Commission scolaire des Patriotes

Transcription

Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (‘’GHG’’)
reduction project – Educational Institution’s GHG Emission
Reductions from energy conservation grouped project
August 14, 2014
Service de vérification Carbon Quantum Inc
76 Morley, Greenfield Park, Québec, J4V 2Y9
Tél: 514-891-6799;
[email protected]; www.carbonquantum.com
August 14, 2014
Mr. Jean-François Rondeau
Ingénieur mécanique du bâtiment et efficacité énergétique
1740 Roberval
Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Québec, J3V 3R3
Dear Sir:
Subject: Verification report on a greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) reduction project
Please find enclosed our verification report on a GHG emissions reduction project performed at 1740
Roberval, Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Québec, J3V 3R3.
The quantification report that is subject to our verification is included in Appendix 2.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information you may require.
Yours truly,
Roger Fournier CPA, CA
GHG Lead Verifier
Tél: 514-891-6799;
Draft Report
Mr. Jean-François Rondeau
Ingénieur mécanique du bâtiment et efficacité énergétique
1740 Roberval
Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Québec, J3V 3R3
Dear Sir:
We have been engaged by Commission scolaire des Patriotes to perform the verification of a GHG Emissions
Reduction project performed at 1740 Roberval, Saint-Bruno-de Montarville, Québec as an independent third
party verifier
We have verified the accompanying greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction quantification report
entitled “Educational Institution’s GHG Emission Reductions from energy conservation grouped project at
schools of Commission scolaire des Patriotes’’ – Greenhouse Gas Project Report for the Period from January
1st, 2002 to December 31st, 2012’’ (the “quantification report”). This quantification report dated August 13,
2014 is included in Appendix 2 of our report which is intended to be posted on CSA’s GHG CleanProject
TM registry.
Management is responsible for the relevance, consistency, transparency, conservativeness, completeness,
accuracy and method of presentation of the quantification report. This responsibility includes the design,
implementation and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG emissions
reduction quantification report that is free from material misstatements. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our verification.
Commission Scolaire des Patriotes (CSP)
CSP’s mission is to promote and enhance public education and ensure the quality of the education, effective
management of financial, human and material resources. The school board includes 64 schools and training
centers and eight support services for establishments for a total of 75 buildings in 21 municipalities of the
Monteregie region.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
The emissions reduction project
The project is located at 1740 Roberval, Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Québec, J3V 3R3, Latitude 45o 52’ 39’’ N
and Longitude 73o 34’ 03’’ W.
Buildings where a project have been implemented are all in the same region, their latitude and longitude does
not change significantly from one to the next. The coordinates for the head office of CSP have been used for
the 8 buildings.
The project achieves GHG emissions reduction since it makes possible to consume less fossil fuel because of
improvement in the overall energy efficiency and energy switches from oil combustion to natural gas
combustion.
These energy efficiency and fuel switch measures are additional to a baseline scenario which is the status quo
situation, meaning that CSP would not have implemented any energy efficiency measures and fuel switches in
the 8 buildings under its management.
The baseline scenario and the project scenario deliver the same type and level of product service (i.e. they are
functionally equivalent) in a sense that they both meet the energetic needs and provide sufficient heat to
assure comfort and decent life quality inside the buildings.
At CSP the project implementation began in 2002 and started to reduce GHG emissions in 2002. The
expected life time of this project as per page 8 of the attached quantification report should be as long as the
new equipment last and as long as the project respects the principal of additionality.
This is the first verification report to be issued for this project. As of this report, we have no indication from
the client on its intentions to update annually over the next few years its GHG project.
The main GHG sources for the project are from electricity, natural gas and light fuel oil consumptions. The
various gases involved at CSP and related to this project are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O).
The project was under the responsibility of Mr. Jean-François Rondeau, Ingénieur mécanique du bâtiment et
efficacité énergétique. Mr. Rondeau was also responsible for the data collection and monitoring.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
The quantification report
The quantification report was prepared by National Ecocredit, in accordance with ISO 14064-2 “Specification
with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal
enhancement (2006)”.
The quantification is done by using as a guide the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology
proposed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) titled: AMS-II.E.
version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings. This methodology is appropriate because it
includes any energy efficiency and fuel switch measures implemented in buildings and this corresponds to the
projects implemented by CSP
Although the quantification method consists essentially of multiplying appropriate emission factors to the
total consumption of different types of energy (natural gas, electricity and light fuel oil), the quantifier has
added two more elements to his quantification by taking into account the impact of weather conditions and
the size of the buildings. Therefore, energy consumptions are ‘’standardized’’ by the means of heating degree
days (HDD) ratio plus the impact of the changes in the size of the buildings.
The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emissions reductions was one of comparing
the GHG emissions generated by various sources of emissions included in the baseline scenario, being the
natural gas, electricity and light fuel oil consumption with those resulting from the project scenario, being also
the emissions generated by the natural gas, electricity and light fuel oil consumption. The quantifier
determined the GHG emissions for every source of energy by using appropriate emission factors multiplied
by the consumption of every GHG source
The emission factors have been chosen from the National Inventory Report 1990-2011, Greenhouse Gas Sources
and Sinks in Canada.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
The verification team
Before undertaking this assignment we ensured there were no conflicts of interest that could impair our ability
to express an opinion and the conflict of interest form was completed and is included in Appendix 1 to this
report. We also ensured we had the skills, competencies and appropriate training to perform this specific
assignment.
The Verifier assigned to this audit work was:
Roger Fournier CPA, CA, Lead verifier.
Roger Fournier has received the CSA ISO 14064-3 training and has performed, over the last seven years,
audits for similar projects. Over the last seven years, Mr. Fournier has been involved in the audit of more than
90 projects and most of them as a Lead Verifier.
The verification work
Standards:
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with guidance for
the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006). This standard requires that we plan and perform the
verification to obtain either a reasonable assurance or a limited assurance about whether the emission
reductions declaration that is contained in the attached quantification report is fairly stated, is free of material
misstatements, is an appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of CSP and the materiality
threshold has not been reached or exceeded
Scope:
A reasonable assurance engagement with respect to a GHG statement involves performing procedures to
obtain evidence about the quantification of emissions, and about the other information disclosed as part of
the statement. Our verification procedures were selected based on professional judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement in the GHG statement. In making those risk assessments, we
considered internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation of the GHG statement.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
Our engagement also included:

Assessing processes and control over data.

Evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies used and the
reasonableness of necessary estimates made by CSP

Identifying GHG sources sinks and reservoirs, types of GHG involved and time periods when emissions
occurred.

Establishing quantitative materiality thresholds and assessing compliance of results to these thresholds

Ensuring ownership of the project by observing that all reductions are obtained directly by the client.
Level of assurance:
It was agreed with CSP’s representatives that a reasonable assurance level of opinion would be issued and we
planned and executed our work accordingly. Consequently, our verification included those procedures we
considered necessary in the circumstances to obtain a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Planning:
At the planning phase of this verification assignment, we assessed the quantification report in order to
understand the major processes of CSP’s operations, the different production or operation stages with the
purpose of assessing the complexity of the operation. We then made a first assessment of the inherent risk.
We also got information on CSP’s internal control with the purpose of assessing our first evaluation of
control risk and detection risk for this assignment. We also assessed the emission sources and GHG involved.
A verification plan and sampling plan have been prepared and designed to mitigate the detection risk
Our verification plan establishes, among others, the terms of the engagement, level of assurance, objectives,
criteria, scope and materiality threshold. Various other steps are also described in our verification plan as the
first documents necessary for the conduct of the audit. These documents allow us to corroborate various
elements of different monitoring systems. The audit plan also includes discussions with various stakeholders
at CSP to ensure that different controls are in place.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
2
Assessing Materiality:
Materiality is an amount that, if omitted or misstated, will influence the reader of the report in his decision
making. Materiality is defined by the lead verifier in accordance with the agreed level of assurance. This
materiality is also based on professional judgment and risk assessment.
The materiality for this project is 5% of declared emission reductions
The inherent risk, control risk and detection risk were assessed at an acceptable level for verification purposes.
Sampling Plan:
Our sampling plan included the verification of natural gas consumptions for the years 2002 to 2012. This
verification was done by reviewing the natural gas invoices. Our sampling plan also included the verification
of building sizes. During our verification, our sampling plan was not modified.
Execution:
A draft of the quantification report was submitted to us on August 28, 2013. Our initial review of the
documentation was undertaken on September 23, 2013 and a verification plan was prepared. We then toured
CSP’s premises on October 17, 2013. In doing so we interviewed Mr. Jean-François Rondeau, Ingénieur
mécanique du bâtiment et efficacité énergétique and Mr Guy Rousseau who works with Mr. Rondeau in the
Material Resources Service at CSP.
This visit allowed us, among others, to reassess our audit risks, to get a good comprehension of the different
productions stages and also to confirm the emission sources and GHG involved. The final quantification
report is dated August 13, 2014
We have identified each monitoring system that may have an effect on the data used for emissions reduction
calculations. During the course of our audit, we have received all available requested information from the
staff responsible for data input and reporting out of these systems (Mr. Rondeau) and the control procedures
were described and assessed. All reports used in the calculation were reconciled to the calculations.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
We have assessed, among others the appropriatness of using the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
methodology titled: AMS-III.E.version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings as a guide to
build the quantification and we agree with it. We also assessed the appropriateness of using the National
Inventory Report 1990-2011 for emissions factors and we agree with it.
The materiality level, which has been established at 5% of the declared emissions reductions has not been
exceeded. All findings were listed, valued and compared to the established materiality level.
Criteria:
1. The attached quantification report is in conformance with the requirements and principles of ISO 140642
2. The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
3. The baseline scenario is appropriate
4. The supporting data are subject to sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate and should not
cause any material discrepancy
5. The calculation supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and accurate
and should not cause any material discrepancy
6. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded
7. There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the resulting emission
reductions or removals.
8. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime of the project is well stated
Tél: 514-891-6799;
Reasonable assurance opinion
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with guidance for
the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006).
In our opinion:
1.
The quantification report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard: Specification with guidance at
the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements
(2006), and the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and
conservativeness have been respected.
2.
The approach and methodologies used for the quantification are appropriate.
3.
The baseline scenario is appropriate.
4.
The client’s data controls management system is appropriate.
5.
The quantification report and the GHG assertion are free of material misstatements and are an
appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Client.
6.
The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded.
7.
To our knowledge, there are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the
resulting emission reductions or removals
8.
The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated
9.
The GHG emission reductions presented in the quantification report entitled “Educational Institution’s
GHG Emission Reductions from energy conservation grouped project at schools of Commission
scolaire des Patriotes’’ – Greenhouse Gas Project Report for the Period from January 1st, 2002 to
December 31st, 2012’’ and dated August 13, 2014 are, in all material respect, fairly stated at 268 tCO2e for
the period between January 1st, 2002 to December 31st, 2002, 856 tCO2e for the period from January 1st,
2003 to December 31st, 2003, 838 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2004 to December 31st, 2004,
927 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2005 to December 31st, 2005, 1506 tCO2e for the period from
January 1st, 2006 to December 31st, 2006, 931 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2007 to December
31st, 2007, 905 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2008 to December 31st, 2008, 900 tCO2e for the
period from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2009, 1554 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2010
to December 31st, 2010, 1296 tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2011, 1387
tCO2e for the period from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2012, and are additional to what would
have occurred in the baseline scenario.
Tél: 514-891-6799;
The following breakdown of those emission reductions for the years 2002 to 2012 is fairly stated (in units
of CO2e):
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
2002
272
-3
-1
268
2003
858
-3
1
856
2004
840
-3
1
838
2005
927
-3
3
927
2006
1502
-2
6
1506
2007
930
-2
3
931
2008
905
-2
2
905
2009
900
-2
2
900
2010
1550
-2
6
1554
2011
1294
-2
4
1296
2012
1384
-2
5
1387
Note: Other GHG such as PFC, HFC and SF6 are not accounted for because they are not specific to
Natural gas, electricity and light fuel oil consumptions
Tél: 514-891-6799;
Restricted usage and confidentiality
This verification report is produced to be used by the management of CSP and parties interested in the above
described GHG emissions reduction project. Reliance on the conclusions of this verification report for any
other usage may not be suitable.
The quantification report entitled : “Educational Institution’s GHG Emission Reductions from energy
conservation grouped project at schools of Commission scolaire des Patriotes’’ – Greenhouse Gas Project
Report for the Period from January 1st, 2002 to December 31st, 2012’’ and dated August 13, 2014 is an integral
part of this verification report and should in no circumstances be separated from it.
This verification report and the supporting work files are kept confidential and are available to the client on
request and will not be disclosed to anyone else unless compelled by law. They will be safeguarded for
10 years after which period they will be safely destroyed.
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA
Lead Verifier
Greenfield Park, August 14, 2014
Tél: 514-891-6799;
Appendix 1
Conflict of Interest Review
Client Name: Commission Scolaire des Patriotes
Report Identification: Verification Report on a GHG Reduction project entitled: “Educational Institution’s GHG Emission
Reductions from energy conservation grouped project at schools of Commission scolaire des Patriotes’’ – Greenhouse Gas Project
Report for the Period from January 1st, 2002 to December 31st, 2012’’
Date of report: August 14, 2014
Professional: Roger Fournier CPA, CA, Lead Verifier
I confirm the following:
Independence:
I remained independent of the activity being verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest and I maintained objectivity
throughout the verification to ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based on objective evidence generated during the
verification
Ethical conduct
I have demonstrated ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the verification process
Fair presentation
I have reflected truthfully and accurately verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports.
I have reported significant obstacles encountered during the verification process, as well as unresolved, diverging opinion with the
responsible party and the client
Due professional care
I have exercised due professional care and judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed and the confidence
placed by clients and intended users.
I have the necessary skills and competences to undertake the verification
-------------------------------------
August 14, 2014
-----------------------------
Tél: 514-891-6799;
APPENDIX 2
Tél: 514-891-6799;
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS’ GHG EMISSION
REDUCTIONS FROM ENERGY CONSERVATION
GROUPED PROJECT AT SCHOOLS OF COMMISSION
SCOLAIRE DES PATRIOTES
Greenhouse Gas Project Report
Period January 1st 2002 to December 31st 2012
Project proponent:
Prepared by:
Commission Scolaire des Patriotes
Siège social
1740, rue Roberval
Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville (Qc)
J3V 3R3
National Ecocredit
1100, René-Lévesque West
(Office 1310)
Montreal QC
H3B 4N4
August 13st, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... iv
SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF ................................................................................................ 5
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 6
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 8
2.1.
Project title .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2.
Objectives ........................................................................................................... 8
2.3.
Project lifetime .................................................................................................... 8
2.4.
Type of GHG project .......................................................................................... 8
2.5.
Location .............................................................................................................. 8
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation................................................................. 10
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions or
removal enhancements ..................................................................................... 10
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of activity ........... 10
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements likely to occur
from the GHG project....................................................................................... 12
2.10.
Identification of risks ........................................................................................ 12
2.11.
Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 13
2.11.1.
2.11.2.
2.11.3.
2.11.4.
Project proponent and representative ...................................................... 13
Monitoring and data collection ............................................................... 13
Quantification and reporting responsible entity ...................................... 13
Authorized project contact ...................................................................... 14
2.12.
Project eligibility under the GHG program ...................................................... 14
2.13.
Environmental impact assessment .................................................................... 14
2.14.
Stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-going communication ....... 14
2.15.
Detailed chronological plan .............................................................................. 14
2.16.
Ownership ......................................................................................................... 15
3.
SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESSMENT OF
ADDITIONALITY ......................................................................................................... 16
4.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS
AND RESERVOIRS ....................................................................................................... 18
5.
QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS ............ 21
2002-2012 GHG Report
ii
5.1.
Baseline and Project GHG emissions ............................................................... 22
5.2.
Emission reductions .......................................................................................... 24
5.3.
Emission factors ................................................................................................ 24
5.4.
Global warming potential (GWP) ..................................................................... 25
6.
DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................... 26
7.
REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS....................................... 28
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX II .................................................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX III ................................................................................................................ 38
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Summary of the energy efficiency measures implemented in each project
phase for the buildings considered .................................................................................... 10
Table 2-2: Summary of the eight buildings considered for the emission reductions........ 11
Table 2-3 Aggregate GHG emission reductions 2002-2012 (t CO2e) ............................. 12
Table 2-4 Detailed chronological plan .............................................................................. 15
Table 3-1 Barrier Assessment ........................................................................................... 17
Table 3-2 Baseline scenario – baseline year for each cluster ........................................... 17
Table 4-1 SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory .................................................................. 19
Table 4-2 SSR’s Project Inventory ................................................................................... 19
Table 5-1Emissions factors ............................................................................................... 24
Table 5-2 Global warming potential ................................................................................. 25
Table 6-1: Data monitoring summary ............................................................................... 26
Table 7-1: Baseline Scenario GHG Emissions for 2002 to 2012 – Sources and Total (t
CO2e)................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 7-2: Project Scenario GHG Emissions for 2002 to 2012 – Total (t CO2e) ............. 30
Table 7-3: GHG Emission Reductions for 2002 to 2012 (t CO2e) ................................... 31
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
BS
CDM
CH4
CO2
CO2e
CSA
CSP
EF
EPA
HDD
GHG
ISO
IPCC
kWh
N2O
PS
SSR
t
VER
Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)
Clean Development Mechanism
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)
Canadian Standards Association
Emission Factor
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Heating degree day
Greenhouse gases
International Organization for Standardization
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kilowatt hour
Nitrous oxide
Project Scenario (GHG emission source)
Source, Sink and Reservoir
Ton (metric)
Verified Emission Reduction
iv
SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF
(Please note that the remainder of the document is in English)
La Commission scolaire des patriotes (CSP) regroupe 64 écoles et centres de formation et
8 services en soutien aux établissements pour un total de 75 bâtiments dans 21
municipalités. Elle agit comme une structure intermédiaire entre le ministère de
l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec et les établissements scolaires. Sa mission
est la promotion et la valorisation de l’éducation publique sur son territoire. La CSP veille
donc à la qualité de l’éducation, à la gestion efficace des ressources financières, humaines
et matérielles. La CSP a depuis 2002 implanté des mesures d’efficacité énergétique dans
plusieurs de ses édifices. Ces mesures ont pour objectifs de minimiser la consommation
d’énergie, les impacts environnementaux et les coûts monétaires qui y sont associés. Ce
faisant, la CSP devient un leader et un exemple à suivre dans la communauté en assumant
un rôle de citoyen responsable.
Pour 8 bâtiments pour lesquels les améliorations ont été significatives, la consommation
énergétique et les émissions de GES associées pour chaque année sont comparées à ce
qui aurait été consommé en l’absence du projet. Cette comparaison permet d’observer
l’impact sur les émissions des diverses activités du projet qui visent la réduction des GES
via la diminution de la consommation énergétique. Ce rapport fait état de l’évolution des
émissions de GES depuis le début du projet. Le projet et les réductions d’émissions de
GES seront enregistrés au Registre des GES ÉcoProjets® du CSA. Ces réductions sont
quantifiées conformément aux principes et lignes directrices de la norme ISO 14064-2 tel
que stipulé par le Registre des GES ÉcoProjets®. La méthodologie II.E version 10 –
Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings 1 du MDP (Mécanisme de
Développement Propre / ONU) a été sélectionnée afin de choisir les sources, puits et
réservoirs de GES à inclure dans la quantification ainsi que comme guide pour les calculs
de réductions. Les réductions d’émission pour les années 2002 à 2012 sont au nombre
de :
Année
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
TOTAL
1
Réductions d’émission (t CO2e)
268
856
838
927
1506
931
905
900
1554
1296
1387
11368
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings, p.1.
Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNEC8APNP
1. INTRODUCTION
Commission Scolaire des Patriotes (CSP) acts as an intermediate structure between the
Quebec Ministry of Education and schools. Its mission is to promote and enhance public
education and ensure the quality of the education, effective management of financial,
human and material resources. The school board includes 64 schools and training centers
and eight support services for establishments for a total of 75 buildings in 21
municipalities of the Monteregie region.
Proud of its institutional standing, the CSP displays an understanding and a commitment
to today’s societal concerns including environmental issues and acts as a leader to address
these with novel solutions. The nature of the services delivered by the CSP implies the
occupation and operation of buildings of considerable sizes. Total energy use is
significant and translates into large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. In
2002, the CSP began implementing a series of energy efficiency measures aimed at
reducing its environmental impact with the dual benefit of reducing their costs for energy
consumption. This report outlines the results of the GHG emissions reduction associated
to these efforts.
The GHG project, hereafter called the project, is first described with statements
concerning its objectives, nature, location, lifetime and main characteristics. The most
appropriate baseline scenario is identified and the GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs
(SSRs) for the baseline and the project scenarios are inventoried. GHG emissions are then
quantified using an outlined methodology. The achieved emission reductions calculated
as the difference between the baseline and project emissions are reported in the final
section.
A CDM methodology, II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures
for buildings 2 , is selected to identify the sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) to be
included in the quantification and chosen to offer a guideline for the calculation of
emission reductions. This methodology is deemed to be the most appropriate one given
that the applicability conditions it stipulates apply to the project. In section 3, the
selection of the baseline scenario and the assessment of additionality were performed
according to best practices and the expertise of the quantification team. A barrier analysis
is performed and used to confirm the most plausible scenario and to provide a solid
argument on which to base the additionality assessment.
This GHG report meets the requirements of the CSA’s GHG CleanProjects® Registry and
the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles:
2
Internet link:
6
 Relevance:
All relevant GHG sources are meticulously selected and presented in section 4. A precise
methodology is used along with project specific parameter values such as Quebec fuel
combustion and electricity-related GHG emission factors. The CDM’s methodology
“Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings” is the most relevant given
that it is possible to directly measure and record the energy use within the project
boundary (e.g. electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption) like required by the
methodology. The methodology is applied on a per-building basis as requested and the
GHG reductions are aggregated upon the overall CSP’s energy efficiency project.
 Completeness:
A complete assessment of GHG sources is made and all GHG types are considered in the
applied quantification methodology. Complete information regarding project
implementation, activities and GHG quantification is given through this GHG report.
GHG sources include all types of energy used for heating needs: Natural gas, Fuel Oil
and Electricity.
 Consistency:
Chosen quantification methodology is appropriate for the CSP’s project. The baseline
scenario established as the continuous use of equipment and normal maintenance without
additional investment in energy efficient heating technologies and buildings retrofits, is
consistent with the project level of activity related to energy needs for heating of the
schools.
 Accuracy:
Calculation uncertainties are kept as small as possible. Direct monitoring of energy
consumption recorded on suppliers’ invoices allows for high accuracy of data values.
 Transparency:
Project related information is transparently communicated throughout this document so
that the intended user can identify important data, how they are collected, and how the
project actually leads to GHG emissions reduction. Data monitoring and GHG emission
reductions calculation are clearly detailed in order to provide the reader sufficient
information to allow the user to confidently make decisions.
 Conservativeness:
GHG emission reductions are not overestimated. When accuracy is jeopardized because
of assumptions, conservative choices are made to make sure that GHG reductions are not
overestimated.
This report will be made available for public consultation. It is intended to serve as a
transparent reference document to support the prospection of potential verified emission
reductions (VER) buyers.
7
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1.
Project title
Educational institutions’ GHG emission reductions from energy conservation grouped
project at schools of Commission Scolaire des Patriotes.
2.2.
Objectives
The objective of this project is to minimize the GHG emissions associated to energy use
in the CSP’s buildings.
2.3.
Project lifetime
The project start date is January 1st 2002 and is expected to end in 2014. In theory, the
project ends when the equipment used for the project has reached the end of its useful life
or when the principle of additionality ceases to be respected. It is reasonable to assume
that these conditions will be respected for a minimum of 15 years. The grouped project
has a claiming period starting on January 1st 2002 and should end on December 31st 2014.
2.4.
Type of GHG project
The project falls under the category ‘‘energy efficiency’’ and is characterized as a
grouped project since it accounts for various project activities implemented at different
locations and times. The project activities are mainly the implementation of energy
efficiency measures. These include but are not limited to: installing more energy efficient
heating systems, modernizing lighting equipment, installing a centralized management
system for electromechanical equipment and adjusting the water temperature based on the
outside temperature. The emission reductions are therefore the result of lower energy
consumption. All the measures implemented at a given building are considered to be a
single project activity.
2.5.
Location
The CSP covers 21 communities on the South Shore of Montreal and has a total of 75
buildings. The address of these 75 buildings is provided in Appendix II. However, main
project activities occur in eight buildings and only these are taken into account in the
quantification. They are highlighted in green in the list of Appendix II. The main office is
located at:
Siège social
1740, rue Roberval
J3V 3R3
Latitude: 45°52’39” N
Longitude: 73°34’03”W
8
Figure 2-1 : CSP Territory
9
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation
Project activities were gradually implemented in three phases (these will be described in a
later section) because the costs of simultaneous implementation would be too high to
absorb at once for the CSP. What is more, every building is different and has its own set
of characteristics. Initial conditions, and hence needs and opportunities for emissions
reduction, vary from one building to the other. Conditions prior to project initiation
involved heating the exact same floor area as after the project but with much less efficient
yet still functional heating equipment that could have been maintained operational over
the crediting period.
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission
reductions or removal enhancements
GHG emission reductions result from lower energy consumption. The various set of
energy efficiency measures implemented at each building reduces emissions associated
with the use of any type of energy compared to the baseline scenario by reducing total
energy use. In particular, GHG emissions related to the combustion of natural gas are
being reduced thanks to more efficient boilers, advanced control system and other energy
conservation measures. It is pointed out that the project offers the same comfort and heat
level as the baseline scenario.
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of
activity
The technologies and products employed by the CSP are not unique but they are among
the most recent and effective available technologies at the time of their implementation.
Although they are not unique, their use is not common practice for the type and age of the
buildings managed by the CSP.
Measures were implemented in 3 phases. The table below shows the main measures
implemented at each phase, the numbers are the building codes. Additional information
on the measures is provided after the table along with information on the equipment
replaced and the new equipment for measures that include boilers.
Table 2-1: Summary of the energy efficiency measures implemented in each project phase for the
buildings considered
Phase
Period
Installation of
Adjustment of the
Installation of a
new boilers (nb)
water temperature
centralized
based on the outside
management system
temperature
for electromechanical
equipment
2002-2003 117 (2 nb), 116 (3 117, 116
117
1
nb)
2003
211 (optimization of
2
existing system)
3
2006
101, 162, 220,
102
101, 220
162 (optimization of
existing system)
10
Table 2-2: Summary of the eight buildings considered for the emission reductions
Phase
Period
# of the building
2002-2003 116
1
117
2003
211
2
2006
101
3
102
106
162
220
Other measures were also implemented, although not as widely in the affected buildings,
these include:
- The installation of a heat recovery system
- The replacement of windows and doors
- Modifying the ventilation system and its operation sequences
- Modifying the air conditioning system
- The installation of a heat recovery system
A detailed list of measures implemented in each school is available in Appendix III.
Lighting retrofit entails the implementation of one or more of the following (depending
on the building):
- The replacement of existing lamps with more energy efficient one: T8 lamps.
Consumption per lamp will drop from 140 watts to 49 watts or from 70 to 49
watts depending on the case.
- Incandescent lamps (1x15watts) in exit signs are replaced by DEL lamps (1x 3
watts)
- Replace mercury lamps with more efficient metal halide ones
- This measure’s useful life is estimated at 15 years
The adjustment of the water temperature based on the outside temperature entails the
installation of electronic controllers (brand Delta by Régulvar), wiring for the
communication network of the centralized system, and the installation of a modem for
communication from an operating post. It also requires the training of the personnel to
use the system.
The installation of a centralized management system for electromechanical equipment
includes the following measures:
- Optimization of operating sequences of ventilation and fresh air flow
o Optimizing the start and stop of the systems, the modulation of fresh air
flow, and modulation of heating coils.
- Lowering the temperature when building is unoccupied
o Install temperature probes (3 or 4) in selected rooms. These are connected
to the collateralized system (brand Delta) which controls the building’s
heating system.
11
- Control lighting and heating in classrooms with motion detectors
o Ventilation, heating and lighting will cease when the zone is unoccupied.
These measures result in the common use of a centralized control system. This system
requires: a communication network, controllers, software, programming, graphical
interface, panels and accessories.
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements
likely to occur from the GHG project
The table below summarizes the emission reductions for 2002-2012.
Table 2-3 Aggregate GHG emission reductions 2002-2012 (t CO2e)
Year
Achieved Emission
Reductions
2002
268
2003
856
2004
838
2005
927
2006
1506
2007
931
2008
905
2009
900
2010
1554
2011
1296
2012
1387
TOTAL
11368
2.10. Identification of risks
National Ecocredit is confident that the emissions reductions presented in the previous
section are representative of the actual emissions reductions. This emission reductions
report was written according to ISO 14064-2 Specifications Requirements for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions and
removal enhancements assertions. In order to minimize risks, the methodology and GHG
emission factors were selected based on their completeness and their international
recognition.
One risk is that the project, for one reason or another, had ceased to respect the principle
of additionality over its course. As a result, the project would cease to be eligible under
the CSA’s GHG CleanProjects® Registry. To ensure that the principle of additionality
was respected throughout the project, the following was checked:
- The measures responsible for emissions reductions did not become common
practice or mandatory via new regulation.
12
- The new equipment did not malfunction to be temporarily substituted with
equipment with a poorer environmental performance (or equivalent to what was
previously in place). This was confirmed by Mr. Rondeau at the CSP.
The CSP has remained the owner of the buildings over the project period and therefore
the ownership of the carbon credits generated within this project is non-objectable.
Emission reductions are not only the results of technological improvements. They are
also closely related to management methods. Attention must be paid to energy use
practices and management in order to achieve emissions reduction.
2.11. Roles and Responsibilities
2.11.1. Project proponent and representative
Siège social
1740, rue Roberval
J3V 3R3
2.11.2. Monitoring and data collection
Commission Scolaire des Patriotes is responsible for the project implementation and data
monitoring. Data are provided by Jean-Francois Rondeau.
Jean-Francois Rondeau
Ingénieur mécanique du bâtiment et efficacité énergétique,
Service des ressources matérielles
480, boul. Sir-Wilfrid-Laurier
Mont-Saint-Hilaire (Qc)
J3H 6H4
[email protected]
450-441-2919 poste 3530
2.11.3. Quantification and reporting responsible entity
National Ecocredit is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate financing. An
expertise has been developed in the quantification of GHG emissions. Services are
offered for GHG inventory, GHG emissions reduction project implementation, GHG
markets advising, regulatory requirements and much more.
Camille Orthlieb works at National Ecocredit as a carbon credits advisor. She has an
environmental engineering Master degree from Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne, Switzerland. Before joining National Ecocredit, she worked from 2012 to 2013
with an engineering company, specialized on building energy efficiency.
13
Camille Orthlieb
Carbon credits advisor
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
514 871 5335 ext. 305
2.11.4. Authorized project contact
Karine Desjardins has the signing authority for National Ecocredit. She is authorized by
the project proponent to perform requests and administrative tasks regarding the project
registration.
Karine Desjardins
VP-Sales, Marketing and Structured Transactions
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
514 871 5335
2.12.
Project eligibility under the GHG program
The project is eligible under the GHG CleanProjects® Registry. It is implemented
following the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles, is not attempted to be registered
under another GHG program and does not create any other environmental credit.
2.13. Environmental impact assessment
The nature of the project does not require an environmental impact assessment as the
impact on the environment is limited to GHG emissions.
2.14. Stakeholder consultations
communication
and
mechanisms
for
on-going
Jean-Francois Rondeau, engineer at the CSP, is responsible for the communications with
the quantifier, the verifier and with all relevant stakeholders within and outside the
company. Over the course of the project no stakeholder communication has generated
results warranting a mention in this report.
2.15. Detailed chronological plan
The project started in 2002 and will end in 2014. GHG emission reductions are reported
in this report for years 2002 to 2012.
14
Table 2-4 Detailed chronological plan
Before Project
Implementation
During Project
After Project
Date
2001
January 1st 2002
2014
-
Steps in Process
Data monitoring started to create baseline
scenario
Project start date
1st GHG report covering 2002-2012
-
2.16. Ownership
The CSP has mandated and paid National Ecocredit for this quantification work and has
paid for all measures responsible for the emissions reductions and is the owner of the
buildings in which they were implemented.
15
3. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND
ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONALITY
The baseline scenario is selected among alternative scenarios representing what would
have happened in the absence of this project. The alternative scenario that is most likely
to occur is selected as the baseline scenario.
The CMD II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings 3
methodology, selected for this project, dictates the choice of GHG sources, sinks, and
reservoirs to take into account for the quantification. The project respects all applicability
criteria for the methodology, namely:
- It entails energy efficiency and fuel switching measure implemented at a single
building (in this case institutional)
- Project activities aimed primarily at energy efficiency (examples include energy
efficiency measures (such as efficient appliances, better insulation and optimal
arrangement of equipment) and fuel switching measures (such as switching from
oil to gas)).
- The technologies replace existing equipment or are installed in new facilities.
- The aggregate energy savings of a single project does not exceed the equivalent of
60 GWh per year.
According to the selected methodology:
- The energy baseline consists of the energy use of the existing equipment that is
replaced in the case of retrofit measures (all measures implemented at the CSP are
retrofit measures; no new building was built during the project period).
Only alternatives that could realistically be implemented on-site are listed below:
1. Option 1: Status quo
2. Option 2 : Project scenario
For the assessment of additionality of the project scenario, a barrier analysis has been
performed. In this case, the project is voluntary. It aims to lower the energy consumption
and the GHG emissions. The scenario that is most likely to occur in the absence of this
project is to keep using the equipment in place prior to its initiation and make no changes
to management methods (status quo). An equipment change or retrofit is not required by
law and to stick with in-place systems remains the least expensive and efforts demanding
scenario.
3
Internet link:
16
Potential Barrier
Law and
regulation
Financial
Technology
Common
practice
Table 3-1 Barrier Assessment
Project Scenario
Efficiency measures, efficient
boiler or fuel switch*
Baseline Scenario
Status quo
Above requirements of the law,
(Barrier)
Requirements of the law implemented
(Not a barrier)
Investment required
(Barrier)
Existing technology but
maintenance changes required
(Barrier)
Not a common practice
(Barrier)
No investment required
(Not a barrier)
Existing technology
(Not a barrier)
Common practice
(Not a barrier)
The emission reductions achieved by the project are additional to what would have
occurred in the absence of the GHG project since it is voluntary and faces significant
investment barriers. Its implementation is highly motivated by the GHG emission
reductions potential.
Project activities were not all implemented simultaneously. Therefore, a specific baseline
performance is computed for each group of buildings that were modified in the same
year. In the absence of the project, energy performance would have remained somewhat
similar to the performance observed during the year preceding the implementation of
energy efficiency measures. As such, a baseline energy intensity in terms of “energy units
/ heating degree day”, is identified for each group of buildings (referred to as a “cluster”)
and the baseline energy needs for each year is obtained by the multiplication of the
baseline energy intensity with the actual number of heating degree-days for a given year.
In the following table, the baseline year is presented for each cluster.
Table 3-2 Baseline scenario – baseline year for each cluster
Clusters
Baseline years
2002-2003
2001
2003
2002
2006
2005
17
4. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
SOURCES, SINKS AND RESERVOIRS
OF
GHG
To determine the sources, sinks and reservoirs relevant to the project and baseline
scenario, a systematic approach was used to meet the requirements of ISO 14064-2. In
order to insure good practices relating to the criteria and procedures for the determination
of relevant SSRs (Sources Sinks and Reservoirs), the following documents were
consulted:

CSA (2006), ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with
guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements4;

CDM, II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings 5 , Table 1: “Summary of gases and sources included in the project
boundary and justification/explanation where gases and sources are not included”.
To proceed with the identification and selection of elements, we used the decision tree
from the standard ISO 14064-26 that provides a procedure to assist project proponents
consider GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs.
The SSRs for the baseline and the project scenario are identified in the tables below and it
is stated whether they are included or excluded from the quantification.
As aforementioned, the methodology stipulates that the energy baseline is the energy use
of the existing equipment that is replaced. It follows that the sources of GHG are all the
energy sources used by the equipment. Although the methodology does not require the
quantification of methane and nitrous oxide, these were included in the calculation for a
more complete emissions profile. Figure 4-1displays the project elements divided by SSR
type.
4
CSA (2006), ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, Figure A.2,
Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38381
5
CDM (2007) CDM methodology II.E/Version 10:Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNE
C8APNP
6
CSA (2006), ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, Figure A.2,
Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38381
18
SSR - Baseline
S1. Fuel extraction
and processing
S2. Electricity
Generation
S3 Electricity
Consumption
S4. Fossil fuel
combustion
S5. Maintenance
SSR - Baseline
S1. Fuel extraction
and processing
S2. Electricity
Generation
S3 Electricity
Consumption
S4. Fossil fuel
combustion
Table 4-1 SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory
Included Controlled/ GHG
Explanation
/excluded Related /
Affected
This emission source is assumed
Excluded
Related
to be negligible compared to the
combustion.
This source of emission may be
significant, depending on the
CO2, production means. This emission
Included
Related
CH4, source, although not so important
N2O
because of hydropower origin, is
easily tracked and is therefore
include for enhanced accuracy.
This source of emissions is taken
CO2, into consideration by including
Included
Controlled
CH4, emissions from electricity
N2O
generation for the amount of
electricity consumed
CO2,
An important source of
Included
Controlled
CH4,
greenhouse gases.
N2O
Emissions from maintenance
activities result from fossil fuel
combustion in vehicles used for
Excluded Controlled
transporting maintenance
personnel to and from project site.
These emissions are assumed to
be negligible
Table 4-2 SSR’s Project Inventory
Included Controlled/ GHG
Explanation
/excluded Related /
Affected
This emission source is assumed
Excluded
Related
to be negligible compared to the
combustion.
CO2, This source of emission may be
Included
Related
CH4, significant, depending on the
N2O
production means.
This source of emissions is taken
CO2, into consideration by including
Included
Controlled
CH4, emissions from electricity
N2O
generation for the amount of
electricity consumed
CO2,
An important source of
Included
Controlled
CH4,
greenhouse gases.
N2O
19
S5. Maintenance
Excluded
Controlled
-
S6. Equipment
manufacturing
Excluded
Related
-
S7. Transportation of
equipment to the site
Excluded
Related
-
S8. Decommissioning
of equipment
Excluded
Related
-
Excluded
Related
-
Excluded
Related
-
S9. Transportation of
decommissioned
equipment to landfill
or recycling center
S10. Recycling of
components of
decommissioned
equipment
Emissions from maintenance
activities result from fossil fuel
combustion in vehicles used for
transporting maintenance
personnel to and from project site.
These emissions are assumed to
be negligible
This one time source of emission
is assumed to be negligible when
distributed over the useful life of
the equipment.
the equipment.
the equipment.
the equipment.
the equipment.
Figure 4-1Project elements
20
5. QUANTIFICATION
REMOVALS
OF
GHG
EMISSIONS
AND
This project is based on a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology proposed
by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) titled:
AMS-II.E.version 10 - Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings,
validated 2 November 20077.The quantification is done in accordance with the selected
methodology, which stipulates that: ‘‘Each energy form in the emission baseline is
multiplied by an emission coefficient. […] IPCC default values for emission coefficients
may be used.’’ The VCS methodology VM0008 Methodology for Weatherization of
Single and Multi-Family Buildings8 also serves as a reference.
The quantification method consists essentially of multiplying appropriate emission
factors to the total consumption of different types of energy namely electricity, light fuel
oil and natural gas. Doing so is pretty straight forward in the project scenario. One just
needs the actual consumption of those energy sources (taken from energy suppliers bills)
and to multiply the appropriate emission factors (taken from the latest Canadian National
Inventory Report).
However, adjustment to this methodology must be made to take into account the impact
of weather conditions impacting the energy consumption and to avoid (as much as
possible) a too important difference between project and baseline energy needs due to
different yearly climate conditions. Therefore, energy consumptions are “normalized” by
the means of heating degree days (HDD) ratio. Further details are given below.
Another element which can significantly influence the energy consumption is the size of
the buildings. Changes in buildings dimensions must be monitored and the impact on the
energy demand must be assessed. Once normalized for weather impact, the consumption
is then multiplied by the ratio of the buildings’ areas in baseline year to buildings’ areas
in the year for which emissions are quantified.
According to the applied methodology, leakage is to be considered if: “the energy
efficiency technology is equipment transferred from another activity or if the existing
equipment is transferred to another activity” 9. That is not the case here and therefore
there is no leakage calculation.
Calculation examples are at the Appendix I.
7
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNE
C8APNP
8
VCS website, http://www.v-c-s.org/VM0008.html
9
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, page 2/6
21
5.1.
Baseline and Project GHG emissions
BASELINE EMISSIONS
The data for the baseline quantification was taken from the year before the project
implementation and subsequent years depend on the project’s implementation time. This
is a conservative way of estimating the baseline GHG emissions for this project.
The Heating Degree Day Correction Factors (HDDCF) is used to update the baseline
energy consumption annually based on changes in temperature. This factors accounts for
changes in heating degree days and associated changes in heating loads. The method for
the normalization is the one applied by the Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec 10 . A
realistic representation of the Quebec’s schools network is to assume that 60% of the
overall energy consumption is weather dependant and is therefore normalized using the
degree-days ratio. The degree-days are taken from P-E-Trudeau international airport
weather station11.
BSi = BSElec, i + BSNG, i + BSOil, i
BSi =
BSElec,i =
BSNG,I =
BSOil,i =
Baseline Scenario emissions from building “i” (t CO2e);
Baseline Scenario emissions associated with electricity use at building “i”(t CO2e)
Baseline Scenario emissions associated with natural gas combustion at building
“i” (t CO2e)
Baseline Scenario emissions associated with fuel oil combustion at building “i” (t
CO2e)
BSElec, i = [EECO2 + (EECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EEN2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQEi
BSNG, i = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQNGi
BSOil, i = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQOi
BSQEi =
Normalized quantity of electricity consumed for the baseline scenario
at building “i” (kWh);
BSQNi =
Normalized quantity of natural gas consumed for the baseline scenario
at building “i” (m3);
BSQOi =
Normalized quantity of light fuel oil (no. 2) consumed for the baseline
scenario at building “i” (Liters);
EECO2, EE CH4, EEN2O = GHG emission factors for electricity
ENCO2, ENCH4, ENN2O = GHG emission factors for natural gas combustion
EOCO2, EOCH4, EON2O = GHG Emission factors for fuel oil combustion
GWPCH4 =
Global Warning Potential of methane (21)
GWPN2O =
Global Warning Potential of nitrous oxide (310)
10
Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (July 2010) Bilan énergétique du réseau des commissions
scolaires 2008-2009, Appendix 6, Available at :
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sections/publications/index.asp?page=fiche&id=848
11
Monthly HDD : http://climate.weather.gc.ca/advanceSearch/searchHistoricData_e.html
22
BSQEi = CElec,bsi * [0.4 + 0.6 * (CDDCFy)]
BSQNi = CNG,bsi * [0.4 + 0.6 * (CDDCFy)]
BSQOi = CO,bsi * [0.4 + 0.6 * (CDDCFy)]
CDDCFy =
Actual electricity consumption in the baseline year at building “i” (kWh)
Actual natural gas consumption in the baseline year at building “i” (kWh)
Actual fuel oil consumption in the baseline year at building “i” (kWh)
Heating degree days correction factor for year y
CDDCFy =
HDDref/ HDDy
HDDref =
HDDy =
Average Heating Degree Days for the last 30 years (1981-2010)
Heating Degree Days for the year y
CElec,bsi =
CNG,bsi =
CO,bsi =
PROJECT EMISSIONS
PSi,y = PSElec,i,y + PSNG,i,y + PSOil,i,y
PSi,y=
PSElec,i,y =
PSNG,i,y =
PSOil,i,y =
Project Scenario emissions for building “i” in year “y” (t CO2e);
Project Scenario emissions associated with electricity use for building “i” in year
“y” (t CO2e)
Project Scenario emissions associated with natural gas combustion for building “i”
in year “y” (t CO2e)
Project Scenario emissions associated with fuel oil combustion for building “i” in
year “y” (t CO2e)
PSElec,i,y = [EECO2 + (EECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EEN2O *GWPN2O)] * PSEi,y * RSi,y
PSNG,i,y = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * PSNGi,y * RSi,y
PSOil,i,y = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * PSOi,y * RSi,y
Quantity of electricity consumed for building “i” in year “y” (kWh);
Quantity of natural gas consumed for building “i” in year “y” (m3);
Quantity of light fuel oil (no. 2) consumed for building “i” in year “y”
(Liters);
Ratio of areas in baseline year/ year “y” of building “i”
PSEi,y =
PSNGi,y =
PSOi,y =
RSi,y12 =
RSi,y = Ai,bs / Ai,y
Ai,bs =
Ai,y =
Area of building “i” in baseline year (m2)
Area of building “i” in year “y” (m2)
12
The area of only 2 buildings affected by the energy efficiency project was modified from 2002-2012
(buildings 161 and 211)
23
5.2.
Emission reductions
These following equations illustrate the GHG emissions reduction quantification. These
calculations were done for each building with energy efficiency or fuel switch projects.
TPERy = ∑
Total Project Emission Reductions in year “y” (t CO2e)
Emission reductions for building “i” in year “y” (t CO2e)
Number of buildings
TPERy =
ERi,y =
n=
ERi,y = BSi – PSi,y
Quantification limits and uncertainty
Uncertainties are considered small. CDM methodologies are recognized internationally.
As of today, they offer the most complete methodologies. The AMS II.E. is a flexible
small scale methodology as long as you can prove your emission reduction by verifiable
facts (ex. Invoice). So there is no particular limit with the CDM methodology proposed.
The provincial emissions coefficient used is closer to the reality than national ones, since
the electricity is produced differently from one province to another. This choice limits
the uncertainty and the overestimation of the GHG reduction for the emission reduction
project.
5.3.
Emission factors
Factor
EFoil
Gas
CO2
CH4
N2O
EFNG
CO2
CH4
N2O
EFelec
CO2
CH4
N2O
Table 5-1Emissions factors
Unit
Source
g/L
National Inventory Report 1990-2011,
Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada,
g/L
Part 2, p.196, Table A8-4, Light Fuel Oil for
g/L
Institutions
1878 g/kg
Value
2725
0.026
0.031
0.037 g/kg
0.035 g/kg
1.64 g/kWh
0.0002 g/kWh
0.0001 g/kWh
Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in
Canada, Part 2, p.194, Marketable Natural
Gas
Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in
Canada, Part 2, p.195, Institutional
Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada,
Part 3, Table A13-6
24
5.4.
Global warming potential (GWP)
Factor
Value
CH4
N2O
21
310
Table 5-2 Global warming potential
Source
National Inventory Report 1990-2011, Greenhouse Gas Source
and Sinks in Canada, Part 3, Table A12-3
25
6. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL
Data that need to be monitored for GHG emissions quantification purposes are the
electricity consumption the natural gas consumption and the light fuel oil consumption at
every building where measures were implemented. Data control system and procedures
are therefore very limited since they mostly come from the energy suppliers data
acquisition and storage system. These external systems are deemed sufficiently safe and
reliable and allow for transparent communication of the relevant data. These are easily
verifiable. Therefore, no limited access data storage system or control procedures are
implemented.
Data values are inputs in the quantification model and are therefore critical for accuracy
of the GHG reductions estimation. Both calculations and data values are internally
reviewed by the quantification team from National Ecocredit. Reported data are the
responsibility of Jean-Francois Rondeau. The CSP uses an energy data management
software interface called Helios.
A summary of the data monitoring is presented in the table below. The flow of data is
depicted in Figure 6-1.
Data
Units
CElec kWh
Table 6-1: Data monitoring summary
Description
Measurement method; Source of
data to be used
electricity
consumption
Electricity meter monitors the
power usage. The meter is read on a
monthly basis and invoices reflect
the usage of that period.
Data is collected from the invoices
and inputted into Helios software.
CNG
m3
natural gas
consumption
A gas flow meter continuously
measures the inflow. Integrated
data over a certain period is
reported on natural gas invoices.
Data are collected directly from
energy bills and inputted into
Helios software.
CO
Liters
light fuel oil
consumption
An oil reservoir is filled when
required. The volume of each fill is
measured by volumetric flow meter
upon delivery. Invoices reflect the
delivered oil quantity. Entire year
invoices are compiled and assumed
to adequately reflect the actual
usage in that year. Data is collected
the invoices and inputted into
QA/QC procedures
Electricity invoices
are assumed to be
accurate. No
further quality
assurance
procedures are
implemented.
Natural gas
invoices are
assumed to be
accurate. No
further quality
assurance
procedures are
implemented.
Fuel oil invoices
are assumed to be
accurate. No
further quality
assurance
procedures are
implemented.
26
A
m
2
Total area of
the building
for a given
year
Helios software.
The renovation plans specify the
new area of the renovated building.
This information is aggregated and
reported to the building owner by
the contractor to create a synthesis
report for the client. Data is
collected from this report.
The synthesis
report is assumed
to be accurate. No
further quality
assurance
procedures are
implemented.
The data collection method allows for a low level of uncertainty. The quantification
process therefore respects the ISO 14064 principle of accuracy for the calculations.
Figure 6-1Data flow chart
Throughout the review of report, the CSP never had access to an unlocked version of the
report document. Only authorized members of National Écocrédit’s team made
modifications to address any issues.
27
7. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS
The project plan and report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard and the
GHG CleanProjects® Registry requirements. The methodology that is used, the choice of
region specific emission factors and a rigorous monitoring plan allow for a reasonably
low level of uncertainty. National Ecocredit is confident that the emission reductions are
not overestimated and that the numbers of emission reductions that are reported here are
real and reflect the actual impacts of the project.
The GHG report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjects®
Registry requirements. Emission reductions will be verified by an independent third party
to a reasonable level of assurance. Emission reductions are reported below for years 2002
to 2012.
28
Table 7-1 : Baseline Scenario GHG Emissions for 2002 to 2012 – Sources (t CO2e)
BSele
BSNG
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
Sub-total
CO2
CH4 N2O Sub-total
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
TOTAL
5
5
5
5
15
14
14
14
16
15
15
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
15
14
14
14
16
15
15
123
1416
1355
1372
1425
3015
2794
2804
2798
3040
2933
3010
25962
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
8
7
7
8
17
16
16
16
17
16
17
145
1424
1362
1379
1433
3033
2811
2821
2815
3058
2950
3028
26114
BSoil
CO2
CH4
N2O
Sub-total
168
374
379
393
413
383
384
384
417
402
413
4110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
168
375
380
394
414
384
385
385
418
403
414
4120
Table 7-2: Baseline Scenario GHG Emissions for 2002 to 2012 – Sources and Total (t CO2e)
BE - TOTAL
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
TOTAL
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
TOTAL
1589
1734
1756
1823
3443
3191
3202
3196
3473
3350
3438
30195
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
8
8
8
9
18
17
17
17
18
17
18
155
1597
1742
1764
1832
3462
3209
3220
3214
3492
3368
3457
30357
29
Total
1597
1742
1764
1832
3462
3209
3220
3214
3492
3368
3457
30357
Table 7-3: Project Scenario GHG Emissions for 2002 to 2012 – Sources (t CO2e)
PSele
PSNG
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
Sub-total
CO2
CH4 N2O Sub-total
2002
5
1
1
7
1125
1
7
1133
2003
4
1
1
6
577
1
4
582
2004
5
1
1
7
598
1
4
603
2005
5
1
1
7
636
1
4
641
2006
18
1
1
20
1643
1
10
1654
2007
17
1
1
19
1965
1
12
1978
2008
16
1
1
18
1962
1
12
1975
2009
17
1
1
19
1984
1
12
1997
2010
15
1
1
17
1658
1
10
1669
2011
13
1
1
15
1708
1
10
1719
2012
13
1
1
15
1778
1
11
1790
TOTAL
128
11
11
150
15634
11
96
15741
PSoil
CH4
N2O
Sub-total
187
1
1
189
1329
295
1
2
298
886
313
1
2
316
926
255
1
1
257
905
280
1
1
282
1956
279
1
1
281
2278
319
1
2
322
2315
295
1
2
298
2314
250
1
1
252
1938
335
1
2
338
2072
263
1
1
265
2070
3071
11
16
3098
18989
Table 7-4: Project Scenario GHG Emissions for 2002 to 2012 – Total (t CO2e)
PE - TOTAL
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
TOTAL
2002
1317
3
9
1329
2003
876
3
7
886
2004
916
3
7
926
2005
896
3
6
905
2006
1941
3
12
1956
2007
2261
3
14
2278
2008
2297
3
15
2315
2009
2296
3
15
2314
2010
1923
3
12
1938
2011
2056
3
13
2072
2012
2054
3
13
2070
TOTAL 18833
33
123
18989
Total
CO2
30
Table 7-5: GHG Emission Reductions for 2002 to 2012 (t CO2e)
ER - TOTAL
Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
TOTAL
2002
272
-3
-1
268
2003
858
-3
1
856
2004
840
-3
1
838
2005
927
-3
3
927
2006
1502
-2
6
1506
2007
930
-2
3
931
2008
905
-2
2
905
2009
900
-2
2
900
2010
1550
-2
6
1554
2011
1294
-2
4
1296
2012
1384
-2
5
1387
TOTAL
11368
11362
-26
32
31
APPENDIX I
Calculation example
The example is given for building 117 for the project year 2004 (the baseline year is 2001)
BASELINE EMISSIONS:
BS = BSelec + BSNG + BSOil
=
BSy
1384,00 =
BSElec +
4,00 +
BSNG
+
1380,00 +
BSOil
0,00
(Rounded down)
BSElec
=[ EECO2
+(
= BSQE*RS*0,000001 *
2,947 *
4 =
EECH4
* GWPCH4
) + ( EEN2O * GWPN2O )] *
EECO2
+ BSQE*RS*0,000001 *
EECH4 * GWPCH4 +
1,640 +
2,947 *
0,00020 *
21,000 +
BSQE
* RS
* 0,000001 g/t
BSQE*RS*0,000001 * EEN2O * GWPN20
2,947 * 0,00010 *
310,000
+(
BSNG =[ ENCO2
= BSQN*RS*0,000001 *
0,731 *
1380 =
ENCH4 * GWPCH4
) + ( ENN2O * GWPN2O )] *
ENCO2
+ BSQN*RS*0,000001 *
ENCH4 * GWPCH4 +
1878,000 +
0,731 *
0,037 *
21,000 +
BSQNG
* RS
* 0,000001 g/t
BSQN*RS*0,000001 * ENN2O * GWPN20
0,731 *
0,035 *
310,000
+(
BSOil =[ EOCO2
= BSQO*RS*0,000001 *
0,000 *
0 =
EOCH4 * GWPCH4
) + ( EON2O * GWPN2O )] *
EOCO2
+ BSQO*RS*0,000001 *
EOCH4 * GWPCH4 +
2663,000 +
0,0000000 *
0,140 *
21,000 +
BSQO
* RS
* 0,000001 g/t
BSQO*RS*0,000001 * EON2O * GWPN20
0,000 *
0,082 *
310,000
RS
1
=
=
=
BSQE
2947416,203 =
Ay
34203,000
/
/
CElec,bs
*[
3052277,561 *[
Abs
34203,000
0,400 +
0,400 +
0,600 * (
0,600 * (
DJr
/
4401,000 /
DJy
)]
4668,300 )]
32
=
BSQN
730828,470 =
CNG,bs
*[
756829,435 *[
0,400 +
0,400 +
0,600 * (
0,600 * (
DJr
/
4401,000 /
DJy
)]
4668,300 )]
Co,bs
0,400 +
0,400 +
0,600 * (
0,600 * (
DJr
/
4401,000 /
DJy
)]
4668,300 )]
BSQO
=
0,000 =
*[
0,000 *[
CElec,bs
=
3052277,561
CNG,bs
=
756829,435
CO,bs
=
0,000
PROJECT EMISSIONS:
PE = PEelec + PENG + PEOil
PSy
609
=
=
PSElec
5
+
+
PSNG
601
+
+
PSOil
3
(Rounded up)
PSElec
5
PSNG
601
=[ EECO2
= PSEi,y *0,000001
= 2,435
+ ( EECH4
* EECO2
* 1.64
=[ ENCO2
= PSNGi,y *0,000001
= 0,318
+ ( ENCH4 *
* ENCO2
+
* 1878,000 +
*
+
+
GWPCH4
PSEi,y *0,000001
2,435
)+(
*
*
EEN2O *
EECH4 *
0,00020 *
GWPN2O )] * PSEi,y
GWPCH4 +
PSEi,y *0,000001
21,000
+
2,435
*
*
*
0,000001 g/t
EEN2O
*
0,00010
*
GWPN20
310,000
GWPCH4
PSNGi,y *0,000001
0,318
)+(
*
*
ENN2O *
ENCH4 *
0,037
*
GWPN2O )] * PSNGi,y
GWPCH4 +
PSNGi,y *0,000001
21,000
+
0,318
*
*
*
0,000001 g/t
ENN2O
*
0,035
*
GWPN20
310,000
33
PSOil
3
=[ EOCO2
= PSOi,y *0,000001
= 0,001
PSEi,y
=
PSNGi,y =
PSOi,y
=
+ ( EOCH4 *
* EOCO2
+
* 2663,000 +
GWPCH4
PSOi,y *0,000001
0,001
)+(
*
*
EON2O *
EOCH4 *
0,140
*
GWPN2O )] * PSOi,y
GWPCH4 +
PSOi,y *0,000001
21,000
+
0,001
2434500,000
317918,799
1094,300
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS:
ER = BS – PE
TPERcy =
775 =
Bsy
1384 -
PSy
609
34
*
*
*
0,000001 g/t
EON2O
*
0,082
*
GWPN20
310,000
APPENDIX II
List of buildings (in green are the buildings where admissible project activities occurred)
School
Centre La Traversée
Saint-Mathieu
Jolivent
au Coeur-des-Monts
Le Petit-Bonheur
Polybel
Le Tournesol
L'Envol
Orientante l'Impact
Louis-H. Lafontaine
Pierre-Boucher
Antoine-Girouard
Paul-VI
La Broquerie
Père Marquette
De Mortagne
Jeunes-Découvreurs
Marguerite-Bourgeoys
Du Parchemin
Nouvelle école primaire d
De la Roselière
De la Passerelle
De Bourgogne
Sainte-Marie
De Salaberry
Jacques-de-Chambly
De Chambly
CFR Chambly
Mère-Marie-Rose
code_bâtiment1
100
101
102
104
105
106
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
130
131
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
151
code_bâtiment2
865001
865002
865003
865B009
865006
865007
865008
865005
865011
865012
865013
865014
865015
865016
865017
865018
865019
865020
865023
865010
865025
865026
865027
865028
865029
865030
865031
865036
Address
866 boulevard Laurier
225 rue Hubert
330 boul. Cartier
2035, rue Paul-Perreault
80 rue F. -X. -Garneau
725 rue de Lévis
201 rue du Buisson
850 boulevard Laurier
544 rue Saint-Sacrement
795 rue Benjamin-Loiseau
225 rue Joseph-Martel
650 rue Antoine-Girouard
666 rue Le Laboureur
401 rue de Jumonville
900 boul. du Fort-Saint-Louis
955 boul. de Montarville
850 rue Étienne-Brûlé
11 rue Louis-H. -Lafontaine
1800 rue Gilbert-Martel
1551, rue de l'École
31 rue des Carrières
60 rue St-Jacques
1415 rue Bourgogne
1111 rue Denault
1371 rue Hertel
5 rue des Voltigeurs
535 boul. Brassard
1500 Boul. Industriel
351 rue Chabot
City
Beloeil
Beloeil
Beloeil
Beloeil
Beloeil
Beloeil
Beloeil
Beloeil
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Boucherville
Carignan
Chambly
Chambly
Chambly
Chambly
Chambly
Chambly
Chambly
Chambly
Contrecoeur
35
Postal code
J3G4K7
J3G2S8
J3G3R6
J3G 0M3
J3G3G4
J3G2M1
J3G5V5
J3G4K7
J4B3K9
J4B3T3
J4B1L1
J4B3E5
J4B3R7
J4B1K4
J4B1T6
J4B1Z6
J4B6T2
J4B4Y2
J3L3P9
J3L 0X1
J3L2H5
J3L3M1
J3L1Y4
J3L2L7
J3L2M5
J3L3H3
J3L6H3
J3L 6Z7
J0L1C0
La Farandole
Éducation internationale
Au-Fil-de-L'Eau/Hertel
Au-Fil-deL'Eau/Desrocher
Au-Fil-deL'Eau/Desrocher
De La Pommeraie
Ozias-Leduc
De L'Aquarelle
Édifice Robert Chartier
Notre-Dame 1
Notre-Dame 2
François-Williams
Le Sablier
De l'Envolée
de L'Odyssée
Georges-Étienne-Cartier
Pavillon St-Basile
Jacques-Rocheleau
De la Chanterelle
De la Mosaïque
De Montarville
Centre de services altern
Albert-Schweitzer
Mgr Gilles-Gervais
Du Mont-Bruno
Siège social
Saint-Charles
Saint-Denis
De l'Amitié
Des Trois-Temps
L'Arpège
Le Rucher
161
162
171
865039
865040
865043
265 3e avenue
720 rue Morin
120 rue Sainte-Anne
McMasterville
McMasterville
Mont-St-Hilaire
J3G1R7
J3G1H1
J3H3A4
172
865044
259 rue Provencher
Mont-St-Hilaire
J3H3M3
172
173
174
175
179
180
181
190
191
192
193
200
210
211
212
213
220
222
223
224
225
229
230
240
245
250
270
271
865044
865045
865046
865047
865048
865052
865051
865054
865055
865056
865057
865061
865063
865064
865065
865066
865069
865071
865072
865073
865074
865075
865079
865081
865082
865083
865086
865087
259 rue Provencher
685 boul. Montenach
525 rue Joliette
50 rue Michel
480 boul. Laurier
306 rue Prince-Albert
11 avenue Helen
950 rue de Normandie
491 rue Ouellette
440 rue de l'Église
169 rue David
32 rue Marie-Rose
9 rue Préfontaine
10 rue Préfontaine
1 rue de la Chanterelle
105 rue Montpellier
1725 rue Montarville
1430 rue Montarville
1139 rue Cadieux
1435 rue Châteauguay
221 boul. Clairevue Est
1740 rue Roberval
420 chemin des Patriotes
290 rue du Collège
3065 rue Bédard
103 de la Fabrique
649 rue Saint-Joseph
1800 rue Savaria
Mont-St-Hilaire
Mont-St-Hilaire
Mont-St-Hilaire
Mont-St-Hilaire
Mont-St-Hilaire
Otterburn Park
Otterburn Park
St-Amable
St-Amable
St-Amable
St-Amable
St-Antoine-sur-Richelieu
Saint-Basile-le-Grand
Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville
St-Charles-sur-Richelieu
St-Denis-sur-Richelieu
St-Jean-Baptiste-de-Rouville
St-Marc-sur-Richelieu
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
J3H3M3
J3H2N8
J3H3N2
J3H3R3
J3H4R9
J3H1L6
J3H1R2
J0L1N0
J0L1N0
J0L1N0
J0L1N0
J0L1R0
J3N1L6
J3N1L6
J3N1L1
J3N1C6
J3V3V2
J3V3T5
J3V2Z5
J3V3A9
J3V5J3
J3V3R3
J0H2G0
J0H1K0
J0L2B0
J0L2E0
J3E1J9
J3E1J9
36
Aux-Quatre-Vents
Arc-en-Ciel
Du Moulin
Du Grand-Chêne
Du Grand-Côteau
Du Tourne-Vent
CFP des Patriotes
J. -P. - Labarre
Marie-Victorin
Les Marguerite
La Roseraie
De la Source
Le Carrefour
Du Carrousel
Ludger-Duvernay
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
290
865088
865089
865090
865091
865092
865093
865094
865097
865098
865099
865100
865101
865102
865103
865108
1920 rue Borduas
450 rue Charles-de-Gaulles
1500 rue du Moulin
27 rue du Plateau
2020 rue Borduas
2300 rue de Genève
2121 rue Bombardier
2250 boul. Marie-Victorin
20 rue Vincent
251 rue Beauchamp
237 rue Mongeau
239 rue du Fief
123 chemin du Petit-Bois
230 rue Suzor-Côté
36 rue Dalpé Verchères
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
Sainte-Julie
Varennes
Varennes
Varennes
Varennes
Varennes
Varennes
Varennes
Verchères
37
J3E1A4
J0L2S0
J3E1P8
J0L2S0
J3E2G2
J3E2J1
J3E2M8
J3X1P9
J3X1R8
J3X1E7
J3X1M6
J3X1Z2
J3X1P7
J3X1L6
J0L2R0
APPENDIX III
Phase 1 (2002-2003)
School
code
117
116
School
code
211
School
code
Measures implemented
- Lighting retrofit
- Installation of new boilers
o Prior to modifications the building was operating the
following boilers:
 one 8 400 MbTUH/h boiler from HC Vidal installed in
1995 (will keep being used in peak periods) (efficiency
85-87%)
 one 11 700 MbTUH/h boiler from Volcano (efficiency
83-85%)
 one 1 400 MbTUH/h steam boiler
o New boilers installed
 Two high efficiency condensing boilers from
gasmaster model GM2M (efficiency of 87%) to
produce hot water and heat the building year round.
- Adjustment of the water temperature based on the outside temperature
- Installation of a centralized management system for
electromechanical equipment.
- Lighting retrofit
- Adjustment of the water temperature based on the outside temperature
- Lowering the temperature when building is unoccupied
- Replace existing boilers with 2 efficient boilers
o Two 1 215 000 Btuh/h oil boilers brand Volcano dating from
1966
o New boilers:
 a 500 MBTU/h Patterson-kelley model Pulsar PO-500
(efficiency 87%)
 three smaller 300 MBTU/h from Dettson model HM2293 (efficiency 75%) for peak periods
- Replacing windows and doors (replacement of 270m2 of windows
and doors to diminish heat losses, useful life of the measure 30 years)
Phase 2 (2003)
- Installation of a centralized management system
electromechanical equipment includes the following measures
- Lighting retrofit
Phase 3 (2006)
for
38
101
106
-
162
-
220
-
102
-
Adjustment of the water temperature based on the outside temperature
Lower temperature when unoccupied
Control of lighting in the gym, cafeteria and ‘’big room’’
Installation of a 1500Mbtu/h condensing boiler by Gasmaster model
GMI1.4M (efficiency 87-99%) to replace two natural gas boilers of
1850 MBH (542 kW) and 1266 MBH (371 kW)
Lighting retrofit
Couple both heating networks
Installation of a heat exchanger plate between domestic hot water and
water loop
Installation of a heat recovery system between evacuation and new air
for the pool
Installation of an off peak electric boiler of 300 kW
Replace 50 heat pumps of the water loop, installation of shutters on
new air and optimization of sequences
Lighting retrofit
Installation of two new systems of 20 000 CFM and modification of
air distribution
Optimization of sequences of existing centralized management
system (addition of 500 points)
Installation of two 2000 Mbth/h condensing boilers from Gasmaster
model GMI2M (efficiency 87-99%) to replace two 16800 MBH
boilers by Dominion Bridge
Installation of one 100kW off peak electric boiler
Lighting retrofit
Control lighting in the gym, cafeteria and theater
Installation of a 2000 Mbtu/h condensing boiler from Gasmaster
model GMI2M. The old boilers will stay in operation, the new one
will allow to increase efficiency of the entire heating system.
Modification of the new ventilation system and control its operation
sequences
Lighting retrofit
Control of the new air conditioning system
Installation of a 1500 MBH condensing boiler by Gasmaster model
GMI1.5M. This additional boiler will allow to increase the efficiency
of the heating system.
Lighting retrofit
Couple the networks and replace feeding piping and return of the
façade of the old section
39

Commission scolaire des Patriotes

Transcription

Similar documents

Commission scolaire des Samares

Linda Tran Executive Summary

Project Description

Climate Change - Ev-K2-CNR

Place des Arts

Oral Interaction Posters

rhizomatous tall fescue - Greenhorizons Sod Farms

Van Houtte Coffee Services