Compliance – Three Options 1. Prescriptive Approach 2. Performance Approach 3. Simple Trade-Off Method (STOM) Section 9.36 of the NBC

Compliance With 9.36 – Three Options 1. Prescriptive Approach - Use prescribed RSI values and equipment performance requirements listed in Section Advantages: easy to use, acceptance by code authorities. - Disadvantage: lack of flexibility.

Compliance With 9.36 – Three Options 2. Performance Approach - Model house and verify that its annual energy use does not exceed that of an equivalent structure designed to Advantages: very flexible, virtually any type of house or design detail can be modeled. - Disadvantages: Time and cost plus availability of trained personnel.

2. Performance Approach (con’t) ● Intended for situations where major departures from the prescriptive requirements are planned, and which can not be accommodated with the STOM. ●Using HOT2000, or an equivalent computer model, the house’s energy performance is modeled under two conditions: a) Designed to the prescriptive requirements b) Designed as is ● The energy consumption of House b) can not exceed that of House a). ● Default values for the house’s operating conditions (temperatures, occupancies, mechanical ventilation rates, base loads, etc.) are strictly controlled.

Compliance With 9.36 – Three Options 3. Simple Trade-Off Method - Use higher-than-required RSI values in one building component and lower-than-required RSI values in another component (e.g. trade between walls and attics). - Advantage: relatively quick and easy to use. - Disadvantage: Acceptance by code authorities, technical issues with truss attics.

Simple Trade-Off Method Opaque-to-Opaque Trades - Example: Reduce wall RSI level and increase attic RSI level. Opaque-to-Transparent Trades - Example: Reduce window RSI level and increase attic RSI level. Opaque-to-Transparent Trades - Intended for factory-constructed buildings. - Example: Reduce window area and reduce attic RSI level

How Reality and the Simple Trade-Off Method View An Attic Trade

Cost Impact Of Section 9.36 ● Incremental costs of complying with 9.36 will be estimated. ● However, the provisions are not required to meet any cost-effectiveness requirement. ● The new 9.36 requirements were established to meet a pre-defined ERS target – not on the basis of some economic metric.

Cost Impact Of Section 9.36 (con’t) ● Incremental Cost of an Energy Conservation Measure = (Unit cost) x (Area or number) x (Utilization Factor) ● For example: The incremental cost of upgrading exterior wall insulation in Toronto from RSI 2.93 (R-20 nominal) to RSI 3.30 (R-24 actual) is: = ($2.14 /m 2 ) x (133.5 m 2 ) x (1) = $285

Cost Impact Of Section 9.36 (con’t) ● Incremental Cost of an Energy Conservation Measure = (Unit cost) x (Area or number) x (Utilization Factor) ● For example: The incremental cost of upgrading the airtightness of a house in Toronto: = ($2116/house) x (1) x (0.17) = $360

Costing Airtightness – The Problem ● 9.36 will contain approx. 10 prescriptive details for sealing the envelope. Total cost of all 10 measures ranges from $2000 to $3000. ● 9.36 is predicated on an airtightness of 2.5 ac/hr 50. ● But, recent NRCan studies have shown that the average airtightness of new, non-program houses ranges from 2.3 to over 6 ac/hr 50, depending on location. ● So, how much will the 9.36 measures add to the cost of the house?

Costing Airtightness – The Solution ● Using the location’s average airtightness, costs were prorated based on how much the airtightness has to be improved from the existing value to 2.5 ac/hr 50. ● Results: Estimated costs to upgrade from existing practice to 2.5 ac/hr 50 Vancouver $ 652 Toronto$ 360 Montreal$ 292 Winnipeg$ 0 Fort McMurray$ 498 Yellowknife$ 2900

Preliminary Building Envelope Costs ● Using this approach, the preliminary estimated incremental costs of upgrading to the proposed 9.36 requirements are: Vancouver $ 951 Toronto$ 1068 Montreal$ 1001 Winnipeg$ 1394 Fort McMurray$ 1942 Yellowknife$ 9229

Any More Questions??