We have reviewed a number of buildings recently, and have found some startling facts. A lighting refit was completed in a large building in Vancouver, and the results were excellent, if one looked only at the electricity use in the building. When the use of steam, created by burning fossil fuel was examined, the total result was significantly different that expected. The savings in electricity were largely offset by an increase in the use of steam for heating, and the total annual GHG Emissions went up instead of down. A graph is attached at the bottom of this report that shows the result over a period of 2 years.

In fact, during summer months, when air conditioning was running, there were real savings; lighting requirements were down and cooling requirements were also down as a result of less heat from the lights. Unfortunately, the air conditioning was needed for only a relatively short period, and the heat produced by the lights was replaced by the steam heating system for the remainder of the year. The net result when looked at for an entire year was negative in almost every way – higher fossil fuel use, higher GHG emissions, and cost savings that were expected to pay for the lighting upgrade were not there.

This was an attempt to conserve – but in fact, it achieved a shift from electricity to fossil fuel. In BC, this results in an increase in GHG emissions. Almost any conservation or optimization that is based on only one fuel is likely to result in a shift to another fuel if one is available.

BC Hydro is now hoping to implement a rate structure to encourage conservation. On the surface, anything that encourages Canadians to conserve is a good thing, because we are among the heaviest users of energy on the planet.

The plan is to implement a stepped rate – one that provides a specific amount of energy at a low price, followed by electricity that is more expensive. In theory, a customer that conserves will save money, and one that wastes will pay more – a lot more. The bad news in this case is that it likely does not achieve what is intended at all. A similar rate was recently implemented for residential users. Homeowners who spent money to install geothermal heat pump systems, clearly the most environmentally friendly, and expensive system on the market, are penalized. Anyone that removes electric baseboard heat, even if it is replaced by an old low efficiency furnace is rewarded. Surely this is not the intent.

Like so many other initiatives that are driven by the utilities, they seek to conserve based on a single fuel.

The concept of encouraging conservation through the use of a pricing signal is a great idea, but the approach needs to be refined. By calculating the total energy used and the total GHG emissions from ALL fuels one would get a real measure of conservation that would be fair. A penalty could be applied by both fuel utilities based on total energy use, total GHG emissions, or both. This could be further improved by measuring intensity, putting large and small buildings on an equal footing.

The government certainly deserves praise for trying to drive conservation. Their determination to control emissions is equally important. Unfortunately, the implementation is failing, and in fact, the drive to reduce GHG emissions is being thwarted by what are really false conservation measures.

The addition of new rates will simply make matters worse. It is time for a review of the entire process and make changes to ensure that it achieves the initial targets

If you wish to comment - please do... if you wish to write to the author, please send emails to mmetcalfe@sempapower.com We encourage your input...