You are on page 1of 65

FACILITY SERVICES

Energy Management Plan


Dr. Mohamed Attalla, Associate Vice President, Facility Services
Joe Emberson, Director of Energy Management and Utilities

Spring 2013
Index
1. ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 5
1.1 McMaster University profile................................................................................................. 5
2. BASIS FOR THE PLAN .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Environmental ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Economic ............................................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Social considerations .......................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Other Canadian Universities ............................................................................................... 15
3. MONITORING AND METERING........................................................................................................ 16
4. ENERGY PROCUREMENT POLICY .................................................................................................. 18
5. OCCUPANT COMFORT STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 19
6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST PERFORMANCE DATA............................................................. 20
6.1 Energy Profile ..................................................................................................................... 20
6.1.1 Annual Usage Data ..................................................................................................................... 20
6.1.2 Energy usage of research vs. non-research buildings ................................................................ 23
6. 2 Energy Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 24
6.2.1 Campus energy benchmarking .................................................................................................. 24
6.2.2 E2 Energy Benchmarking ........................................................................................................... 25
6.2.3 Campus Energy Intensities ......................................................................................................... 26
7. ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST REDUCTION TARGETS ............................................................ 29
8. ENERGY ACTION PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 33
8.1 Index of Initiatives .............................................................................................................. 33
8.1.1 Grid Balancing (ENBALA) pilot project ....................................................................................... 34
8.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Heat Recovery Plan ......................................................................................... 35
8.1.3 Co-generation Proposals ............................................................................................................ 37
8.1.4 Building Exhaust Fans................................................................................................................. 38
8.1.5 Laboratory Air Balancing ............................................................................................................ 39
8.1.6 Fumehood retrofits and upgrades projects ............................................................................... 41
8.1.7 Schneider Dashboard ................................................................................................................. 43
8.1.8 Renewable Energy Installations ................................................................................................. 44

2
8.1.9 Retro-Commissioning ................................................................................................................. 45
8.1.10 Voltage correction.................................................................................................................... 47
8.1.11 LED Lighting replacements ....................................................................................................... 48
8.1.12 HHS-MUMC Window Coating .................................................................................................. 49
8.1.13 Plug Load Analysis .................................................................................................................... 50
Gilmour Hall .................................................................................................................................. 50
Hamilton Hall ................................................................................................................................ 51
Chester New Hall ........................................................................................................................... 52
Togo Salmon Hall .......................................................................................................................... 52
8.1.14 Miscellaneous Control Systems ............................................................................................... 54
8.1.15 Water savings ........................................................................................................................... 56
City Water Savings ........................................................................................................................ 56
Life Sciences Building Fish tanks.................................................................................................. 56
8.1.16 Union Gas Contract .................................................................................................................. 57
8.1.17 Chiller replacement .................................................................................................................. 58
Chiller 5 and 6 replacement ........................................................................................................... 58
8.1.18 Energy Manager ....................................................................................................................... 59
8.2 Energy Action Plan conclusion ............................................................................................................. 60
9. AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS & MILESTONE CELEBRATIONS ..................................................... 61
10. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 63
11. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A: Energy Management Advisory Council .............................................................. 64
Standing Members .............................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix B: Energy Management Initiatives Summary .......................................................... 65

3
List of figures
Figure 1: McMaster University campus, 2010-11 academic year
Figure 2: Uses of Assigned Space on campus
Figure 3: McMaster University greenhouse gas emissions by source
Figure 4: Energy costs 2001-2011
Figure 5: Campus energy consumption
Figure 6: Relative Energy costs (note: data excludes chilled water and steam costs)
Figure 7: Actual and forecasted electricity prices 2008-2016
Figure 8: Actual and forecasted gas prices (2008-2016)
Figure 9: Forecasted water prices 2008-16
Figure 10: Schematic diagram of McMaster University metering system
Figure 11: Gas consumption trends
Figure 12: Electricity consumption trends
Figure 13: Water Consumption trends
Figure 14: Monthly electricity consumption 2008-11
Figure 15: Monthly gas consumption 2008-11
Figure 16: Monthly water consumption 2008-11
Figure 17: ABB and MUSC electricity consumption trends
Figure 18: Electricity intensity trends 2001-10
Figure 19: Gas intensity trends 2001-10
Figure 20: Water intensity trends 2001-10
Figure 21: Gas reduction targets (2012-17)
Figure 22: Electricity consumption targets (2012-17)
Figure 23: Water consumption targets (2012-17)
Figure 24: Location of MNR heat recovery system
Figure 25: Schematic diagram of AirGenuity System
Figure 26: Gilmour Hall Energy profile
Figure 27: Baseline Load profile for Hamilton Hall
Figure 28: Baseline Load profile, Chester New Hall
Figure 29: Baseline Energy Profile for Togo Salmon Hall

4
1. ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK
1.1 McMaster University profile
Founded in 1887, McMaster University is home to almost 27,000 undergraduates, 3,000 graduate
students, and almost 7,500 employees.
Featuring state-of-the-art research facilities, a world-renowned medical program and innovative
student services, and located only minutes from Cootes Paradise (a national wildlife conservation
area) McMaster University offers a unique educational experience. Like most Canadian
universities, the academic year runs from September until late April, and during this period,
approximately 3,700 students occupy the universitys 12 residence buildings. In the summer
months (May-September) many of the residence buildings and classrooms remain unoccupied.
Campus occupancy decreases from approximately 27,000 students to approximately 10,000,
including summer students, campus maintenance staff and conference guests. However, this
presents a unique challenge to energy management, in that the buildings that are partially
occupied must have access to heating, lighting and ventilation, thus increasing energy costs, even
though occupancy may be much lower.

A schematic map showing the location and relative size of the campus is shown in Fig. 1:

Figure 1: McMaster University campus, 2010-11 academic year

5
The size of each of the buildings on the map above is shown in Table 1. This will aid in creating
an energy profile for the university.

6
Table 1: Building profile at McMaster University 2010-11(note: the scope of the plan does not include Divinity College
and Health Science Centre (HSC))

Fig. 2 shows the uses of assigned space on campus. It should be noted that building and residence
occupancy during the summer months and building occupancy during the evening and night also poses
challenges to energy management, as buildings that are partially occupied for evening classes still require
full heating, lighting and ventilation. Libraries, labs and classrooms often remain occupied until midnight
or later, and do not run on a predictable schedule, which stresses the Universitys energy management
systems. Caretakers and custodial staff in buildings later in the night and early in the morning also
increase energy usage.

Figure 2: Uses of Assigned Space on campus

7
2. BASIS FOR THE PLAN
Home to a diverse and innovative faculty and internationally renowned researchers, McMaster
University has traditionally affirmed the need for triple-bottom-line decision making considering
the environmental, social (i.e. user comfort and safety) and economic ramifications of the
Universitys actions.

The underlying motivation behind each of these three considerations is described below.

2.1 Environmental
Energy production and usage typically produces greenhouse gases, which contribute to global
climate change. Additionally concerns about global energy supply and global health effects due
to the high consumption of fossil fuels, have led to many nations and organizations advocating
for a sustainable energy future. Energy sustainability will likely include a gradual shift to cleaner
energy sources, as well as a change in global energy consumption trends and behaviour.
Organizations and countries all over the world will likely feel the challenge of maintaining
standards of service, and quality of life, while reducing energy consumption in order to remain
cost competitive.

In accordance with these principles, in October 2010 the universitys president, Patrick Deane,
signed the University and College Presidents Climate Change Action Plan, committing
McMaster to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Other agreements signed include the
Hamilton Climate Change Action Charter and the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium.

The University and College Presidents Climate Change Action plan mandates that Canadian
University signatories must commit themselves to reducing emissions in collaboration with their
communities develop reduction targets and measurement procedures and develop initiatives to
achieve said targets.

The greenhouse gas emissions by source are shown in Fig. 3:

Figure 3: McMaster University greenhouse gas emissions by source

Clearly, the two largest sources are electricity and building heating which can be addressed by an
effective Energy Management plan thus significantly reducing emissions across campus, and
helping to achieve emission reduction targets.

8
There are several federal and provincial energy reduction mandates that also support energy
conservation across university campuses. In 2005, the Ontario Power Authority released a report
titled Supply-Mix Advice Report that forecasted a 24,000MW shortage in generation capacity by
2025 due to a growth in demand and a lack of new investments and projects in the electricity
sector. This report announced that one of the methods that were being employed to reduce this
shortage was stringent conservation measures across homes and industry.

More recently, the Integrated Power System Plan released in 2011 made the following
predictions about Ontarios electricity future:
Aging grids, coal-phase out and nuclear maintenance will all contribute to stress on the
electricity supply.
The provincial government will continue to expand conservation plans and by 2030 will
reduce peak demand by 7,100MW, or 22% of total capacity for a total reduction of
28,000 TWh by 2030. The first landmark measured will be a savings of 4,550MW
(14%) by 2015.
Between 2011 and 2030, an anticipated investment of $12 billion will be used to meet
these targets, with an estimated $27 billion in savings for ratepayers.

These ambitious electricity consumption reduction goals are being targeted via a broad range of
programs and initiatives. Many of these initiatives encourage domestic and business consumers
to find innovative solutions to reduce their energy usage, through a series of financial incentives
(through local distribution companies) and awareness campaigns. Some programs such as the
Home energy savings Plan offer homes and businesses grants to conduct energy audits that
identify areas for energy savings

Ontarios Ministry of Energy is also committed to creating a conservation culture by promoting


energy conservation and efficiency, and clean energy sources. They state that The Ministry of
Energys mandate includes the creation of an energy conservation culture while ensuring a
reliable, sustainable, and diverse supply of energy at competitive prices, with minimal impact on
the provinces environment.

Furthermore, following the Green Energy Act of 2009, provincial bodies such as the Ontario
Power Authority have been pursuing increased energy efficiency by promoting energy efficient
home appliances, energy audits before or after house sales, and integrating building efficiency
into Ontario construction legislature.

A similar program on a federal level is the ecoACTION plan, a subset of which is the
ecoENERGY plan that focuses on efficiency initiatives across Canada to tackle climate change
and rising energy costs across the country. This initiative will invest $195 million over 5 years in
order to promote energy conservation, by encouraging energy efficient construction and
retrofitting, providing benchmark tools, and energy-rated appliances. The ecoENERGY plan also
offered retro-fits and grants for energy efficient equipment for homes and small businesses as
well as evaluations for implementing renewable energy and heating in commercial buildings.

9
These programs, campaigns and legislation, suggest a real commitment to energy savings by the
provincial and federal government. As a responsible corporate citizen, McMaster University
must also contribute to this conservation culture by monitoring and reducing its energy usage and
encouraging responsible behaviour from its community.

2.2 Economic
Energy is one of the most expensive commodities on campus, suggesting that an ambitious
Energy Management plan has the potential to save the university thousands of dollars.

Energy costs for all buildings on campus are shown in Table 2:


Building Name Electricity ($) Steam ($) Chilled Water Water ($) Total ($)
($)
University Hall $ 38,192.00 $ 49,224.61 $ 18,992.41 $ 4,597.49 $ 111,006.50
Alumni Memorial Building $ 21,344.00 $ 36,575.41 $ 5,516.77 $ 2,670.89 $ 66,107.07
Applied Dynamics Lab $ 39,344.00 $ - $ - $ 4,079.81 $ 43,423.81
Arthur N. Bourns Building $1,057,056.00 $ 400,637.02 $ 355,839.35 $ 204,285.62 $ 2,017,817.99
Bates Residence Building $ 42,648.00 $ 194,259.84 $ - $ 35,090.34 $ 271,998.18
Biology Greenhouse $ 2,744.00 $ 29,603.41 $ - $ 4,725.00 $ 37,072.41
Brandon Hall $ 68,456.00 $ 128,779.45 $ 60,760.02 $ 23,262.24 $ 281,257.71
Building T-13 $ 27,776.00 $ - $ 9,049.38 $ 2,190.58 $ 39,015.96
Burke Science Building $ 274,112.00 $ 218,425.09 $ 196,918.78 $ 75,056.02 $ 764,511.88
Campus Services Building $ 35,120.00 $ - $ - $ 4,932.20 $ 40,052.20
Chester New Hall $ 120,152.00 $ 193,166.53 $ 42,668.04 $ 20,657.30 $ 376,643.86
Commons Building $ 47,912.00 $ 62,889.73 $ 22,136.34 $ 10,717.09 $ 143,655.15
Communications Research Lab $ 26,960.00 $ 25,539.73 $ 21,527.41 $ 5,690.41 $ 79,717.55
David Braley Athletics Centre $ 192,864.00 $ 166,547.14 $ 50,819.24 $ 41,823.40 $ 452,053.78
E. T. Clarke Centre $ 12,000.00 $ 83,506.93 $ 14,554.75 $ 5,422.74 $ 115,484.41
Engineering technology Building $184,740.00 $29,784.00 $50,117.00 $16,196 $280,837.00
Edwards Hall $ 13,304.00 $ 32,529.76 $ - $ 5,876.05 $ 51,709.81
General Sciences Building $ 77,584.00 $ 111,534.37 $ 23,296.50 $ 33,836.29 $ 246,251.15
Gilmour Hall $ 84,608.00 $ 74,184.37 $ 43,219.20 $ 10,462.07 $ 212,473.64
H. G. Thode Library $ 83,416.00 $ 64,742.29 $ 30,715.18 $ 4,168.78 $ 183,042.25
Hamilton Hall $ 40,920.00 $ 51,475.57 $ 20,347.74 $ 4,925.58 $ 117,668.88
Hedden Hall $ 69,544.00 $ 123,067.75 $ 58,064.67 $ 22,230.31 $ 272,906.73
Information Technology Building $ 142,904.00 $ 90,319.57 $ 60,761.41 $ 8,267.77 $ 302,252.75
Institute for Applied Health Sciences $ 144,352.00 $ 133,894.27 $ 122,068.70 $ 46,458.60 $ 446,773.57
Ivor Wynne Centre $ 107,312.00 $ 212,409.25 $ 74,017.74 $ 135,834.94 $ 529,573.93
John Hodgins Engineering Building $ 531,772.80 $ 311,411.65 $ 229,325.76 $ 138,571.06 $ 1,211,081.27
Kenneth Taylor Hall $ 107,432.00 $ 221,572.45 $ 36,001.31 $ 24,000.68 $ 389,006.43
Les Prince Hall $ 91,240.00 $ 125,354.57 $ 59,143.95 $ 22,643.52 $ 298,382.04
Life Sciences Building $ 252,256.00 $ 344,414.81 $ 207,235.01 $ 160,774.51 $ 964,680.33
Mary E. Keyes Residence $ 126,000.00 $ 173,110.78 $ 81,676.40 $ 31,270.17 $ 412,057.34
Matthews Hall $ 26,008.00 $ 73,187.84 $ - $ 13,220.38 $ 112,416.22
McKay Hall $ 33,216.00 $ 78,846.35 $ - $ 14,242.51 $ 126,304.86
McMaster University Student Centre $ 186,216.00 $ 206,468.81 $ 120,568.92 $ 64,997.40 $ 578,251.12
Michael G. Degroote Centre for $ 460,771.12 $ 468,978.85 $ 395,480.03 $ 266,397.16 $ 1,591,627.15
Learning and Discovery

10
Michael G. Degroote School of $ 89,936.00 $ 134,840.77 $ 60,761.41 $ 13,791.67 $ 299,329.84
Business
Mills Library/Art Museum $ 242,821.20 $ 142,808.77 $ 91,525.35 $ 16,155.54 $ 493,310.86
Moulton Hall $ 25,232.00 $ 68,803.44 $ - $ 12,428.40 $ 106,463.84
Nuclear Reactor $ 52,128.00 $ 69,682.45 $ 9,270.99 $ 21,465.38 $ 152,546.82
Nuclear Research Building $ 71,192.00 $ 100,558.45 $ 59,182.67 $ 21,375.94 $ 252,309.05
President's Residence $ 1,944.00 $ - $ - $ 619.56 $ 2,563.56
Psychology Building $ 160,131.20 $ 252,768.86 $ 35,619.94 $ 91,631.10 $ 540,151.10
Refectory $ 15,864.00 $ 30,758.77 $ 7,890.05 $ 3,819.89 $ 58,332.70
Scourge Building $ 1,744.00 $ - $ - $ 802.29 $ 2,546.29
Tandem Accelerator Building $ 44,696.00 $ 31,017.73 $ 13,267.59 $ 19,269.76 $ 108,251.08
Temporary Lecture Theatre T28 $ 2,420.00 $ - $ - $ 265.40 $ 2,685.40
Temporary Lecture Theatre T29 $ 2,420.00 $ - $ - $ 265.40 $ 2,685.40
Togo Salmon Hall $ 123,392.00 $ 243,663.73 $ 55,183.56 $ 26,716.56 $ 448,955.84
Wallingford Hall $ 9,472.00 $ 27,781.24 $ - $ 5,018.30 $ 42,271.54
Wentworth House $ 38,488.00 $ 61,794.13 $ 16,054.99 $ 7,772.86 $ 124,109.97
Whidden Hall $ 20,504.00 $ 82,637.87 $ - $ 14,927.40 $ 118,069.27
Woodstock Hall $ 40,656.00 $ 76,185.77 $ 35,945.56 $ 13,761.91 $ 166,549.24
TOTAL $5,713,316.32 $5,839,744.08 $2,795,524.09 $1,740,382.28 $16,088,967.76

Table 2: Building energy usage

The total above, in addition to the Hospital, Ancaster campus, Burlington campus and downtown
Hamilton campus energy costs, come to a total energy budget of $21,857,000 per year.

The overall costs of energy usage across the university, between 2001-2011 are illustrated in Fig.
4:

Figure 4: Energy costs 2001-2011

11
An important point to note is that Fig. 4 only represents the total energy costs of operating
facilities on campus, whereas Table 2 includes fixed costs for each building which are not
represented in Fig. 4.

For comparison, Fig. 5 shows energy consumption over the same time period:

Campus Energy Consumption 2001-2011


90,000,000 14,000,000
80,000,000 12,000,000

Gas and water (m3)


70,000,000
Electricity (kwh)

10,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000 8,000,000
40,000,000 6,000,000 electricity
30,000,000
4,000,000 Gas
20,000,000
10,000,000 2,000,000
Water
- -

Fiscal year

Figure 5: Campus energy consumption

Fig. 4 shows that an effective energy savings plan has the potential to save the University
hundreds of thousands of dollar each year.

The relative costs of each utility in the 2010-11 academic sessions are shown in Fig. 6, to
demonstrate that electricity accounts for the bulk of energy costs. Similar trends are observed in
other years.

Figure 6: Relative Energy costs

12
Furthermore, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and the Independent Electricity Systems operator
(IESO) predict an increase in energy costs with an increase in demand over the upcoming years.

Using a linear line fit for cost data from 2008-2012, it is possible that electricity prices by 2016
may be as high as $119/MWh, leading to drastic increases in hydro costs for the university, as
shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 7: Actual and forecasted electricity prices 2008-2016

However, according to a linear fit from trends from 2008-2012, gas prices seem to be on the
decline, suggesting a decrease in cost to $0.22/m3 by 2016. This is shown in Fig. 8 below

Figure 8: Actual and forecasted gas prices (2008-2016)

13
However, water prices for the university display a steadily increasing price trend, as shown in
Fig. 9:

Figure 9: Forecasted water prices 2008-16

It should be noted that water prices increase proportionally to the electricity prices, City of
Hamilton and infrastructure cost increases, due to the electricity required to pump and filter
domestic water for use on campus.

The data above suggests that in the near future, energy related costs will increase drastically for
McMaster University, and that an effective energy management plan could potentially offset
these rapidly increasing costs.

2.3 Social considerations


McMaster University states that our goal is to provide and maintain healthy and safe working
and learning environments for all employees, students, volunteers and visitors. To support this
commitment both McMaster University and its employees are responsible jointly to implement
and maintain an Internal Responsibility System directed at promoting health and safety,
preventing incidents involving occupational injuries and illnesses or adverse effects upon the
natural environment. (Source: McMaster University Workplace Health & Safety Policy, 2012)

This commitment suggests that one of the highest priorities of the university is to provide a safe
and comfortable workplace and learning environment for all people using the campus. Therefore,
any energy savings measure, despite its economic savings and environmental benefits must be
made in the context of user health, safety and comfort. Furthermore, reducing energy costs
reduces the overall operating costs of the university which creates a more cost-competitive
business model.

14
Cleaner, more energy efficient workplaces and student environments have been shown to
increase productivity and improve employee health. Studies repeatedly show that employees take
fewer sick days and contribute more, in greener workspaces. An effective energy management
plan, and novel approaches to new building designs and refurbishments on campus can help to
achieve this goal.

Furthermore, social responsibility dictates that McMaster University has an obligation to pursue
initiatives that utilize resources sustainably.

2.4 Other Canadian Universities


Signatories of the University and College Presidents Climate Change Action Plan include
Queens University, University of Calgary, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, University
of Manitoba, St. Mary's University College, Dalhousie University, the University of Winnipeg,
and the University of Saskatchewan. These diverse educational institutions have all committed to
reducing emissions, by reducing energy usage and waste

Other institutions, although not formally committed to the Climate Change Action Plan, have
also taken significant measures to reduce energy usage across their campuses. Prominent
examples include:

The University of British Columbias commitment to be a zero carbon emission campus


by 2050, and a net positive energy producer by 2050. These goals were tackled by
innovative optimization and refurbishment programs, awareness campus and real time
energy and emissions monitoring systems, and earned the University one of the highest
ranks on the College Sustainability Report Card rankings for several years in a row.
York University began an intensive assessment and upgrade of their campus in 2005,
involving lighting retrofits, small scale cogeneration facility plans, HVAC modifications,
and small renewable energy installations.
The University of Guelph developed a Five Year Plan (2007-2012) for retro-fitting and
upgrades across campus, anticipating a 1.5% overall increase in efficiency per year, with
as much as a 25% increase in energy efficiency in some buildings.
Wilfrid Laurier University released an extensive energy management plan that involved
saving almost 16,000L of water per year, and outlined 9 other areas where the university
will take measures to improve energy efficiency.

A full report of all Ontario Universities sustainability and green initiatives can be found in the
Ontario Universities: Going Greener report released by the Council of Ontario Universities in
2009.

As a leader in energy research and sustainability, McMaster University has a responsibility to


ensure that it follows suit with energy management initiatives.

15
3. MONITORING AND METERING
In order to ensure compliance with the initiatives outlined in the plans and to measure progress,
and forecast future trends, it is necessary for McMaster University to have a rigorous energy
metering and monitoring plan.

Facility Services will be the University body primarily responsible for monitoring progress with
regards to the Energy Management Plan. The goals of an energy metering system must therefore
be as follows:
Located on the McMaster University campus, so that users and Facility Services can
monitor trends and correct faults efficiently.
Track consumption and price trends over a sufficient period of time and be capable of
forecasting future consumption and price data for setting conservation targets.
Have the capacity to present information in a meaningful way that will allow building
users to identify and modify their own energy consumption behaviour and be involved in
the energy conservation process.
Display results from energy saving initiatives, and help to identify new areas where
energy savings measures could be implemented.

McMasters metering system currently achieves these goals, although new projects are underway
to ensure that the system offers the most user flexibility and interaction. Recently, water and gas
consumption data has transitioned to on-site monitoring, whereas it was previously monitored by
the City of Hamilton and Union Gas. Fig. 10 shows the current metering system.

This diagram shows that energy usage data is collected individually from meters in individual
buildings. Each building may have several meters collecting real-time data about water, gas and
electricity usage. The meters maybe electrical (indicated by the 7300 code) or mechanical
(indicated by the 7500 code), and there is a total of 129 meters across campus. In some cases, the
meters may be electrical with mechanical data (such as steam information) pulsed in.

The data are constantly collected by these meters and are fed into an online database (via
individual IP addresses or a daisy-chain network structure) that reports data at fifteen minute
intervals and stores historical data. This real time and historical database is currently only
available to Facility Services employees, and is used (amongst other things) to forecast
consumption and thereby set energy conservation targets.

An important project currently in progress is the Enterprise Energy Management (EEM)


dashboard, shown in pink on the schematic diagram. This dashboard project will project real-
time energy consumption data onto screens available in residences and other campus buildings,
to give building occupants information about how individual behaviours, weather and building
design affect energy consumption across campus. This will allow users to become more engaged
and involved in meeting conservation targets.

16
This solution is being developed by Facility Services in conjunction with Schneider Electric with
a grant from NRCAN. Since this initiative is funded by NRCAN, McMaster University will not
pay a fee for its implementation, which is currently scheduled for 2013.

Progress on conservation goals will be evaluated by Energy Management & Utilities Services.
Progress will be monitored and reported every 3-6 months, along with a budget review to ensure
that progress is being made toward achieving the targets set forth in the Energy Management
Plan. Reports will be made available to the Planning & Building Committee, the office of the
Assistant Vice President and any other users who may require them for informational purposes.
Awareness campaigns for users and operators will be discussed later on in this report.

Figure 10: Schematic diagram of McMaster University metering system

17
4. ENERGY PROCUREMENT POLICY
McMaster Universitys energy procurement policy aims to reduce the cost of purchasing utilities.
This is accomplished by hedging energy prices; that is, buying a fixed amount of a utility at a
fixed rate for several years into the future. This hedging process, based on forecasted
consumption and price trends, protects McMaster from unforeseen price increases. The policy
states that commodity price hedging will only be undertaken to protect McMaster University
against operating price risk.

The Energy Procurement policy also states that McMaster University will engage no fewer than
three Master Supply Agreements with reputable, credit-worthy and financially stable supply
organizations. This diversification of suppliers will reduce the risk of supplier default or failure.
Furthermore, the university will continuously consult with external independent consultants to
determine optimal utility prices, and these consultants will be independent and financially
separate from any suppliers to avoid any conflicts of interest.

For the full Energy Procurement Policy, please refer to the Appendices, section 15.2.

18
5. OCCUPANT COMFORT STANDARDS
The Occupant Comfort Standards state that:

The target range for indoor air temperatures in area serviced by a HVAC system will be:
Winter Minimum = 18oC (O. Reg.)
Summer Maximum = 24oC

This requirement will affect operation of the HVAC systems and therefore the energy
consumption in each building.

Furthermore, Facility Services is committed to creating an energy management plan that


conserves energy but first and foremost continues to ensure the health and safety of all students,
staff and faculty that use campus facilities. While the EMP is ambitious in its energy
conservation targets, utmost care will be taken to ensure that occupant comfort standards and
regulations are not compromised.

For a full report on Occupant Comfort Standards, please refer to McMasters Risk Management
Manual # 400

19
6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST PERFORMANCE DATA
6.1 Energy Profile
6.1.1 Annual Usage Data

Before we can set meaningful and realistic energy reduction targets, it is first necessary to
evaluate the current energy consumption of the university and examine trends in consumption
over the past few years.

For the purposes of this energy profile, energy will be considered from a water, electricity and
gas consumption perspective. Figs. 11- 13show the consumption trends from the 2001-02
academic year to the 2010-11 academic year.

Figure 11: Gas consumption trends (Note: Does not include Divinity College and HSC)

20
Figure 12: Electricity consumption trends (Note: Does not include Divinity College and HSC)

Figure 13: Water Consumption trends (Note: Does not include Divinity College and HSC)

These graphs show that while overall consumption of gas and electricity have increased,
consumption intensity has increased to a lesser value. Water consumption per person has
increased over the past three years.

21
(Note: These graphs are based on student enrolment information from the Office for Institutional
Research and analysis)
Figs.14-16below display energy consumption on a monthly basis:

Figure 14: Monthly electricity consumption 2008-11

Figure 15: Monthly gas consumption 2008-11

22
Figure 16: Monthly water consumption 2008-11

Figs 14-16also show that gas and water consumption peaks between September and May each
year, likely due to the fact that there are more than twice as many students on campus during the
fall and winter terms, as compared to the summer term (approximately 20,000 versus 9,000)

6.1.2 Energy usage of research vs. non-research buildings


As an example, the electricity usage of two typical campus building is shown in Fig. 17. The
first, ABB, is an example of a laboratory intensive space, while the second, the MUSC
(McMaster University Student Centre) is mostly office and student space.

23
Figure 57: ABB and MUSC electricity consumption trends

Similar trends are observed for all laboratory intensive buildings, identifying a huge potential for
energy savings by addressing electricity consumption in these research intensive buildings.

6. 2 Energy Benchmarking
Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) describes energy benchmarking as a comparative analysis
of energy use per unit of physical production, otherwise known as energy intensity. Best
practices benchmarking involves comparing operations and systems within your facility to best-
in-class operations.

Energy benchmarking allows users to identify areas for improvement across their facilities, set
reduction targets and identify factors to measure energy consumption.

The following section will outline possible benchmarking techniques to compare McMasters
performance with other educational institutions.

6.2.1 Campus energy benchmarking

A survey of 82 other Canadian universities was conducted by NRCAN to show energy


consumption trends in educational institutions across Canada. McMaster University is compared
to the Ontario and Canadian universities energy intensities. The NRCAN survey only considers
gas and electricity in its energy calculations, therefore the McMasters water usage was not
included in its energy intensity per unit area. The results are displayed in Table 3:

24
Region Energy intensity(eKWh/m2)
Ontario 373
Quebec 281
B.C. 455.5
Canada 321
McMaster University 339 (excluding water)1
Table 3: Canadian Universities energy use (NRCAN)

As shown above, McMaster Universitys energy intensity is below the Ontario average but above
the Canadian average.

6.2.2 E2 Energy Benchmarking


Using funding from the Ontario Power Authoritys (OPA) Conservation Fund, The Council of
Ontario University via an energy consulting firm (E2 Energy) was able to conduct an extensive
study of 22 Ontario university campuses between 2007 and 2009. Although the study did not
separate universities based on energy intensive research facilities on campus, it did account for
these discrepancies by determining the percentage of space used for research facilities. Table 4
below shows the relative research intensities and the average energy intensities of each school
surveyed.

1
E2 Energy Report, 2009

25
.

Table 4: E2 Energy Analysis

E2 Energy calculated McMasters energy intensity to be 1.31GJ/m2 or 363KWh/m2 (including


water).

It is also noteworthy that McMaster University falls below the average in high and low energy
usage labs categories, and is below the average energy usage for Ontario Universities.

E2 Energys calculations address energy by surveying campus electricity, water and gas usage,
whereas NRCAN only considers gas and electricity, suggesting that the E2 data may be a slight
overestimate when compared to NRCANs provincial and national averages. However, even
considering this discrepancy, the two benchmarking studies provide a starting point for
comparing McMasters performance to the average.

6.2.3 Campus Energy Intensities


Figs 18-20 display the energy (electricity, water, gas) usage per m2 over different periods of time
at McMaster University.

26
Figure 18: Electricity Intensity trends 2001-2010

Figure 19: Gas intensity trends 2001-10

27
Figure 20: Water intensity trends 2001-10

This data shows that while electricity intensity has shown a moderate increase over the last ten
years, water and gas intensities have generally decreased in the same time period. Table 5 shows
a comparison of consumption in 2001 and 2011 and summarizes the data in Fig 18-20.

Net Consumption Consumption/person/year Consumption/m2/year


2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011
Electricity 52,060,012 75,871,187 3,268 KWh 2,633 KWh 123KWh 131.58KWh
KWh KWh
Gas 8,031,818 11,208,970 504 m3 393 m3 18.6m3 17.9m3
m3 m3
Water 571,275 m3 547,817 m3 36 m3 19 m3 1.3m3 0.92m3
Table 5: McMaster energy use 2001-2011 comparisons

28
7. ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST REDUCTION TARGETS
In order to develop meaningful energy conservation targets Facility Services researched relevant
literature.

Some relevant targets are discussed below:


1. The provincial government through the Ontario Power Authority has set electricity
conservation targets as part of the Integrated System Power Plan. These targets involve a
15% reduction by 2015 and a total of 22% reduction in electricity consumption by 2030.
2. The Council of Ontario Universities released a report titled Going Greener in 2011,
which outlines general expectations for universities to invest in green energy and cut
carbon emissions over the next decade. Furthermore, the COU encourages all
participating organizations to develop strategic plans to reduce energy consumption on
campus.
3. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario released their Annual Energy Conservation
Progress Report, reporting on provincial success in meeting provincial conservation
targets. In this report, the ECO discussed provincial strategies to meet the 150MW
reduction target set forth by the OPA for the MUSH (Municipalities, Universities,
Schools and Hospitals) sector.
4. The Energy Conservation Responsibility Act of 2006 encouraged energy conservation
from all public sector institutions, and required them to submit upon request detailed
plans to outline the fulfilment of conservation targets.

Keeping these directives in mind, Facility Services recommends reducing absolute energy
consumption on campus by 20% over the next five years, thus contributing to the overall culture
of sustainability and energy conservation in Ontario and the OPA set reduction targets.

The 20% reduction target will contribute to flattening the trend and forecast over the next five
years. The red dotted lines represent the current trend and forecast, while the black lines
represent the adjusted trend and forecast lines with the conservation targets. These targets are
illustrated in Fig. 21-23.

This target will also work to reduce the electricity intensity shown in Fig 19 and Table 5.
Currently campus electricity intensity is almost 7% higher than it was in 2001; reducing
electricity consumption will help to reduce this value.

Furthermore, as noted in Table 3 McMasters overall energy intensity is higher than the
Canadian average but lower than the Ontario average. The energy conservation targets will force
McMasters overall energy intensity closer towards the Canadian target, making the University a
national role model for campus sustainability and energy conservation. In order to meet the
Canadian university average energy intensity McMaster University will have to reduce its energy
usage (gas and electricity) by 18ekWh/m2 or by 5.3% of current usage.

29
.

Figure 21: Gas reduction targets (2012-17)

Figure 22: Electricity consumption targets (2012-17)

30
Figure 23: Water consumption targets (2012-17)

Tables 6-8 illustrate the detailed cost and consumption reduction targets for the next five years,
assuming constant commodity prices.

Year Gas saved m3 Cost savings Percent reduction


(Total as of end of (Total as of end of
each fiscal year) each fiscal year)
2013-14 476,635 $119,158 4%
2014-15 953,270 $238,317 8%
2015-16 1,429,906 $357,476 12%
2016-17 1,906,541 $476,635 16%
2017-18 2,383,176 $595,794 20%
Total 2,383,176 $595,794 20%
Table 6: Gas conservation targets

Year Electricity saved Cost savings Percent reduction


kWh (total as of end (Total as of end of
of each fiscal year) each fiscal year)
2013-14 3,090,920 $370,910 4%
2014-15 6,181,840 $741,821 8%
2015-16 9,272,760 $1,112,731 12%
2016-17 12,363,679 $1,483,642 16%
2017-18 15,454,599 $1,854,552 20%
Total 15,454,599 $1,854,522 20%

Table 7: Electricity conservation targets

31
Year Water saved m3 Cost savings Percent reduction
(total as of end of (Total as of end of
each fiscal year) each fiscal year)
2013-14 18,858 $47,901 4%
2014-15 37,717 $95,802 8%
2015-16 56,576 $143,703 12%
2016-17 75,434 $191,605 16%
2017-18 94,293 $239,506 20%
Total 94,293 $239,506 20%
Table 8: Water conservation targets

32
8. ENERGY ACTION PLAN
The goal of the energy action plan is to reduce McMaster Universitys energy costs by reducing
overall consumption, as well as by reducing the cost of purchase of utilities. These projects and
initiatives aim to meet the cost and consumption targets as illustrated in Section 7.

8.1 Index of Initiatives


8.1.1 ENBALA pilot project
8.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Heat Recovery Plan
8.1.3 Co-generation Proposals
8.1.4 Building Exhaust Fans
8.1.5 Laboratory Air Balancing
8.1.6 Fumehood retrofits and upgrades
8.1.7 Schneider Dashboard
8.1.8 Renewable Energy Installations
8.1.9 Retro-Commissioning
8.1.10 Voltage correction
8.1.11 LED Lighting replacements
8.1.12 HHS-MUMC Window Coating
8.1.13 Plug Load Analysis
8.1.14 MiscellaneousControl Systems
8.1.15Chilled Water savings
8.1.16 Union Gas Contract
8.1.17 Chiller Replacements
8.1.18 Energy Manager

33
8.1.1 Grid Balancing (ENBALA) pilot project

Background and Proposed Solution

Traditionally, meeting electricity demand variations has been achieved by regulating the supply
end with the local electrical utility, such as Horizon utilities. (i.e. turning on and off gas-powered
generators when demand increases or decreases.) However, this solution is expensive and
stresses the electricity grid, leading to economic instabilities and technical failures. Instead,
novel solutions are turning to regulating demand on the customers end.

In 2011, Enbala Power Networks proposed a pilot project that would exploit the flexibility of
McMaster Universitys existing electrical equipment. Enbala operates a smart-grid platform that
creates a network of large electricity users, and uses the inherent variations in their usage to
balance the electricity system, thus providing system balance to the Independent Electricity
Systems Operator (IESO).

The pilot project focuses solely on the universitys use of electricity to produce chilled water,
and involves changing the set points of the temperature of the water entering and leaving the
system (within a defined temperature range) to compensate during higher and lower electricity
demand periods. This grid balancing activity is anticipate to generate a revenue stream of $45
000 annually.

Enbala guarantees that participants experience no change in operational efficiency or costs of


their electrical equipment, but receive payments from the IESO for improving the stability and
efficiency of the regional electricity system, which reduces grid failures and greenhouse gas
emissions. There is no capital cost for McMaster University associated with this project.

For a more detailed description of the proposed project please refer to the full Enbala report.

Progress and Future Plans

In order for the project to go through, there has to be potential to balance at least 1MW of power
using the Enbala network. Estimation and inspection in order to assess the potential and install
metering on the chilled water equipment is currently in progress.

34
8.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Heat Recovery Plan

Background and Proposed Solutions

In March 2009, Atkinson Engineering was contracted to conduct a study on the heat recovery
potential of the McMaster Nuclear Reactor (MNR).

The MNR currently operates at 3MW for 70 hours each week, with potential for upgrade to
5MW for 16 hours per week. As shown in the conceptual cooling circuit diagram below, no heat-
recovery systems are currently in place. The secondary cooling circuit (consisting of the cooling
tower and circuit pump) is the location being considered for the heat recovery system, as shown
in Fig 24.

Figure 24: Location of MNR heat recovery system

The two heat recovery technologies considered were:


1. Low-temperature (30C) heat-exchanger based system for heating outdoor air in buildings
adjacent to MNR.
2. High temperature (70C) heat pump based system for higher temperature applications
such as hot water re-heating.

The heat recovery and cost savings for the two systems are shown in Tables 9 and 10:

Available Heat Heat CO2 Estimated cost Estimated annual Payback Period
(Heating season) Recovered reductions (CAD) savings (CAD)
(MT)
3MW, 5,077 MW 4,243MW 1,150 $1,403,000 $243,500 5.8 years
70h/week (84%)

5MW, 19, 544 MW 14,018MW 3,450 $2,625,500 $733,000 3.6 years


160h/week (72%)
Table 9: Heat-exchanger based system analysis

Available Heat Heat CO2 Estimated cost Estimated annual Payback Period
(Heating season) Recovered reductions CAD savings
(MT) (CAD)

35
3MW, 5,545 MW 4,850 MW 1,300 $2,453,000 $228,000 10.8 years
70h/week (86%)

5MW, 20,995 MW 15,800 3,900 MT $3,728,000 $704,000 5.3 years


160h/week MW (75%)
Table 10: Heat-pump based system

The analysis above was based on the following parameters:

1. Reclaimed heat estimate


The heating requirements were calculated in 5oF increments (based on historical data).
The airflows were calculated based on knowledge of each units operation, and a
conservative estimate of how many hours each unit would be operating at varying
airflows.

2. Estimated cost of system


The system cost was estimated excluding annual maintenance costs and any government
incentives that may become available. A 10% allowance to account for unknown costs
and estimating errors was assigned to the total estimated value.

3. Estimate of utility costs/savings.


Utility and steam rates were provided by McMaster Energy Management and Utilities,
and are shown in Table 11:

Utility Rate (CAD)


Steam (per 1000lb) $18.00
Natural gas (per m3) $0.3439
Electricity (per kwh) $0.08
Table 11: McMaster Utility rates

For more information, please see the full Atkinson report.

From the data tabulated above, the heat pump system appears to have marginally more energy
savings but a longer Payback period than the heat exchanger system. The lower cost savings of
the heat pump system are due to the estimated electrical consumption to operate the pumps.
Furthermore, high-temperature heating applications were not dominant loads in

Based on the results of this Atkinson Engineering recommended the heat-exchanger system over
the heat-pump system.

Progress and Future Plans


It is likely that the 3MW Heat Exchanger option will be implemented upon a follow up study.

36
8.1.3 Co-generation Proposals

Background and Proposed Solutions


In recent years, small-scale co-generation facilities on university campuses have become
increasingly widespread. Institutions such as York University and Dartmouth College currently
employ co-generation stations to generate heat for classrooms and student dorms, as it is a more
thermodynamically efficient use of fuel.

In 2011, CEM engineering proposed the installation of an 8MW co-generation facility on


campus that would produce 36,000lbs steam/hour and replace 8MW of power that would
otherwise be purchased. It is anticipated that the installation of this plant would result in financial
savings of $3,800,000 annually, (with an initial investment of $11,326,000 and a Payback Period
of about 3 years). While the co-generation does not strictly reduce consumption, it does allow
for the purchase of electricity at a cheaper rate than buying from the grid, thus while not an
energy savings measure, it does produce substantial cost savings.

Progress and Future Plans

The next steps in implementing this initiative is to issue an RFP for a consultant to perform a
more detailed feasibility study to determine if McMaster has the loads and infrastructure
available for the successful implementation of a co-generation plant. Facility Services is
currently working with CEM (Co-generation and Energy Management) Engineering to assess the
potential for the McMaster co-generation plant. The project will most likely commence in the
2015-16 academic year

Presently on campus there is an embedded cogeneration plant that is owned by Bay Area Health
Trust(BAHT). The University purchases energy from BAHT under an Energy Service
Agreement (ESA). The University and BAHT have been in negotiations to further expand the
purchase of energy to balance campus production but the cost of purchased steam presently is
too expensive and offsets any savings for campus balance.

37
8.1.4 Building Exhaust Fans
1. Building exhaust fan control
This project involves connecting all building exhaust fans that are not currently
interconnected with Building HVAC to the Building Automation System (BAS). To date,
inventory of existing fans has been completed and the project is scheduled to begin in the
2012-13 year.

The costs and energy savings of this project are shown in Table 12
Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback Period
Building exhaust fan $115,500 $38,500 3 years
control Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
87,164 m3 167,090 kWh 0 m3
Table 12: Building exhaust fan savings

38
8.1.5 Laboratory Air Balancing

The Air Genuity project, proposed in June 2012, is a project intended to improve the efficiency
of the air circulation systems in the laboratory rooms in ABB. Currently, university policy
states that laboratory rooms require 20 air changes per hour, which is a very energy intensive
process. However, the Air Genuity project proposes that instead of 20 air changes per hour
(ACH), samples of air will be drawn back to a central station for analysis. Depending on
whether contaminants are present, the number of air changes can be increased or decreased
accordingly, thus reducing the need for excessive air changes.

Air Genuity suggests that it would be possible to have as few as 5ACH when air quality in the
laboratory is good, thus dramatically reducing energy usage in ventilation for laboratories.
Furthermore, it would not interfere with fumehood air changes, but only air changes in the
external room environment.

A schematic diagram of the proposed system is shown in Fig. 25:

Figure 25: Schematic diagram of Air Genuity System

39
The costs and energy savings associated with this project are shown in Table 13:
Project Capital cost Savings Payback Period
ABB Undergraduate $200,000 $219,733 1.04 years
Laboratories
MDCL Laboratories $350,000 $153,750 2.3 years

ABB West Wing $175,000 $86,250 2.02 years


Laboratories
JHE Annex $200,000 $77,500 2.6 years
Laboratories
Table 13: Cost of Air Genuity projects

The energy savings from the project are shown in Table 14:

Project Electricity savings Gas savings Water savings


ABB laboratories 454,828 kWh 585,000 m3 0 m3

MDCL 350,000 kWh 475,000m3 0 m3


Laboratories
ABB West Wing 175,000 kWh 275,000 m3 0 m3
Laboratories
JHE Annex 150,000 kWh 250,000 m3 0 m3
Laboratories
Table 14: Energy savings from Air Genuity project

40
8.1.6 Fumehood retrofits and upgrades projects

There are several ongoing projects involving fumehood upgrades and retrofits on campus. These
projects address fumehoods in the research intensive buildings on campus such as ABB, JHE,
NRB and MDCL. Some of these projects involve fine tuning the fumehood controls systems to
saving energy, or installing variable air flow controls to reduce energy consumption. Other
projects involve removing obsolete fumehoods in old or converted laboratory spaces on campus.
These projects are all schedules to commence between 2012 and 2015.

The projects and associated savings are described in Tables 15-21.

Project Capital cost Savings Payback Period


General Retrofits JHE $264,000 $91,700 2.9 years
Annex Electricity Savings Gas Savings Water savings
387,890 kWh 211,644 m3 0 m3
Table 15: JHE Annex fumehood retrofits

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback Period


$0 $9,750 <1 year
Fumehood controls
fine tune
ABB, JHE, NRB Gas savings Electricity savings Water savings
22,080 m3 42,300kWh 0 m3
Table 16: Fumehood controls fine tune in ABB, JHE, NRB labs

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback Period


$225,000 $42,065 5.35 years
Variable air flow
controls on MDCL
fumehood Gas savings Electricity savings Water savings
162,500m3 54,600kWh 0 m3
Table 17: Variable airflow controls in MDCL labs

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback Period


LSB Lab ventilation $450,000 $183,750 2.45 years
retro-fit Gas savings Electricity savings Water savings
575,000m3 400,000kWh 0m3
Table 18: Lab ventilation retrofit/upgrade- LSB

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback Period


ABB Physics wing lab $200,000 $123,750 1.62 years
ventilation retro-fit Gas savings Electricity savings Water savings
385,000 m3 275,000 kWh 0m3
Table 19: Lab ventilation retrofit/upgrade-ABB Physics wing

41
Project Capital cost Annual Savings PAYBACK PERIOD
JHE North Wing Lab $200,000 $115,000 1.74 years
ventilation retro fit Gas savings Electricity savings Water savings
350,000m3 275,000 kWh 0m3
Table 20: Lab ventilation retrofit/upgrade- JHE North wing

The fumehood removal project involves creating an inventory of the (approximately) 600
fumehoods currently operating on campus, and uninstalling those which are no longer in use.
Currently, the inventory is complete and removals are ongoing

Project Capital cost Annual savings PAYBACK PERIOD


$1,000/fumehood $7,000/fumehood < 1 year
Removing obsolete Gas savings Electricity savings Water savings
fumehoods
16,156 m3 29,610 KWh 0 m3
Table 21: Obsolete fumehood removal

42
8.1.7 Schneider Dashboard
The Schneider Dashboard project is a collaborative effort between Schneider Electric and
McMaster University to develop, customize and implement an interactive information dashboard
that will track real time energy consumption, waste generation and fuel usage in buildings and
vehicles across campus. Preliminary research shows potential for up to 5% energy reduction by
communicating energy usage data to building occupants.

Static Dashboard
The static dashboard will compile historical and real-time information about the Universitys
water, gas and electricity consumption and price data. This information will be accessible to
Energy Management &Facility Services employees and will be used to forecast energy costs, and
set conservation targets.

Interactive Dashboard
The interactive dashboards will be on display on screens in campus residences and buildings.
These dashboards will display information about McMaster Universitys real-time energy usage,
dependent on weather, user behaviour and building use, thereby providing users with feedback as
to how their behaviour affects energy consumption on campus. Schneiders claims that the
highlights of this dashboard are as follows:

Highlights the building energy consumption with an informative daily display


Allows users and building occupants to be active players by illustrating the impact of
their behaviour and energy consumption.

It is anticipated that energy savings will result from users consciously changing behaviours in
response to the information available, and projects are currently being considered for two
residence and two non-residence buildings.

Anticipated costs savings are in Table 22; based on a realistic estimate of 3% of building energy
savings:

Cost Savings Capital cost Annual Savings Payback Period


$100,000 $401,385 <1 year
Energy Savings Electricity Savings Gas Savings Water savings
2,659,653kWh 307,763m3 24,364 m3
Table 22: Schneider dashboard savings

43
8.1.8 Renewable Energy Installations

Several renewable energy projects are being considered to save electricity and heating costs
across campus. The three most significant include:

Ground source heat pumps to aid in the production of campus heating and cooling
Photovoltaic and Thermal solar panels on building rooftops to produce electricity as well
as building hot water.
Wind turbines to produce electricity on campus.

These renewable energy installations could be used to power campus facilities or sold back to the
grid to offset electricity already purchased. They are set to be reviewed in the upcoming year
(2012-13) along with potential funding sources such as the Ontario Power Authoritys Feed in
Tariff program.

Currently, only solar PV installations are being pursued. It is generally estimated that solar panel
installations cost between $9,000 and $11,000 per kW. In southern Ontario, weather conditions
dictate a generation capacity of 1,150kWh-1,300kWh/m2.

The Ontario Power Authority offers the micro FIT program that buys electricity from small scale
producers at a rate of $0.71/kWh. Assuming an average electricity cost of $0.71/kWh, the costs
and associated savings of a 10kW installation are shown in table 23 with the following
assumptions:

Installation costs: $10,000/kW


Generation Capacity: 12,000kWh/year

Cost Savings Initial Investment Annual Savings Payback Period (years)


$160,000 $8,520 18.8
Energy savings Electricity (generated) Gas savings Water savings
12,000 kWh N/A N/A
Table 23: Solar PV estimated costs and savings

44
8.1.9 Retro-Commissioning

The building retro-commissioning initiative involves surveying existing campus buildings to


identify potential areas for energy savings. Primarily, the projects being considered are those
with an up to five year Payback period.

The Building retro-commissioning initiatives often involve working with external energy audit
firms to identify key projects and investments in campus buildings. These initiatives may involve
upgrading existing equipment to newer, energy-efficient models, tuning control systems to
improve performance, improving HVAC systems to optimize the amount of outdoor air used, or
simply re-evaluating the building purpose (i.e. energy usage of lab space turned into office space,
etc.)

Listed below are some of the projects suggested:


1. Building 19: Whidden Hall retrofit
Install new fan coil units to replace hot water radiators and upgrade the controls
system.
Connect the building to chilled water district plant, to improve efficiency of heating
and cooling systems (install air-conditioning), and upgrade the building envelope.
Upgrades to the HVAC system, controlling exhausts in each washroom/bathroom
individually via an occupancy sensor and on/off switch.
Install motion sensors for room lighting.
Replace domestic hot water storage tank with instantaneous steam to hot water
system.
Make up air handling unit installed in basement.

2. Building 52: MDCL retrofit


Upgrading the building exhaust system to account for change in space usage. i.e. the
building was primarily designed for lab space that requires significantly more air
changes per hour than office space, which is what much of the building is currently
used for. Re-evaluating the ventilation system, noting the change in space-use has
huge energy savings potential
Heat recovery systems on exhaust systems.

3. Building 38: Kenneth Taylor Hall (KTH) retrofit


Convert constant volume systems to VAV systems.
Install digital controls on reheat coils in basement and ground floor.
Examine control system for cut back opportunities such as operational schedules.

4. Building 16: JHE Building


Revise HVAC system initially designed for laboratory space into a system optimized for
office space.

45
Overall, the costs and energy saving of these proposed retrofits are outlined in Table 24, and it
will likely commence in 2013-14.

Cost Savings Initial Investment Annual Savings/Income Payback Period


$1,250 000 $668,975 1.9 years
Energy savings Electricity (generated) Gas savings Water savings
4,432,832 kWh 512,737 m3 40, 603m3
Table 24: Retro-commissioning costs and savings

46
8.1.10 Voltage correction

The Voltage Correction initiative was developed by Legend Power. The project involves the
Harmonizer-AVR, which Legend Power guarantees reduces electrical energy consumption in
commercial buildings, saves money and ultimately lowers greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Legend Power, the product works as follows:

The Harmonizer-AVR is installed in a facilitys electrical room at the point where power enters
a building and regulates incoming voltage. By operating equipment at a reduced and controlled
voltage level, equipment runs with greater efficiency, saving energy (up to 12% of peak
consumption), while reducing costly premature equipment failure and also extending a products
life expectancy.

If excess power is supplied to a building in the form of high voltage, the Harmonizer-AVR will
automatically adjust voltage to an efficient level to save energy and money. Power and voltage
delivered to a facility will typically vary by up to 10% throughout the year. Because of this, most
buildings receive more power than needed, and this directly impacts a buildings overall
electrical energy consumption. Legend Power eliminates this hidden energy waste and provides
guaranteed energy savings.

Table 25 summarizes the anticipated costs and savings, for the John Hodgins Engineering
Building (JHE).

Cost Savings Initial Investment Annual Savings/Income Payback period


$750,000 $150,000 5 years
Energy savings Electricity (generated) Gas savings Water savings
1,500,000kWh 0 0
Table 25: Voltage correction cost and energy savings

47
8.1.11 LED Lighting replacements

Background and Proposed Solutions

LED light bulbs are amongst the most energy efficient commercially available lighting
technology, with longer life spans and significantly lower energy usage compared to traditional
incandescent and CFLs.

McMaster University received a proposal from EcoLight, which suggested the replacement of a
total of 27,792 T8 4 lamps to the same number of 18W LED 4 lamps. Currently, there are
several initiatives underway to improve lighting efficiency even further by implementing LED
fixtures in classrooms, parking lots and offices across campus. The savings and costs of these
projects are shown in Table 26.

Project Description Electricity Capital Cost Annual Savings Payback period


savings ($CAD) ($CAD) (years)
Parking Lot C initiative 4,555 $1,360 $456 2.9
kWh/year
Robinson Theatre (Togo 3,285 $1,185 $329 3.6
Salmon Hal) initiative kWh/year
Campus-wide 1,704,205 $1, 528, 560 $170,421 8.9
replacement initiative kWh/year
Table 26: Savings and costs from LED projects

48
8.1.12 HHS-MUMC Window Coating

McMaster University is working on a partnership with Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) to


utilize E-time Energy concerning the windows on the McMaster Hospital Building.

The double paned windows with no additional heat blocking capacities led to several concerns
with the existing condition of the building, including:

High heat gain/loss leading to user discomfort during certain periods of the day
HVAC systems cannot meet building demands
Glare through windows makes it difficult to view LCD screens
UV radiation damaged finishings.

An analysis of the building concluded that significant savings could result from the application
of the HPS Heat Shield to the windows in the building. These heat shields have the following
attributes and capacities:

Block 40-60% of heat transfer


Block 90% of UV radiation while maintaining visual transmittance

These effects will have the effect of maintaining a more consistent interior environment,
reducing the load on the HVAC system (thereby conserving energy) and increasing user comfort.
Furthermore, eTime Energy guarantees that the product will not significantly affect the aesthetic
appearance of the building and does not create any landfill waste or emissions.

A RET Screen analysis performed by eTime Energy yielded financial investments and returns
for the project, shown in Table 27.
Project Capital Cost ($CAD) Annual energy Payback Period (years)
saved ($CAD)
without SaveOnEnergy incentives

$330,000 $99,000 3.3 years


eTime Energy
Annual Electricity Savings Lower HVAC Steam Heat reduction
Heat Shield
operation costs
windows
90,000 KWh 24% 8% of total spend

Table 27: Window Coating energy savings

49
With the proposed SaveOnEnergy incentives offered by the Ontario Power Authority, the capital
cost of the project is even lower. The proposed incentives amount to approximately 21% of the
project cost, reducing the total capital cost to $260 000, and a payback period of 2.6 years.

8.1.13 Plug Load Analysis


The California Energy Commission describes plug load as a term referred to equipment that are
plugged into electrical outlets and it excludes heating, ventilation, and air conditioning loads as
well as hard wired lighting loads. Recent studies in several areas of the US have determined that
plug loads are rapidly becoming one of the most energy intensive features of many buildings.

At McMaster University, plug loads typically involve small user devices such as printers,
refrigerators, fax machines, phones and other office devices. There are two main methods of
reducing this plug load in buildings: behavioural changes (unplugging or turning off devices
when not in use, implementing management policies that limit the use of personal electronic
devices etc.) and technical upgrades (energy efficient technology, occupancy sensors, motion
sensors, etc.) A pilot project by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, revealed that
technical changes made the most impact, whereas user feedback and educational strategies made
few or sporadic changes.

At McMaster University, a study was conducted on four buildings to determine a Base load
energy profile and develop solutions to reduce this energy load.

Gilmour Hall
An analysis of Gilmour Hall revealed a total electricity usage of 1,899,498 KWh per year, with a
total area of 7,660m2 for electricity intensity of 248 KWh/m2.

Fig. 26 below shows the building energy usage by a % of the total KWh, thus demonstration that
Equipment load is a significant source for energy savings.

50
Figure 26: Gilmour Hall Energy profile

Recommendations from the plug load analysis include Energy Star equipment replacement,
motion sensors, delamping vending machines, energy efficient settings for desktop computers
and fan coil replacements. The total cost of implementing all recommendations is estimated to be
$38,746 with an annual anticipated savings of $18,964 and an electrical savings of 189,644KWh.

Hamilton Hall
Building analysis determined that Hamilton hall consumer 586,581 kWh of electricity annually,
with a total area of 3,437m2 for total electricity intensity of 171kWh/m2.

Fig. 27 shows the energy profile of Hamilton Hall as percentage of total kWh.

Figure 27: Baseline Load profile for Hamilton Hall

51
Recommendations from the plug load analysis include Energy Star equipment replacement,
motion sensors, delamping vending machines, energy efficient settings for desktop computers
and fan coil replacements. The total cost of implementing all recommendations is estimated to be
$40,425.33 with an annual anticipated savings of $12,844 and an electrical savings of
128,844kWh.

Chester New Hall


It was determined that Chester New Hall consumes 749,983kWh of electricity annually, with a
total area of 6,935m2 for a total electrical intensity of 108 kWh/ m2.

The building energy profile as a percentage of total electricity usage is shown in Fig. 28:

Figure 28: Baseline Load profile, Chester New Hall

Recommendations from the plug load analysis include Energy Star equipment replacement,
motion sensors, delamping vending machines, energy efficient settings for desktop computers
and fan coil replacements. The total cost of implementing all recommendations is estimated to be
$72,311.44 with an annual anticipated savings of $21,975and an electrical savings of
219,745kWh

Togo Salmon Hall


Toga Salmon Hall was determined to have an annual electricity consumption of 2,320,634kWh
and an area of 11,362m2 and therefore and electrical intensity of 204kWh/m2.

The building energy profile as a percentage of total KWh is shown in Fig. 29below:

52
Figure 29: Baseline Energy Profile for Togo Salmon Hall

Recommendations from the plug load analysis include Energy Star equipment replacement,
motion sensors, delamping vending machines, energy efficient settings for desktop computers
and fan coil replacements. The total cost of implementing all recommendations is estimated to be
$64,061.00 with an annual anticipated savings of $20,749.06 and an electrical savings of
207,496kWh

Upon surveying feasible replacement and equipment upgrades, the total savings and energy
reduction for the four buildings surveyed are compiled in Table 28:

Cost Savings Capital Cost Annual Savings Payback Period


$215, 543 $74, 543 3.1 years
Energy Savings Electricity Savings Gas savings Water savings
749 ,759 kWh 0 0

Table 28: Plug load Analysis- Energy & Cost savings from selective implementation

Note: Similar analysis of other campus buildings may reveal similar potential for energy savings.

53
8.1.14 Miscellaneous Control Systems

1. Gilmour Hall (1st floor and east wing) and Biology Greenhouse Controls retro fit
This project involved upgrading the mechanical system to a digital control system from a
pneumatic control system.
Project Capital cost Annual savings Payback period
University Hall $300, 000 $25, 375 11.82 years
controls upgrade Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
87, 500 m3 35, 000kWh 0 m3
Table 29: University Hall controls upgrade

2. All building mechanical fan belt upgrade


This project involves installing slip reducing fan belts on all campus buildings ventilation
and exhaust systems.
Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period
Building mechanical $125,000 $53,000 <2.3 years
fan belt upgrade Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
0 m3 530,000kWh 0 m3
Table 30: Building mechanical fan belt upgrade costs and savings

3. All building heating systems set-backs after hours


This initiative involves utilizing the outdoor air reset system to cut back all campus
building ventilation and heating systems operation during low occupancy periods on
campus (nights and weekends).

The cost and energy savings from this project are shown below:
Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period
Building heating cut In house labour $100,000 <1 year
back Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
360,000m3 0 kWh 0 m3
Table 31: project energy savings

4. All building domestic hot water shutdown after hours


The project involves shutting down all building domestic hot water after hours and during
weekends to reduce energy usage and costs.
Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period
Building domestic $30,000 $30,000 1 year
hot water shutdown Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
108,000m3 30,000 kWh 0 m3
Table 32: Building Domestic hot water costs and savings

5. Central plant/Chilled water plant operational modifications


Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period
Central/Chilled $20,000 $8,006 2.5 years
water plant Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings

54
operational 72,000m3 0kWh 336 m3
modifications
Table 33: Central/Chilled water plant operational modifications costs and savings

6. Strobic fan systems upgrade


This project involves upgrading building strobic fans (in JHE, NRB and ABB buildings) to be
more energy efficient.
Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period
Strobic fan $20,000 $8,006 2.5 years
systems Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
upgrade 72,000m3 0kWh 336 m3

Table 34: Strobic fans systems upgrade costs and savings

55
8.1.15 Water savings

City Water Savings


This project will involve converting city water cooling on process units to a chilled water
supply. This project is anticipated to cost $250,000 up front, with a projected savings of
$144,000, and an annual water savings of 60,000m3.

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period


City Water $250,000 $144,000 1.7 years
Savings Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
0 0 60,000m3
Table 35: Chilled Water cost and energy savings

Life Sciences Building Fish tanks


This project involves controlling the water supply to fish tanks, and is anticipated to cost $75,000
in capital costs, with an annual savings of $300,000 and a water savings of 125,000 m3.

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period


$75,000 $300,000 <1 year
Life Sciences Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
Building Fish tanks 0 0 125,000 m3

Table 36: Life Sciences Building fish tank water control- cost and energy savings

56
8.1.16 Union Gas Contract
This project involves changing McMaster University from an M5 class customer to a T1 class
customer. While the project does not have any associated energy savings, it is anticipated that it
will save the university $70,000 annually with no initial investment.

Under the M5 customer contract McMaster University is obligated to inform Union Gas of its
anticipated gas usage for the year (Nov 1- Oct 31 of the following year). Using this prediction
Union gas calculates a Daily committed Quantity (DCQ) which is the anticipated gas usage per
day. During the balancing period Union Gas reviews consumption and if the Universitys
prediction is incorrect, and the estimate was too low, McMaster University is obligated to
purchase the difference at a different (usually higher) rate, and thus it is often better to
overestimate consumption than underestimate it. Conversely, if the University overestimates its
usage, it is forced to sell the surplus, usually at a lower rate.

Under the T1 customer contract, the University is responsible for its own daily balancing, and
purchasing its own gas storage from Union Gas. Transportation fees are ultimately lower, since
the University performs much of the work on behalf of Union Gas. Currently, the McMaster
University Hospital, due to its cogeneration plant requirements is engaged in this contract and it
could be expanded to include the rest of the campus also. It is anticipated that the reduced
transportation costs will result in a savings of $70,000

57
8.1.17 Chiller replacement

This initiative will involve replacing the 40-year-old Chillers 5 and 6 with ammonia chillers in
order to reduce the power usage of the chillers by up to 30%. This project will commence in the
2015-16 fiscal year and the costs and savings are shown in Table 38.

Project Capital cost Annual Savings Payback period


$2,000,000 $225,000 8.9 years
Chiller 5 and 6 Gas Savings Electricity savings Water savings
replacement 0 2,250,000kWh 0

Table 37: Chiller 5 and 6 replacement costs and energy savings

58
8.1.18 Energy Manager
Through their SaveONenergy program, the Ontario Power Authority offers funds for institutions
to hire energy mangers to reduce the organizations consumption.

The OPA describes the role of the energy manager as follows:

...to help you take complete control of your energy, by monitoring your performance, by
leading awareness programs, by finding small but powerful ways to save, or by spearheading
large upgrade projects.

The OPA will fund up to 80% of an Energy Managers salary as well as 80% of reasonable
implemented projects if the facility has the potential to save up to 0.3MW Load Factor
8760 hours/year, or a maximum savings of 2628MWh per year.

59
8.2 Energy Action Plan conclusion
Appendix B summarizes the proposed projects and initiatives to be included in the Energy
Management Plan that were discussed in the previous section. The plan extends from 2012 to
2017 and includes approximately 18 projects and sub projects, with a total anticipated investment
of $22,272,148over five years, and a total anticipated Annual savings of 2$7,571,931.This total
includes all energy and cost saving projects listed in Appendix B.

The average payback period of the projects is 2 years (excluding the photovoltaic installations,
which have a payback period of 18.8 years).

The total energy savings and co-generation savings (but excluding cost savings only projects,
such as ENBALA and the Union Gas Contract as well as the photovoltaic installation) is outlined
in Table 38 below:

Total Reduction % Reduction from 2011- Total annual savings (at


12 2017 review)
Co-generation $3,800,000
Electricity savings 17,770,917 kWh 26% $1,777,092
3
Gas savings 5,801,823 m 48% $1,450,455
Water Savings 175,360m3 37% $420,864
TOTAL $7,448,411
Table 38: Total Energy savings from Energy Action Plan

Furthermore, the total anticipated reduction in the carbon footprint is estimated to be 23,123 kg
of equivalent CO2 which is a 48.8% reduction from the latest available campus carbon survey
performed in 2009 by Zero footprint

2
This value represents the sum of all savings, over a single year. It is not reflective of the cumulative savings at the
end of each fiscal year, and does not account for sudden changes in energy prices.

60
8.3 Funding the Energy Management Plan

The Energy Management Plan will require an initial capital investment, which overtime can be
repaid from plan savings. Working with Financial Affairs, it is proposed that the University
approve a revolving loan of $7.03 million from the Central Bank, at an interest rate of 6.75% (the
Universitys weighted average cost of capital). Financial Affairs modeled a revolving loan using
EMP proposed savings from the remaining projects to establish the repayment model below:

The model above3 is conservative based upon 75% of the proposed savings identified per project
being realized. This approach allows for possible variances. The required loan considers annual
draws consistent with Facility Services annual EMP. Each year, over five years, the capital costs
for the EMP will be drawn, while beginning in year one any realized savings will be used as loan
repayments (interest and principle) that repay the loan fully by year 7. The model above shows
that although the capital investment of $10.9 million is required to achieve the EMP that the
maximum outstanding loan draws from the Central Bank will be $7.03 million (this is due to the
annual principle and interest payments being made from each years achieved savings).

A central bank revolving loan for the EMP will require ongoing monitoring by Facility Services
with Financial Affairs in order to report on EMP projects completed, savings realized and the
loan payments achieved. The central bank loan for EMP will be requested through the
Universitys normal governance process involving the Finance Committee, following approval
of the EMP by senior management and the Planning and Building Committee. This internal loan
has been factored into the annual Debt Management Report that will be presented to Finance
Committee in April 2013.

3
Under this model the plan has been reduced by the Co-generation proposals of $11.3 million as
this project will be submitted separately under its own business case. This model does include 4
smaller projects that are over a million each that will also be separately approved.
61
9. AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS& MILESTONE CELEBRATIONS
Energy management awareness will be approached in several ways: formal education, public
awareness strategies and campus competitions.

Formal educational strategies involve integrating sustainability issues into course curricula that
allows students to work on energy management projects in a form of experiential education.
These courses will allow students to gain hands on experience with implementing energy
management strategies and understand the challenges involved with energy conservation.
Ideally, such courses will have a ripple effect by allowing other students, even those not enrolled
in the course to understand the need for such projects on campus. Examples of projects and
courses available include developing fumehood energy consumption educational strategies, and
an LED pilot project, amongst others. These courses will begin in January 2012 and will be
administered by Facility Services.

Public awareness strategies range from posters and educational videos to more involved
strategies such as the Schneider energy management dashboard that displays real time energy
consumption to building users, and has the potential to reduce overall energy consumption by
about 3%.

Campus competitions could include events such as the Residence Wide Energy challenge that
pits residence against one another in a friendly challenge to see which one can achieve the
highest energy savings in a given window of time. Typically students and residence life staff
organize energy conservation projects and measure the resulting energy savings in conjunction
with Facility Services. The winners of this challenge are typically rewarded with prizes to
encourage continued conservation measures. Similar projects could be implemented between
other campus buildings to incentivize energy conservation and make it more appealing and fun
for the general public.

62
10. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
In order to determine the success of the Energy Management Plan, the planned initiatives
and progress will be assessed annually. To ensure that the Energy Management Plan
development team is kept up-to-date on new and emerging issues and energy management
strategies, the team will read similar plans developed by other universities and comparable
institutions. The targets and strategies set by these institutions will be studied carefully and
McMaster Universitys progress evaluated in comparison to identify potential for improvement.

The EMP, as well as benchmarks, progress and targets met will be communicated to all
University staff, students and faculty and made available online. Annual reports may be
developed if deemed necessary, in order to alert the Energy Management team and campus users
of issues or goals achieved in a timely manner and to raise awareness and maintain enthusiasm
for sustainability and energy management initiatives.

63
11. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Energy Management Technical Advisory Board
Standing Members

Dr. Nick Markettos, Assistant Vice-President, Research Partnerships

Dr. Ali Emadi, Professor; Canada Excellence Research Chair in Hybrid Powertrain; Director of
MacAUTO

Dr. James Cotton, Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering

Dr. Samir Chidiac, Professor, Chair in Effective Design of Structures & Director, Faculty of Engineering

64
Appendix B: Energy Management Initiatives Summary

65