University of Toronto
St. George Campus
Energy Conservation &
Demand Management Plan
Revised: July 1, 2014
Table of Contents
PART I: CONTEXT
o The University of Toronto
o Where We are Going and its Effect to the Built Environment
o St. George Campus - Overview
 Profile of Campus Operations
 History of Conservation at the St. George Campus
PART II: SUMMARY OF UTILITIES USE
PART III: CONSERVATION & DEMAND PLAN (CDM)
o Qualitative and quantitative goals
 Five-year electricity CDM Plan
o Strategic Planning
o Renewables
o Implementation of Plan
o Monitoring & Evaluation
Appendices
Appendix A:
Campus maps showing District Energy System: Electricity, Heat and
Cooling Source of Supply
Appendix B:
Sustainability Milestones
Introduction
The following report is posted as required by the Green Energy Act, 2009, O. Reg. 397/11.
PART I: CONTEXT
The University of Toronto
Approaching its second centennial, the University of Toronto is one of the largest
Universities in North America and respected as one of the foremost research-intensive
universities in the world (http://www.utoronto.ca/). The University has educated
hundreds of thousands of outstanding individuals who have gone on to leadership roles
around the world and in every walk of life. As well, the University of Toronto enjoys a
global reputation in multiple fields of scholarship. This in turn is a credit to the excellence
of past and present faculty and staff across all three campuses and in partner institutions,
including the great academic hospitals affiliated with the University.
Where we are going as an institution and how will that affect the built
environment?
Guiding the University’s activities going forward is our academic plan “Towards 2030”
(http://www.towards2030.utoronto.ca/). The 2030 document sets out strategic priorities
in enrolment, the student experience, the three campuses, funding, and how the university
is governed. In this plan, each of the University’s three campuses will be fundamentally
altered moving forward. The plan sees the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses
significantly growing in undergraduate student population while the St. George campus
will grow in terms of graduate students which will be offset, in total population, by a
reduction in undergraduate students. Realizing the 2030 plan will result in significant
change to the built environment on all three campuses. All campuses will see new buildings
being built and old buildings being modified to meet new demands.
Notwithstanding the ambitions noted in Towards 2030, it is important to note that all three
University of Toronto campuses’ built environments are well below the space standards
established by the Council on Ontario Universities (COU). Moving towards the
recommended space standards for the University will require the acquisition of more
buildings or increased density on the buildings already within the campuses.
Page 1
St. George Campus
Overview of the University of Toronto’s St. George Campus
College and University campuses are unique in terms of the variety and complexity of their
facilities operations. Perhaps no other type of organization under one management has a
more diverse facility infrastructure. At the St. George campus, in the heart of downtown
Toronto, we serve a student population of over 58,000 – one of the largest single campus
student populations in North America. Daily occupancy can exceed 75,000 people placing
St. George in line with the 75th largest municipality in Canada by population.
Due to the sheer size, extensive district energy system, diversity and complexity of the built
environment, the St. George Campus is often described as a “city within a city”. We manage
over 120 buildings that are widely diverse in age, size, design and function. Building
functions include: residences, athletic facilities, lecture halls and classroom buildings, office
buildings, high tech research facilities, laboratory facilities, and art galleries. Ages of the
buildings range from new facilities to buildings that are 155 years old. Many of our campus
buildings have heritage designations with 36 being over one‐hundred years old. Campus
buildings vary broadly in scale as well, ranging from a few thousand to over one million
gross square feet. Beyond the significant diversity of the portfolio, the St. George campus
has an extensive district energy system which supplies heat, electricity, and chilled water
to most of the campus buildings through kilometres of underground tunnels. The St.
George District Energy System (DES) allows the University at St. George to maximize the
efficiencies that are inherent in a centralized district energy system as well as take
advantage of bulk energy purchasing to save money.
The campus is a dynamic place with growing research and academic activities that will
translate into new buildings and major renovations. Correspondingly, overall energy and
water use will grow too. Our challenge is to make that growth as efficient as possible by
reducing the energy and water use per square metre ratio as low as possible.
Over the past 10 years, we have been very successful in reducing the overall energy
intensity of our buildings through innovative new building designs and major retrofits, and
by undertaking dozens of energy reduction projects.
Please see figure 1 in the following page for a graphical representation of the St. George
Campus’ Historical eCO2/GSM and Carbon Emissions.
Page 2
Figure 1: University of Toronto – St. George Campus
Historical eCO2/GSM and Carbon Emissions - Owned and Operated Buildings
Page 3
Profile of Campus Operations – St. George Campus
The means by which energy is procured, produced and distributed to the end users on the
St. George Campus has evolved over many decades as the portfolio of buildings, their
technologies and their functions have grown and evolved. One could expect that a campus
located deep within the downtown core of a major city would depend heavily on available
public services such as Toronto Hydro and Enbridge Gas with each building as an
individual customer. While this is true for buildings purchased from other owners or
where geography does not allow, the majority of the campus is served by a district energy
system that pre-dates much of the public infrastructure, producing and distributing heat,
cooling and electricity. This century-old strategy has provided the University with
opportunities for operating efficiencies and bulk commodity purchases of gas and power
that would not exist for other owners.
District Energy System (DES): Central energy and heat generation has many advantages,
including:
The same level of reliability can be achieved with less equipment, staff time, and
costs. For instance, if a campus had 10 isolated buildings, they would have to each
have one operating boiler and one standby in case of failure for a total of 20 boilers
or twice the required capacity. If, alternatively, they were connected to a district
energy plant, that plant could have perhaps three boilers of which one was a standby
in case one of the others failed. The total capacity of the plant would be significantly
less, with fewer pieces of equipment to maintain, but with the same reliability.
Fewer boilers and chillers = less staffing required = less operating expenses.
A larger plant allows for the purchase of gas at cheaper rates than smaller plants.
A centralized plant allows technologies such as combined heat and power (i.e.
cogeneration), steam absorption chilling or condensing heat recovery to be more
easily incorporated into the system for improved overall efficiency.
This centralized approach to energy administration has facilitated continuing efforts over
the years to conserve these commodities, originally after the OPEC oil embargo in the
1970s when there was a perceived scarcity of fuel, and again, now, to counter climate
change from greenhouse gases. However, alongside our efforts to reduce usage is also the
reality that the St. George campus is a growing and dynamic place. New facilities are under
construction or existing ones are under renovation – the University being one of the most
active research institutions in North America.
Page 4
History of Conservation at the St. George Campus
The University of Toronto has been a pioneer in energy conservation and green activities
for decades. Originally triggered by the 1973 OPEC oil embargo but continuing because of
concern for global climate change, the concept of sustainability through energy and water
conservation and effective waste management has been written into University policy.
Please visit the following link to see a copy of the University Environmental Protection
Policy:
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Poli
cies/PDF/ppmar071994iii.pdf
Moreover, these good intentions have been turned into actions and results.
In 1912, the University commissioned one of the first district energy systems in
Canada.
Conservation efforts on all fronts, triggered by the OPEC oil embargo, have resulted
in the avoidance of over 1 million tonnes of greenhouse gas, saved over 79 billion
litres of water and over 200 million dollars in utility expenses since 1973.
Named as one of Canada’s Greenest Employers 2012 in recognition for its
commitment to creating a sustainable environment on campus.
For other notable U of T sustainability milestones, please see Appendix B
PART II: SUMMARY OF UTILITIES USE
This data is presented on the Facilities and Services website
http://www.sustain.fs.utoronto.ca/campus-footprint/ (click on detailed maps) as required
for O. Reg. 397/11.
Page 5
PART III: CONSERVATION & DEMAND PLAN (CDM)
Qualitative and quantitative goals
Five-year electricity CDM plan
The University is always planning projects to reduce its energy and power footprint
metrics. Over the last three years, we have been driving our energy footprint down through
improved metering, operational refining, energy use profiling and assessment. Many of
these will be implemented over the next one to three years and will result in improved
building stock as well as improved energy performance.
In order to understand how the energy and power is being used on our St. George campus,
for both new and retrofit projects, we utilize the recognized International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP) to gather the necessary data for
consistent evaluation as well as better track savings as a result of our energy conservation
measures. An important aspect of the IPMVP process is to establish a baseline of energy
use, usually as energy/gross square metres of floor area (kWh or MJ/GSM) then track ongoing energy use over time against this value. If changes to the operations, floor area,
building use, etc. are made after the baseline has been determined, a “baseline adjustment”
is completed and a new baseline will be created from which future assessment is done.
We will use the energy use in 2012 as our baseline year against which we will compare
future use. The goal is to continue to reduce the baseline energy use, which we have
achieved over the past decade, each year as we grow the operations and size of the campus.
We plan to continue to reduce energy usage of our buildings through innovative building
designs and major retrofits, and by undertaking projects which promote reduction in
energy use based on sound engineering and positive paybacks of funds expended.
This technique will be used to determine the savings potential for the projects we are
planning to implement as shown in the following table (please see figures 3, 4 and 5) over
the next 5 years. It must be recognized that the scope for each project on this list may vary
according to funding availability or changes to activities in any given project site. The
savings are estimated on the scope of work at the time of this document release.
Page 6
Figure 3: New Buildings and Planned Major Renovations and Additions to existing buildings over the next 5 years.
(The estimated capital costs and energy savings are shown. The capital costs do not include incentive funding where applicable)
Building
Description
Details
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
Fiscal Years in Five Year Plan
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
New
New
250,000
250,000
Capital Cost
Incl. in proj.
Savings (kWh)
50,000
60,000
160,000
160,000
Incl. in
project
150,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
$3,000,000
200,000
340,000
340,000
340,000
100,000
New Bldg.
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
Renovation
Net energy
will likely go
up but with
high energy
efficiency
$575,000
75,000
155,000
155,000
165,000
165,000
2014-15
Lash Miller
Chemical Labs
1 Spadina Crescent
Faculty of Law
Ramsay Wright
Zoological Labs
Jackman Institute
for Child Studies
Student Commons –
230 College St.
Library facility at
Downsview
Two new research floors will include 60-100 new
fume hoods. All new lab facilities and infrastructure
will be designed to use state of the art fume hood
technology as standard while ensuring appropriate
levels of environmental health and safety.
The historic portion of the building is being
renovated and a new wing will be added. CDM
measures include DOAS ventilation systems, new
BAS controls, radiant heating and cooling. Low
wattage lighting and occupancy controls with
daylight harvesting where appropriate.
The existing Law Library will be renovated and a
new wing added. CDM measures include low
wattage lighting and controls, occupancy controls,
daylight harvesting where appropriate and BAS tied
to the enterprise management system.
Progressive renovations are planned including the
undergraduate labs, fume hoods, HVAC , lighting
and new controls
Three properties are being combined with linking of
two existing buildings and connected new
construction. CDM measures include high efficiency
windows, lighting, controls and HVAC
Renovations to the old Architecture Building which
will introduce air conditioning and food services
where there was none before. This will add to the
electrical and thermal footprint. The designs will
follow high efficiency standards with new BAS
controls.
A second module will be added adjacent to the
existing module. CDM measures include new BAS
integrated with the HVAC and the enterprise
management system.
Capital Cost
Incl. in
project
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
$6,000,000
2018-19
250,000
New Bldg.
Page 7
Figure 4: New Construction
Building
Goldring Centre for
High Performance
Sport
Description
State of the art athletic facility that includes CDM
measures such as efficient fluorescent lamps, LED,
distributed DDC, sub-metering for M&V plan and
high efficiency air conditioning equipment, BAS
integrated to the enterprise management system.
High-rise tower on
Devonshire Place
Centre for
Engineering
Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
Major Renovations
and ECM Projects
BAS Migration
Edward Johnson
HVAC and BAS
Expand pneumatic
to DDC thermostat
controls
conversion
High Bay lighting
High efficiency
filter replacement
Sub-metering at 15
buildings
Earth Sciences
Centre
Details
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
2014-15
New Bldg.
650,000
Capital Cost
State of the art, LEED Gold design standards with
Toronto Green Standards, tier 2, with high efficiency
triple glazing, high R-value walls and roof, low
wattage lights, occupancy controls, high efficiency
air conditioning and integrated BAS with the
enterprise management system.
Install new or replace legacy BAS with state of the
art BAS technologies in multiple buildings for
refined control and scheduling. Following improved
BAS migration strategy and Design Standards.
Integrated with the enterprise management system.
Improve HVAC systems and install state of the art
BAS for refined control and scheduling and will be
integrated with the enterprise management system.
Expansion of the existing conversion program at
OISE and MSB for pneumatic thermostats to state of
the art direct digital controls and migrate to the
enterprise BAS network for better space control and
monitoring.
Replace old fluorescent and some incandescent
lights with LED in lecture halls
Remove old pre-filters and replace with high
efficiency, low pressure drop, longer life cycle filters
and reduce fan electricity.
Install electrical and thermal sub-meters in 15
buildings for M&T energy saving program
Install fan coil controls to turn the coils off as well
as the lights when the rooms are not occupied and
connect to the enterprise BAS network.
Fiscal Years in Five Year Plan
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
New Bldg.
800,000
900,000
900,000
New Bldg.
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
New Bldg.
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
2018-19
900,000
New Bldg.
350,000
400,000
400,000
New Bldg.
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
$880,000
500,000
750,000
500,000
1,000,000
1,800,000
1,800,000
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
$375,000
100,000
180,000
190,000
190,000
200,000
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
$250,000
190,000
$150,000
275,000
350,000
350,000
350,000
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
$50,000
125,000
$360,000
900,000
130,000
$180,000
950,000
140,000
140,000
140,000
990,000
990,000
990,000
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
$980,000
1,250,000
$285,000
100,000
2,500,000
2,800,000
2,800,000
2,800,000
175,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
Page 8
Figure 5: CDM Measures in Existing Buildings
Building
Medical Sciences
Description
Installation of VFDs and BAS improvements.
Installation of pneumatic to DDC thermostats
Ontario Institute
for Studies in
Education
Installation of VFDs and BAS improvements.
Installation of pneumatic to DDC thermostats
Robarts Library
Installation of VFDs, improved fan motors, lighting
controls and BAS.
Lash Miller
Chemical Labs
Clara Benson
Building
Fisher Rare Books
Library
Class Use
scheduling
Various
Various
Improved control of ventilation in undergraduate
labs.
Replacement of fluorescent lighting in gymnasium
with high bay LED.
Replacement of T-12 lighting with LED.
Adjust scheduling of classrooms in summer to
minimize energy use.
Replace traditional felt and asphalt roofs with
reflective cool roofs.
Development operating protocol to reduce demand
during Global Adjustment peak days and DR3 calls
Details
Fiscal Years in Five Year Plan
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Capital Cost
2014-15
Complete
Savings (kWh)
5,320,000
Capital Cost
Complete
Savings (kWh)
3,026,000
Capital Cost
$1,600,000
Savings (kWh)
500,000
Capital Cost
~$8,000,000
Savings (kWh)
100,000
Capital Cost
$75,000
Savings (kWh)
80,000
Capital Cost
$220,000
Savings (kWh)
340,000
Capital Cost
$35,000
Savings (kWh)
150,000
200,000
Savings (kWh)
15,000
Capital Cost
Savings (kWh)
2018-19
5,320,000
5,320,000
5,320,000
5,320,000
3,100,000
3,120,000
3,120,000
3,120,000
4,600,000
4,700,000
4,700,000
4,700,000
830,000
830,000
840,000
840,000
90,000
93,000
93,000
93,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
360,000
200,000
250,000
250,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$85,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
$30,000
Capital Cost
Page 9
Strategic Planning
Several initiatives have contributed to recent success in reducing our environmental footprint over the
past decade including:
All major renovation and new construction projects must have representation from Facilities and
Services on project planning committees and design committees in order to provide input on
sustainability opportunities and integration of energy conservation measures on Capital Projects.
Improved Design Standards that encompass building sectors such as mechanical, electrical, roofing
and controls that regulates products and methods used in construction projects and take
advantage of new but tried technologies. This includes building automation systems, enterprise
management and lighting systems.
The “new” budget model that has been in place for several years now pays for utilities from money
deducted from the revenues of academic divisions. These budgets are based on the measured
volumes of utilities actually used in the building. Divisions are, therefore, encouraged to support
energy conservation programs within their facilities, sometimes with funding contributions.
Funding for conservation projects is more readily available from a number of sources, both
internal and external:
o Energy Management Reduction Fund (EMRF) – this fund is intended to support small
projects initiated by faculty, staff or student groups with a maximum contribution of
$75,000 and the balance coming from the division. Projects are typically motion sensors on
lighting, water saving measures, insulation audits, blower door tests, small lighting
retrofits, occupancy controls and window film. The fund currently totals $500,000.
o Utilities Reduction Revolving Fund (URRF) – this fund started in 2013 with $4 million
dollars and is intended to support projects with a maximum 5 year payback. Examples
include installation of variable frequency drives on fans and new Building Automation
Systems in OISE and Robarts Library. Its objectives are:
 To remove financial impediments to projects with savings potential over a multiyear payback timeline;
 To significantly reduce greenhouse gas and utility resources used by the three
campuses – specifically natural gas, electricity and water;
 To educate and engage building occupants on the projects being undertaken and
opportunities surrounding sustainable activities which will lead to reduce resource
usage;
 To address deferred maintenance within the scope of the project where possible.
o Deferred Maintenance funds and Utilities Infrastructure Renewal Funds (UIRF) are
intended to replace and/or renew equipment and systems past its service life. Many times,
this process will also result in improvements in the efficiency of the building.
Page 10
o Financial incentives from public agencies such as the Ontario Power Authority,
administered through Toronto Hydro, or Enbridge Gas Distribution as well as the City of
Toronto. These have so far totalled $1,390,000 over the last 5 years. They have not only
provided financial support to individual projects but have also allowed the University to
hire two embedded energy managers to locate further energy conservation measures,
analyse project proposals and verify the savings.
Many outreach or behaviour modification programs have been initiated by the Sustainability
Office, designed to engage the faculty, staff and students at the St. George campus. These include:
o Green Ambassadors – a program with support modules to inspire administration and
faculty staff to promote energy and resource saving measures in their offices. Such as
double-sided printing set up as a default setting, lights turned off when the room is not
occupied, use one side printed paper as “scratch paper”, recycling, and reduce the use of
paper cups. This program will be maintained and is on-going.
o ReWire - this program provides support modules and training for students in residences on
how to reduce energy and resource waste. Modules include recycling, turning off lights,
saving water, double-sided printing, re-use of scratch paper, etc. This program will be
maintained and is on-going.
o Bike Chain: A Facilities & Services supported non-profit group on campus that provides
repair services for the campus community and a bike lending program for short use biking
needs. They also prepare surveys on bike lock up and bike lane services on campus. The
use of this group has been consistently growing for the last 5 years and is now in a larger
F&S donated space with high efficiency lighting and programmable thermostats.
o “It’s Greener Here”: A campaign to promote the sustainability activities across campus in
the student, staff and faculty communities. A very successful Sustainability Yearbook was
released in 2014 to highlight the efforts leading to a more sustainable mindset on campus.
o Green Ribbon Awards: An annual awards ceremony that rewards people or groups
recognized as having contributed to sustainable measures, programs and projects.
o Green Gala: In concert with the Green Ribbon Awards, this event promotes the success
stories of sustainability efforts across the campus.
o Energy Usage Dashboards: Dashboards that illustrate energy performance in buildings has
been a part of our migration to a more informed campus population. Any new or large
retrofit projects include an easily accessible dashboard that shows energy use in lay-person
terms.
o Sustainability website: The F&S website has a link to the Sustainability Office which is the
hub for sustainability initiatives on campus. The Sustainability site is managed by the
Sustainability Office staff and presents information, guidance and articles related to
sustainability initiatives, “Faces of Sustainability” and success stories across the campus.
Page 11
Renewables
The St. George campus is an urban collection of buildings. We installed an extensive solar hot water
heating system for the Warren Stevens Athletic Building which contributes about 15% of the annual
thermal load for over 3 years. As a large urban campus, there are more than 100 buildings here and not
all are eligible for renewable energy application (other than more passive systems such as daylight
harvesting). Realistically, only solar and possibly some small rooftop wind technologies can be applied
here. We do not have the space for biomass and much of the land on campus is “busy” with infrastructure
systems to consider ground source energy systems. We have installed two photovoltaic systems on the
campus - one on the roof of the Lassonde Mining building and another on the roof of the Architecture
Building which will be a test bed for an integrated green roof/PV system which will offset the electricity
in that building (behind the meter). A small PV/wind system has been installed on the Galbraith Building
to assess the issues around grid tie-in. Consideration is being given for a 50 kW roof mounted system on
the pending new engineering building. Solar thermal (air) systems are being considered and evaluated
for some of the buildings not on the St. George campus as well as a solar pool water heating system which
are still in early development.
The challenge with renewables on campus is that the age of many of the buildings makes rooftop PV
difficult without major structural enhancements. It is also still difficult to connect small on-site
generation to the grid due to hurdles with the local distribution company and related entity requirements
along with grid capacity locally. We will follow the grid tie-in rules and programs to assess the
opportunities for renewable energy generation on campus, in particular for “behind the meter” projects.
At this time however, the financing is difficult to justify without more incentives or support when
compared to reducing the energy use first.
Implementation of plan
Consideration for any potential conservation projects are based on sound engineering and accounting
principles. A baseline energy profile is established. Capital costs and energy savings are estimated,
internally or with the assistance of external engineering firms. Any financial incentives for which the
project may be eligible are identified. The simple payback and the ROI can be used as a gauge of the
project’s priority however; pure financial return may be tempered or improved with consideration of
other factors, such as:
Will there be other planned renovation work going on at the same time, which will make the
implementation of the conservation measures easier or will provide an opportunity to implement
them and eliminate the need to disrupt the occupants for a second time? An example of this would
be the replacement of traditional felt and asphalt roofing with the University’s standard for cool
roofs coordinated with a major renovation project, prior to the installation of new HVAC
equipment on the roof.
Will the implementation of the CDM result in the elimination of some of the high priority deferred
renewal backlog by replacing old equipment or infrastructure? This could justify a contribution
from either the Deferred Maintenance or Utilities Infrastructure Renewal funds. Bundling renewal
projects with conservation projects having good ROIs can also result in a combination with
reasonable overall financial returns. In this way, the project can then be looked upon as achieving
Page 12
unavoidable renewal but with an actual financial return. In this case, a longer than usual payback
is quite acceptable. An example of this was the $20 million program to replace 18 CFC refrigerant
chillers as required by legislation. The low ROI chiller replacement was bundled together with a
large fluorescent lighting replacement project with a good ROI. Ordinarily, the chiller replacement
would have been financed gradually over many years as funds became available. Combined with
the financial return from the lighting work, a positive cash flow was estimated making financing
feasible so that the project could be accomplished in a short period of time.
Will the implementation of the CDM affect the activities of the occupants of the building? What is
the current work load of the O&M staff carrying out the implementation? Careful planning is
required to ensure successful implementation in a short period of time with minimal disruption to
the academic mission of the building occupants. Dialogue with all parties involved is an essential
aspect of that planning process.
Monitoring and evaluation
The University of Toronto will reference and adopt the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocols (IPMVP) as the methods to develop, define and assess energy and power
performance metrics across the campus. Accurate determination of energy savings will allow the
operations teams to adjust facilities management to deliver higher and reliable levels of energy savings,
persistence of savings over time and reduced variability of savings.
In order to fully comprehend our campus’ energy profile, we must first understand where and how the
energy is being used in each building. Our plan includes the establishment of energy baselines from
which we will develop performance metrics that can be evaluated on an ongoing basis. The data to
generate these metrics (kWh/ GSM, mmBTU/HDD, etc) will be gathered from our network of sub-meters
that measure electricity, steam, natural gas, water, chilled water and hot water across the campus. The
IPMVP provides us with an industry standard framework for calculating energy reductions before
(baseline) and after the implementation of projects. Energy or demand savings are determined by
comparing measured energy use or demand using the following:
Energy Savings = Base Year Energy Use – Post-retrofit Energy Use ± Adjustments
(Adjustments being used to bring the energy use in the two periods to the same set of condition, such as
weather, occupancy, equipment operations)
For most of the projects on Campus – new, retrofit, upgrade and renovation, we will be using:
A. Partially Measured Retrofit Isolation
B. Retrofit Isolation
C. Whole Facility
With the IPMVP process, we will prepare annual performance metrics (after correcting for baseline
adjustments) and compare them year over year. It is our intention to reduce the energy intensity each
year through energy conservation measures and track such using the IPMVP process. Our goal is to have
all our project designs follow sound engineering practices around high efficiency standards leading to
long term positive financial and environmental results for quality spaces conducive to increased R&D and
graduate student activity planned for the next 16 years.
Page 13
Appendices
Appendix A: Campus maps showing electricity, heat and cooling source of
supply
Appendix B: Facilities and Services Sustainability Milestones
Appendix A
Campus Maps Showing Electricity, Heat and Cooling Source of Supply
Appendix B
Facilities and Services Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
F&S Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
1912
1981
1991
Opening of the Central Steam Plant
The second university district energy
system in Canada
1964
Central Steam Plant
moved off coal to oil and natural gas
1973
First Lighting Retrofit
1977
Hired first full-time energy manager
1979
Pioneered an in-house building control system
1989
Installed motion detectors to flush urinals across
campus saving large volumes of water
1990
U of T established an annual $250,000 energy
management fund to support energy
reduction initiatives.
Installed 20,000 phantom fluorescent
tubes across campus
Started institution-wide recycling
program, one of the very first universities
in Canada to do so!
1993
1994
1995
Lighting retrofit
Replaced T12 light fixtures with
high efficiency lighting —
replaced a total of 190,000
lamps!
Co-generation system installed
U of T adopted its University Environmental
Protection Policy — one of the first institutions in
North America to develop one.
F&S Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
(continued)
2000
Flue gas heat-recovery system is
installed to harvest heat from exhaust
gases going up the chimney at the Steam
Plant.
Resources Canada gave U of T its
2003 Natural
prestigious Energy Efficiency Award for
energy innovators in recognition of our
commitment to energy efficiency and
reducing GHG emissions.
2002
Bahen Centre for Information Technology
Building (BCIT) connected to the flue gas heatrecovery system becoming the first building to be
100% heated with energy that would otherwise
have gone up the chimney.
2004
Sustainability Office established with
academic and student representation.
2005
2006
Campus Moving replaced three gasoline
vehicles with three natural gas vehicles.
Campus Police purchased their first hybrid car
making U of T the first Canadian university to own
a hybrid vehicle.
Washroom upgrades started on
St. George campus with cuttingedge sustainable standards:
energy efficient lighting, durable
materials for long life and handsfree devices to reduce water
consumption and improve
hygiene.
Green Cleaning and
Sustainable Roofing Standard
were introduced. Visit
http://www.fs.utoronto.ca/caretaking
/green.htm for more details regarding
the green cleaning program
F&S Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
(continued)
2007
Sustainability Board was established
at the Assistant Vice-President level.
2008
F&S established a work from home program. Virtual
workers share a workstation at their home base.
U of T banned the use of
incandescent light
bulbs saving $400,000
per year.
Undertook a $20M energy reduction project changed 80,000 lamps with high-efficiency T8 lighting
and 18 stand-alone chillers containing ozone-depleting
CFCs with high-efficiency chillers
U of T St. George Campus
received the City of
Toronto Environmental
Award of Excellence which
recognized our
Sustainability Office’s
Rewire Energy Campaign
and our $20 million
Energy Reduction Project
2009
The Exam Centre became U of T’s first LEED Gold Certified project.
This project established a new U of T office standard combining
high-performance green building features with best practice
interior design elements creating a work environment which is
both extremely efficient and effective.
Our Sustainability Office won a national award from the Canadian
Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO). We were
awarded the CAUBO Quality and Productivity Award for
developing Rewire.
The University installed the
largest solar thermal
array in the Greater
Toronto Area at the Warren
Stevens Athletic Centre.
Began retrofitting 2,000 exterior
wall lamps with LED and induction
technology designed to use 40%
less energy and last longer than
conventional high-pressure sodium
lamps.
F&S Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
(continued)
2010
Revised University Environmental
Protection Policy (UEPP) approved
http://www.governingcouncil.utoron
to.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digi
tal+Assets/Policies/PDF/ppmar0719
94iii.pdf
U-Compost Program
started by U of T Food
and Beverage Services
2011
MSB “de-lamping” Project:
By adjusting lighting levels in the
Medical Sciences Building and
removing some lighting fixtures
and lamps in the corridors, we
saved 34,800 kWh annually. This
initiative was brought to F&S by a
professor within the Medical
Science Building.
Re-commissioning of 246 Bloor
Street West
Cistern installation at the Mining
Building and South Borden Building
Utilities Sub-Metering
pilot projects completed.
This helps F&S determine
specific energy profiles for
individual buildings to help
building occupants be
aware of their conservation
efforts.
Installed a Sustainability Kiosk located in the lobby of
the Exam Centre detailing remarkable record of
sustainable activities, projects and initiatives all the way
back from 1973.
Purchase of three electric vehicles to replace old gasoline-run
vehicles for F&S fleet.
Survey of steam traps resulting in an annual thermal saving of
2,134mmBTU
Automated Irrigation System
This system has saved us
23,520,278 litres of water between
the summers of 2011 and 2012
alone — an equivalent of
approximately 10 of the Athletic
Centre Pools!
Electronic Sub-Metering Phase I
completed
Replacement of water-cooled A/C units with air-cooled units.
71.4% diversion rate
The highest one to date and
one of the highest of any
North American institution!
F&S Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
(continued)
2012 Launched the Utility Reduction
Revolving Fund (URRF) — a green
revolving fund for the built environment.
The main intent of the fund is to provide
comprehensive funding to support and
stimulate projects that will result in
reducing the University’s environmental
footprint and provide utilities savings with
a maximum 5 year payback.
2013
100th anniversary of U of T’s District Energy System
In 2012, the University of
Toronto St. George Campus
celebrated the centennial of one
of Canada’s first institutional
district energy systems
Pilot Project for URRF Chemistry Undergrad
Scheduling Project
completed
Move of Bike Chain
The North Borden Building
at 563 Spadina Avenue
(Room 109/109A) became
Bikechain’s new home –
renovated and provided by
Facilities & Services
Hired an Embedded
Energy Manager in
partnership with
Toronto Hydro
Another cistern installation at the Swap Shop
Named as one of Canada’s Greenest Employers
Medical Science Building Major HVAC retrofit
Completed LED/Induction Exterior Lighting
Retrofit Project
Installation of cutting-edge variable speed drive fan
technology, improved building automation, and wireless
room level thermostatic controls in the Medical Science
Building (MSB) will drastically reduce the building’s annual
energy consumption and will save more than $1 million
annually
First URRF project: OISE Building Automation System
This project will provide
more consistent indoor air
quality for the number of
people in OISE (Ontario
Institute for Studies in
Education) and at a reduced
energy cost. Estimated
savings are $361,250/year
with a 2.4 year simple
payback.
F&S Sustainability Milestones
1912-2014
(continued)
2014
First year anniversary celebration of the
MSB Energy Reduction Project
So far the most successful energy reduction project
ever undertaken at the U of T St. George campus to
date, the $1.5 million initiative included $587,000 in
incentives from Toronto Hydro and Enbridge Gas
bringing the net cost of the project to $913,000.
Project annual savings is more than $1 million as
verified by M&V program and sub-meters.
http://www.sustain.fs.utoronto.ca/news/2014-0327_FuelingResearchSavingEnergy.html
http://www.sustain.fs.utoronto.ca/news/pdfs/MSBpo
ster24x30.pdf
First Sustainability Yearbook Launch
The first Sustainability Yearbook was launched at the
2014 Green Ribbon Awards ceremony. The
Sustainability Yearbook features an opening message
from President Meric Gertler and sustainability
highlights from the St. George campus.
Please visit the following link to view a full copy:
http://www.sustain.fs.utoronto.ca/news/pdfs/20132014Sustainability_Yearbook.pdf
For a comprehensive list of our sustainability milestones, visit: http://www.sustain.fs.utoronto.ca/sustainability-timeline/