. They considered the possibility of savings from possibly
eliminating heating ducts from under windows, fewer callbacks because of condensation
and discomfort. They suggested that the transition could be seamless if a PST holiday
were in place as the new code was introduced.
73
Many Ontario builders use high efficiency furnaces. All roundtable participants agreed
the furnace upgrade could easily be incorporated and suggested that next to windows this
was the most attractive measure.
Upgrading lighting with screw-in CFLs presents a number of challenges. Fixtures many
not be designed to accept screw-in CFLs. In addition, the “rejection feature” among
homeowners and on-site substitution could limit the penetration of CFLs. While pin-type
CFLs represent a more costly option, they are not subject to these issues.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are provided in order of significance:
1. Windows
It is recommended that the government adopt changes to the Ontario Building Code to
mandate the use of low-e + argon windows for all climatic zones in Ontario. A PST
holiday for all high performance windows to facilitate the transition and to reduce the
impact on first costs could be considered.
2. Furnaces
It is recommended that the government adopt changes to the Ontario Building Code or
Energy Act to mandate high efficiency gas furnaces across Ontario for new houses.
3. Foundations
mandate full height R-12 basement insulation in Zone 1 and Zone 2 and R-19 full height
basement insulation in electric houses.
4. Ceiling Insulation
mandate the use R-40 ceiling insulation for all climatic zones in Ontario and R-50 for
electric.
5. Lighting
In order to reduce electricity consumption from lighting, it is recommended that the

government consider a change to the Energy Act or to the Building Code to mandate the
inclusion of at least three pin-based compact fluorescent lamps in each new home.
Further study is required to address the issues associated with use of screw-in CFLs.
6. ECMs and Programmable Thermostats
In order to prepare the ground for further energy saving changes to the building code, the
government should engage in a dialogue with US-based heating equipment (furnaces and
thermostats) manufacturers to determine the possibilities for including ECM motors on
“builder model” furnaces, and for pre-programming thermostats for the Canadian market.
74
8. Airtightness
The government should encourage municipalities to better enforce the existing

airtightness requirements in the Code. Training to building official should target common
deficiencies.
9. HRVs for electric
HRVs should be mandated for all new houses heated with electricity.
10. Consumer Information
In order to take fuller advantage of the energy saving technologies available in homes, the
building industry and the government should engage in more proactive consumer
education with new home buyers, particularly in regards to voluntary efficiency measures.
11. Builder Education
The Government should provide assistance to the home building industry to address
specific gaps in knowledge and practice that represent barriers to improvements in the
energy efficiency of new homes.
75
76
Typical HOT2000
Appendix
Energy Performance
Simulation
77

Energy Efficiency Housing PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Energy Efficiency Housing PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Study of

Energy Efficiency Measures for

The Government of Ontario is dedicated to moving forward on its commitment to achieve

Scope and Objectives of this Study

Scope of the Current OBC Energy Efficiency Requirements

9.25.2.1. Required Insulation

RSI Value Required

9.25.2.4. Installation of Thermal Insulation

Energy Performance Simulations

Energy Savings, Peak Reduction and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Operational Characteristics: Specific operational characteristics of the simulated buildings

Construction Components: Each energy efficiency measure was simulated independently.

Energy Measure Packages

Impact and Barrier Analysis

Builder Roundtable: Reporting Capital Costs

 Monarch Corporation, large production builder, Toronto, Ottawa

Mark-Up and Taxes

1. the manifestation of construction moisture on the outside surface of polyethylene

Table 2.1 - Reported Capital Costs Details – Foundations

OPTION 1 – R-7.5 full height

Option 2 – R-12, full height

OPTION 4 – R-25, full height

Table 2.2 - Reported Capital Costs Details – Ceilings

Builder Zone 1 Zone 2 Electric Option 1

1 $700 $828 $882 $1087

OBC Standard Zone 1, 2 and Electric - R-31, R-38 and R-40

There were no issues reported in the OBC ceiling insulation schemes.

Table 2.3 - Reported Capital Costs Details – Main Walls

Builder Zone 1 Zone 2 Electric Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

1 $3,890 $5,370 $5,300 $4,770 $4,356 $4,700 $5,632

OBC Standard Zone 1, 2 and Electric – R-17, R-22 and R-27

Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 – R-19, R-19.5, R-24 and R-29

Table 2.4 - Reported Capital Costs Details - Windows

Builder Zone 1and 2 Electric Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Table 2.5 - Reported Capital Costs Details - Furnaces

1 $5,240 $6,250 $4,340 $5,350 $6,440

Table 2.6 - Zone 1 - Capital Costs

Table 2.7 - Zone 2 - Capital Costs

Table 2.9 - Air Conditioner Capital Costs

Table 2.10 - Lighting Capital Cost Survey Data

Table 2.11 - Lighting Capital Costs

Energy Performance Simulations

Table 3.1 - Base Case House Specifications

The results of the energy simulations are summarized below:

Tank Energy Savings Savings Reduction

Lighting Energy Consumption Savings

The energy consumption of a standard 60 W incandescent bulb was compared to a 15 W

Table 3.10 - Energy Consumption and Operating Cost of Lamps

Energy Consumed over

Set-back Thermostats Consumption Savings

Improving envelope airtightness in Ontario’s new homes should be a priority.

House ID EGNH Rating Description

Energy Price Rates

Table 4.1 - Natural Gas Prices

Table 4.2 - Home Heating Oil Prices

Table 4.3 – Electricity Prices

Energy Price Forecasts

Table 4.4 – Interest Rates for Life Cycle Analysis

Table 4.9 - Lighting Life Cycle Costs

Incandescent Capital Costs 6.18 6.18

Interviews were conducted with the following window manufacturer representatives by

 Gary Burrows, Dashwood Industries

The following window alternatives were discussed:

Monarch Corporation, large production builder, Toronto, Ottawa

Gary Burrows, Dashwood Industries

Tim Boardman, Dearie Contractors (GTA)

High efficiency gas furnaces