Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Overview of the National and Provincial Energy Codes for Buildings

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Overview of the National and Provincial Energy Codes for Buildings"— Presentation transcript:

1 Overview of the National and Provincial Energy Codes for Buildings
Cathy Taraschuk, Mihailo Mihailovic, Heather Knudsen and Elisabeth Girgis

2 History of the Energy Code development in Canada
Outline History of the Energy Code development in Canada National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) 2011 Impetus for updating the 1997 Model National Energy Code for Buildings Approach used in NECB and details Provincial/Territorial Energy Requirements for Building Construction This presentation will focus on three main areas: a history of the development of national energy codes for construction the reasons why the decision was made to update the Model National Energy Code for Buildings and the criteria accompanying that decision, and a discussion of the basic philosophy used for the National Energy Code for Buildings 2011, its framework, and a brief technical overview of its contents the status of construction requirements for energy efficiency in the provinces and territories

3 (e.g. SC on Energy Efficiency in Buildings)
National Code System PTPACC CCBFC TG But first, let's take a brief look at the system under which the National Codes are developed. [Click] The NRC establishes the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes to provide direction and oversight to the development of the National Model Construction Code Documents. The CCBFC membership consists of volunteer representatives from three sectors (regulatory, industry and general interest) in a balanced matrix that provide their expertise to the code development process. In addition, the membership of the CCBFC is drawn from all regions of Canada to provide for regional insights into the Codes. The CCBFC is responsible for the content of the National Model Construction Code Documents. [Click] The technical content of the Codes is developed by the standing committees of the CCBFC. Like the Commission, the standing committees consist of volunteers from the same three sectors and from across the country. These members bring their technical expertise and experience to the code development system. The standing committees make recommendations on the technical content of the codes to the CCBFC and it is the CCBFC that makes the final decision on the content. There are nine standing committees, including the Standing Committee on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Typically, the standing committees conduct their work through task groups (example, task group on radon). [Click] As the provinces and territories have the constitutional authority for enacting laws and regulations pertaining to buildings and facilities, the Commission seeks advice from the Provincial/Territorial Policy Advisory Committee on Code (PTPACC) to develop a coordinated code development system aimed at producing National Model Construction Code Documents that are more responsive to provincial/territorial policy priorities and to the needs of code users and consumers. [Click] NRC’s Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC) provides technical, research and administrative support to the CCBFC and its committees and to the National Model Construction Code Documents development system. SC SC SC SC 9 Standing Committees (e.g. SC on Energy Efficiency in Buildings) TG Task Groups (e.g. TG on Building Envelope)

4 From proposed changes to requirement:
The Process From proposed changes to requirement: Change Request from Proponent Standing Committee – Review Standing Committee – Development Public Review Standing Committee – Final Recommendation Commission Decision Publication of Codes Here you see an overview of the process of how changes can make it from a proposal to the next code. First, staff receives the code change request from the proponent like yourself. It is then brought forward to the standing committee for review to see if it is a justified change. Following approval by the Commission, the standing committee would then continue with the development of the code change. When the wording of the change is complete, the proposed change is sent for public review, where the industry and public can view the change and make comments either in support of the change, support with minor modifications, or disapprove of the change all together. The standing committee would review ALL comments and make it’s final recommendation, whether it be keep as is, make an editorial change, make a technical change or withdraw for further review. The recommendation is then brought to the Commission for final decision. If all is well, the change is made with the publication of the Codes.

5 History 1974 – Department of Energy Mines and Resources requested interdepartmental committee to draft guidelines for energy efficiency of government buildings Associate Committee on the National Building Code (ACNBC) given mandate Now, let's move on to the history of the development of the national energy codes. In 1974, the Department of Energy Mines and Resources (now Natural Resources Canada or NRCan) requested that a federal interdepartmental committee be formed to draft guidelines for energy requirements in federal government buildings. The predecessor to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, the Associate Committee on the National Building Code (ACNBC) was given the mandate for the preparation of these guidelines

6 Standing Committee on Energy Conservation in Buildings
History (cont’d) Standing Committee on Energy Conservation in Buildings first meeting – November 1976 technology for performance modeling not sufficiently advanced Code set as prescriptive Code based on ASHRAE 90 Standard Fall 1977 – first draft document for public comment The Standing Committee on Energy Conservation in Buildings was formed to draft the technical requirements, and held its first meeting in November At that time, the methodology and tools for modeling were not sufficiently advanced to allow for their incorporation into a code document, and so the Code contained only prescriptive provisions related to building envelope, HVAC, service water heating and lighting. It was in large part based on the ASHRAE 90 Standard. Public review of the provisions took place in the fall of 1977.

7 History (cont’d) 1978 – First edition of the “Measures for Energy Conservation in New Buildings” The first edition of the Measures for Energy Conservation in New Buildings was published in 1978. Here you see the first Canadian energy code with its price tag of $ Times have changed.

8 History (cont’d) Second edition of Measures for Energy Conservation in Buildings was published in 1983 new section for houses only province to adopt the Measures was Quebec, with some changes 1990 Ontario Building Code included insulation levels for houses based on 1983 edition CMHC – compliance mandatory for housing financed under the National Housing Act Work continued on the provisions, and in 1983, the second edition of the Measures for Energy Conservation in Buildings was published. It addressed the same overall areas as the 1978 version, and added a Part on Houses. Success of the document was limited. Quebec was the only Province to adopt the measures, with some changes. Ontario based the insulation levels prescribed in the 1990 edition of the Ontario Building Code on the 1983 version of the Measures. Also, Canada (then Central) Mortgage and Housing Corporation made compliance with the the energy code mandatory for housing financed under the National Housing Act.

9 1989 – Suspension of technical work
History (cont’d) 1989 – Suspension of technical work 1990 – Funding, market forces  technical work recommences In 1989, due to budget constraints and the market effects, work on the next edition was suspended. Then, in 1990, conditions changed again; funding was forthcoming for the work, and the market forces aligned. The Standing Committee on Energy Conservation was reestablished and technical work on the next edition proceeded.

10 Model National Energy Code for Buildings 1997
History (cont’d) Model National Energy Code for Buildings 1997 Prescriptive approach: building envelope, HVAC, service water heating, lighting, electrical power Engineering approach: performance  “Performance Compliance for Buildings” reference and proposed building modeling Model National Energy Code for Houses (MNECH) published in 1997 The Model National Energy Code for Buildings was published in 1997. The basis of the document was the prescriptive provisions found in the Parts dealing with building envelope, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning, service water heating, lighting and electrical power. In addition, the building envelope Part allowed for some prescriptive trade-offs between building envelope components. Since the publication of the previous Energy Measures, the modeling methodology and tools had dramatically progressed, so that the MNECB 1997 contained a Part dealing with an engineering approach on how to perform the modeling. Most of the provisions and guidelines related to this were published in a separate document entitled "Performance Compliance for Buildings" published in In this procedure, the energy use of the proposed building is determined in accordance with the modeling approach. This is then compared to the energy used by the same building but designed to the prescriptive requirements (the reference building). The energy used by the proposed building cannot exceed that used by the reference building. The scope of the MNECB 1997 generally addressed all buildings except for Part 9 housing. A separate energy code for Part 9 housing was published at the same time, the Model National Energy Code for Houses Its structure was the same as that of the Energy Code for Buildings, and it also had a supplementary document dealing with the performance compliance path.

11 Total life-cycle costing
History (cont’d) Total life-cycle costing Different construction requirements for different energy sources Regional variations in energy costs Not widely adopted The requirements in both energy codes were established using total life-cycle costing. This costing involved different values depending on the energy source. This resulted in a variation of total energy used by buildings that have different energy sources, all other design considerations being the same. Also, the costing took regional energy cost variations into account, so requirements could vary from one region to another even if the climatic considerations were identical. Although the MNECB 1997 was not widely adopted by the provinces and territories (in fact, only one province referenced the document), a number of government, utility, and private sector programs used the MNECB as a complement to incentive programs and to establish a baseline for new energy-efficient building design.  These programs include NRCan’s Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP), utilities programs in BC, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec and LEED-Canada. Based on the lack of adoption of the MNECB by the provinces and territories, work on the energy codes was suspended until..

12 Decision to Update June 2005 Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) meeting NRCan presentation and request for update Motion “Moved … and seconded … that CCBFC supports, as a first phase, the work on the technical basis for the development of the revisions to the MNECB as a progeny document on condition that the necessary support and funding for the project is provided from NRCan and/or others.” At the June 2005 meeting of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, Natural Resources Canada requested that the CCBFC update the Model National Energy Code for Buildings based on declining energy resources available to Canadians and the high levels of demand on energy by buildings. The result was that the CCBFC agreed to a first phase that required that provincial/territorial support from the building construction departments be demonstrated and that the project be funded by NRCan and/or others. The actual motion that was approved is shown on the slide.

13 Decision to Update February 2007 CCBFC meeting
Building Energy Codes Collaborative (BECC) business plan P/T support funding from NRCan February 2007 CCBFC meeting “Moved by …, seconded by …, that the updating of the MNECB as a progeny document based on the BECC business plan be approved, subject to: the process to develop the document would follow the policies and procedures of the Commission the work would not compromise the capacity to complete the current and ongoing priorities of the coordinated codes development system” The Building Energy Code Collaborative (BECC) was established. BECC was a provincial-territorial-federal committee supported by the Council of Energy Ministers, the Assistant Deputy Minister Steering Committee on Energy Efficiency (ASCEE) and Natural Resources Canada with a mandate of pursuing the update of the MNECB as a stand-alone document. BECC put together a business plan that contained letters of support for addressing energy requirements for buildings in a code from both the energy and building construction provincial/territorial ministries, and a commitment of funding from NRCan. BECC presented this business plan at the February 2007 meeting of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. The CCBFC congratulated BECC on their accomplishments, and agreed to update the MNECB as a stand alone document on the conditions that it follow the code development process established by the Commission and that the work would not compromise the work being undertaken on the other model code documents. The actual motion that was approved is shown on the slide.

14 First meeting in December 2007 Task groups
NECB 2011 Standing Committee on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (SC-EEB) formed in 2007 First meeting in December 2007 Task groups Building Envelope HVAC and Service Water Heating Lighting and Power Performance Compliance Code Consolidation The Standing Committee on Energy Efficiency in Buildings was established in 2007 to do the technical update of the document. The first meeting was held in December 2007, and the work is proceeding on an accelerated basis that is scheduled to produce the National Energy Code for Buildings in 2011. The bulk of the work is being addressed by task groups of the Standing Committee. They are the Task Groups on building envelope, HVAC and service water heating, lighting and power, performance compliance, and code consolidation. The task groups are responsible for specific Parts of the Code. In addition, the task group on code consolidation, which is comprised of the chairs of the other task groups and the Standing Committee, is overseeing the development of all the other task groups to ensure that there is consistency in the approach and to provide overall guidance.

15 Energy used by the building Paths of compliance
NECB 2011 Objective-based Energy used by the building Paths of compliance Prescriptive path Trade-off path (within the Part) Performance path Simple payback approach Energy target The National Energy Code for Buildings will be in objective-based format as are the National Building, Plumbing and Fire Codes. The NECB 2011 will have a pure energy objective in that it will address energy used by the building and will not codify factors and costs related to energy source and local variations. The provisions will, of course, vary depending on climate zone as determined by heating degree days. It will have three compliance paths: a prescriptive path, a trade-off path that allows for trade-off within a part only, and a performance path. Costs will not be codified, though cost analysis using a simple payback approach will be conducted to support the technical changes. The ultimate performance goal of the National Energy Code for Buildings is to establish an energy target or budget based on class of building, and could take the form of energy used per square meter of building floor area or per cubic meter of building. The modeling procedure of the performance compliance path would then produce an energy usage that could be compared against the energy target. This may not be achievable for the 2011 version, and if not, will be the goal for the subsequent edition.

16 Task Group on Building Envelope
Air leakage requirements are being introduced for building envelope assemblies Maximum overall thermal transmittances (U-values) will not differ for different types of construction will be one U-value for roofs, one U-value for opaque walls, one for vertical glazing, etc. Thermal requirements categorized by climate zone, defined by heating degree days – six Canadian climate zones Thermal requirements will be fuel source neutral Now, let's get into some of the finer details of what you will see in the NECB 2011. First, the Task Group on Building Envelope, whose mandate it is to update Part 3 – Building Envelope of the MNECB 1997. - Air leakage requirements are being introduced for building envelope assemblies - The overall thermal transmittances (U-values) will not differ for different types of assembly construction. In other words, there will be one U-value for roofs one for opaque walls, etc. - The thermal requirements will be given by climate zone for six Canadian climate zones. - The thermal requirements will be fuel source neutral Note: (Zone 4: , Zone 5: , Zone 6: , Zone 7a: , Zone 7b: , Zone 8: 7000 and above)

17 Task Group on Building Envelope (cont’d)
Existing Provisions Table A (1) Prescriptive Requirements – Above-ground Building Assemblies Forming Part of Sentence (1) Assembly Description Principal Heating Source Electricity, Other Oil, Propane, Heat Pump Natural Gas Maximum Overall Thermal Transmittance (U-value), W/m2 ºC Roofs Type I - attic-type roofs 0.140 0.200 Type II - parallel-chord trusses and joist-type roofs 0.230 Type III - all other roofs (e.g., concrete decks with rigid insulation) 0.290 0.410 0.470 Walls 0.330 0.480 0.550 Floors Type I - parallel-chord trusses and joist-type floors 0.220 Type II - all other floors (e.g., concrete slabs with rigid insulation) Here is an example of the existing provisions in MNECB 1997 for maximum overall thermal transmittance for above-ground components. As you can see, there are three different roof types and two different floor types, each with different U-values depending on the principal heating source. In the MNECB 1997, more insulation is required if the roof was an attic-type roof. More insulation is required for an attic in a building heated by electricity compared to one heated with natural gas.

18 Task Group on Building Envelope (cont’d)
Proposed Approach Assembly Description Principal Heating Source Electricity, Other Oil, Propane, Heat Pump Natural Gas Maximum Overall Thermal Transmittance (U-value), W/m2 ºC Roofs x Type I - attic-type roofs 0.140 0.200 Type II - parallel-chord trusses and joist-type roofs 0.230 Type III - all other roofs (e.g., concrete decks with rigid insulation) 0.290 0.410 0.470 Walls Floors Type I - parallel-chord trusses and joist-type floors 0.220 Type II - all other floors (e.g., concrete slabs with rigid insulation) In the proposed approach, there is one maximum overall U-value for each assembly types (roof, wall, floor) regardless of the principal heating fuel. Note: handout does not have the big red x through the Principle Heating Source cells.

19 Task Group on Lighting and Electrical Power
Lighting requirements are generally being harmonized with ASHRAE Additional requirements for automatic control devices, including automatic daylighting controls Lighting power allowances for building exteriors will be introduced for more exterior lighting applications Next, looking at the work of the Task Group on Lighting and Electrical Power whose mandate is to update Part 4 (lighting) and Part 7 (electrical power) of the MNECB 1997. To give you a sense of some of the changes coming forward for the lighting part there will be: - a general harmonization of lighting requirements in the NECB with the proposed lighting requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 / 2010 - additional requirements for automatic control devices - requirements for more exterior lighting applications

20 Task Group on Lighting and Electrical Power (cont’d)
Lighting (cont’d) Lighting Power Density (LPD) tables updated Lighting Power Densities Using the Building Area Method Building Area Type W/m2 Automotive facility 9.79 Convention center 11.30 Courthouse 11.51 Dining: bar lounge/leisure 10.87 Dining: cafeteria/fast food 10.01 Dining: family 10.11 The lighting power density tables will be updated. The table shown is an excerpt from the lighting power density tables in the MNECB 1997.

21 Task Group on Lighting and Electrical Power (cont’d)
Lighting (cont’d) LPD tables updated Lighting Power Densities Using the Space-by-Space Method Common Space Types LPD, W/m2 Building-Specific Space Types LPD, W/m2 Office – Enclosed x Office – Open Plan x Conference/Meeting/Multipurpose x Classroom/Lecture/Training x For Penitentiary x Gymnasium/Fitness Centre x Playing Area x Fitness Area x Courthouse/Police Station/Penitentiary x Courtroom x The new lighting power densities (LPDs) were determined by updating the lighting models that form the basis for the LPDs. Based on the illumination requirements for the space type, the lighting equipment combinations are considered and the required power for each of those combinations is determined . The model conducts multiple simulations to arrive at the lighting power densities for each of the space types.

22 Task Group on Lighting and Electrical Power (cont’d)
Lighting (cont’d) Simple trade-off compliance path quantify the impact of daylighting/daylight dependent and other controls compare the overall lighting energy use of a building to a prescriptive baseline A simple trade-off compliance path will be introduced in the lighting part of the NECB This trade-off path allows the user to quantify the impact of daylighting / daylight dependent control and other controls on the energy use, in order to compare it to the overall lighting energy use of a building defined by the prescriptive path within the NECB. This gives the lighting designer more flexibility in applying the LPDs.

23 Task Group on Lighting and Electrical Power (cont’d)
Few technical changes are proposed There are few technical changes being proposed in the Electrical Power Part.

24 Task Group on HVAC and Service Water Heating
For prescriptive path, values for efficiency ratings, insulation thicknesses, etc., are being updated to minimum values listed in other standards and efficiency acts New requirements maximum temperature set points for vestibules more requirements for when cooling is installed more requirements for heat recovery systems requirements for solar thermal service water heating equipment Next, looking at the work of the Task Group on HVAC and Service Water Heating whose mandate is to update Part 5 (HVAC) and Part 6 (Service Water Heating) of the MNECB 1997: The Prescriptive path will update values for efficiency ratings of the equipment, update insulation thickness, all the while ensuring that the minimum values listed in standards and efficiency acts are followed. Some new requirements being introduced are: maximum temperature set points for vestibules; If cooling is to be installed, there will be new requirements; More requirements for heat recovery systems, and Requirements for solar thermal service water heating equipment.

25 Task Group on HVAC and Service Water Heating (cont’d)
For trade-off path, system efficiencies as opposed to individual component efficiencies – would include losses through the ducts and pipes For compliance path, criteria/systems that cannot be altered from the prescriptive or trade-off approaches The trade-off path within the Parts will have a new tool developed just for this code. A tool to calculate the system efficiency as opposed to just individual component efficiency is well under way. This would take into account the losses through the ducts and pipes. By altering the components and where the losses are occurring within the system, the overall system would meet the requirements. In meeting with the performance path, certain aspects will be kept as absolute minimums, that cannot be altered when being modeled. The obvious restriction will be meeting the minimum levels indicated in the Energy Efficiency Act.

26 Task Group on HVAC and Service Water Heating (cont’d)
Existing Provisions Table Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning Equipment Performance Standards Forming Part of Sentence (1) Rating Conditions Minimum Performance Component Cooling Capacity Standard Air-cooled unitary air-conditioners and heat pumps – electrically operated (Except packaged terminal air-conditioners and room air-conditioners Split-system £ 19 kW CAN/CSA-C273-M (including General Instruction No. 4) In Standard Single package To give an example of some of the updates, this slide shows part of the table showing the performance standards of some of the equipment. These values are being updated with the most recent standards available, ensuring that this new code is following industry at a minimum for efficiency levels required. The Task Group is also looking at ASHRAE 90.1 in updating these values and seeing what the 2010 version will be including. £ 19 kW CAN/CSA-C656-M (including General Instruction No. 2) All phases > 19 and < 73 kW CAN/CSA-C746 Air-conditioners, all phases kW ( Btu/h) EER = 8.5(1) IPLV = 7.5(2) > kW ( Btu/h) ARI 360 EER = 8.2(1) IPLV = 7.5(2)

27 Task Group on HVAC and Service Water Heating (cont’d)
Proposed Provisions Minimum Total System Efficiency (per all of the minimum Components) System Differential on Minimum Component Efficiency System Components System Type Notes Heating Forced air Up to 225,000 Btu/h Heat source Fan Static press Ducting Controls Terminal units Insulation Ehs = 85% Ef = Esp = Edu = Ec = Etu = Ei = SEfah = 75% (85% x Ef x Esp x Edu x Ec x Etu x Ei) Any other relevant info or comments go here; you can also include the relevant section of the MNECB here, i.e. see below With regards to the systems efficiency tool that was discussed earlier, this slide shows the beginning of what was envisioned this table would start as. The system efficiency would be based on the component efficiencies and how each one was weighted for it’s effect on the overall efficiency. The development of this tool included over 20,000 modeling computations being completed to determine the weight factors.

28 Task Group on HVAC and Service Water Heating (cont’d)

29 Task Group on Building Performance Compliance
Compliance will ultimately be based on building energy targets – for either 2011 version or subsequent if use reference and proposed building approach, criteria/systems that are in the proposed building will be included in the reference building (e.g., cooling) Contents of supplement “Performance Compliance for Buildings” is being shifted to either the Code, the explanatory appendix to the Code, or a proposed users guide Next we’ll look at the work of the TG on Building Energy Performance Compliance whose mandate is to update Part 8 of the MNECB 1997. As mentioned earlier, the ultimate performance goal will be to establish an energy target or budget based on class of building (e.g. energy used/m2). The methodology and research will likely not be in place for the 2011 version of the NECB, however it will be a consideration for future editions of the code. As for this edition of the NECB, the requirements within the supplement “Performance Compliance for Buildings” will be moved to within the body of the code, into the appendix of the code or into a proposed user’s guide for the NECB, which should be available shortly after the Code is published.

30 NECB 2011 Stay tuned…. The technical requirements are currently being drafted, so stay tuned. A public review of the proposed changes to the Model National Energy Code for Buildings will take place in the fall of 2010. Information on the code development process and the National Energy Code for Buildings can be found at the Codes website: As mentioned earlier, one province references MNECB The OBC’s supplementary standard, SB-10, includes a reference to MNECB 1997 and ASHRAE 90.1 / 2004. Other provinces have either adopted ASHRAE 90.1 or do not have energy efficiency requirements for buildings. In the case of BC, for example, the province has adopted ASHRAE 90.1 / 2004, while the City of Vancouver has adopted ASHRAE 90.1 / 2007. Are there any questions?

31 Energy Efficiency in Houses and Small Buildings
The Model National Energy Code for Houses (MNECH) was last published in 1997. Has not been maintained since. Present development: January 2008 – CCBFC Executive Committee reviewed a code change request to add an energy objective to the NBC. Also received correspondence from CHBA in support of refurbishing the MNECH. In addition to the development of the National Energy Code for Buildings, there have been some recent decisions by the Commission regarding the Energy Code for Houses. The last Model National Energy Code was published in 1997, at the same time as the National Energy Code for Buildings. It has not been maintained primarily due to a lack of adoption by the jurisdictions. At the Executive Committee meeting in January 2008, a code change request for reviewed which looked at adding an energy objective or a resource objective addressing both water use and energy efficiencies to the NBC. The Exec also reviewed correspondence and received a presentation from the Canadian Home Builders Association in support of refurbishing the MNECH.

32 Energy Efficiency in Houses and Small Buildings
A Joint CCBFC/PTPACC Task Group was formed and recommend the following approach: Follow application/scope of Part 9 incorporate technical requirements on Energy Efficiency into a separate section of Part 9 of the NBC. include prescriptive requirements Attempt to include performance targets use NRCan’s EnerGuide for New Homes and MNECH 1997 as a resource. A Joint CCBFC/PTPACC Task Group was formed to come up with some recommendations on addressing Energy Efficiency in Houses. The suggested approach is to incorporate the technical requirements related to energy efficiency in houses and small buildings into Part 9 of the NBC. It is recommended to have these requirements as a separate section. The requirements should be prescriptive and should be consistent with the performance targets of NRCan’s EnerGuide for New Homes , possibly with a target of 80.

33 Energy Efficiency in Houses and Small Buildings
Add energy efficiency in housing and small buildings to the Terms of Reference and work plans of SCEEB and SCHSB. A joint SCEEB and SCHSB task group will be formed to develop the technical requirements. Objectives and functional statements for buildings will be suitable for housing. Publish technical requirements as an interim change no later than 2012. The plans are to add Energy Efficiency in housing and small buildings to the Terms of Reference and work plans of both the Standing Committee on Energy Efficiency in Buildings and the Standing Committee on Housing and Small Buildings. A joint task group with both of these standing committees will be formed to develop the technical requirements. The objectives and functional statements being created for buildings will be suitable for housing. The only objective is to be energy efficient. It is expected that the prescriptive requirements will be available for adoption by jurisdictions by no later than 2012. On a side note, unlike the MNECB 1997, the new Energy Code for Houses will include not only houses but also include Part 9 small buildings, which were previously in the Energy Code for Buildings. As this is just about to start, stay tuned for more developments to come.

34 Energy Efficiency in Houses and Small Buildings
Will address: Building Envelope HVAC Service Water Heating (?) Water use efficiency is currently being reviewed for inclusion.

35 Energy Efficiency in Houses and Small Buildings
Current Status: Terms of Reference being drafted Seeking volunteers for membership (from SCEEB, SCHSB and external) First meeting to be held before end of the year.

36


Download ppt "Overview of the National and Provincial Energy Codes for Buildings"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google